Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]damonm
(2,655 posts)36. Massive Historical wrongness.
...(T)odays political dynamics are far different than in 1972, when Nixon deployed his dirty tricks, a Democratic old guard fought to undermine their nominee, and white Democrats were being wooed en masse to the right. Thats why I disagree with Miroffs conclusions. As historian Rick Perlstein put it in 2008, McGovern lost within a context about as foreign to our current political debates as the French Revolution.
The Democratic Party is today far more unified than it was in 1972, four years after a convention that witnessed police violence in the streets and chaos on the floor as New Left activists fought to dislodge the establishment. It was really, really bad. AFL-CIO head George Meany turned labor against McGovern, calling him an apologist for the Communist world. Sore loser Democrat Hubert Humphrey, congratulating Nixon after his reelection, suggested that he had worked to defeat his own partys nominee. Today, party establishment figures like Ed Rendell might defect to support a third-party run by a neoliberal technocrat like Michael Bloomberg. But whereas in 1972 Democratic voters were deeply split, the Sanders candidacy has exposed a new and different gap: the enormous abyss between party voters and officials. The vast majority of rank-and-file Clinton voters would likely back Sanders as the nominee. The same was not at all true of McGovern.
(snip)
The New Deal coalition was fracturing and Nixon adroitly picked up the pieces. Today, things are quite different: Many of the hard hats that arent rioting toward Donald Trump appear to be mobilizing around democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. Todays electorate is once again undergoing a big-time churn but in a totally new way. Sanders campaign, as Matt Karp writes at Jacobin, has united working-class whites and young people while Clinton is attracting support from the affluent and voters of color. In 2008, Obama added overwhelming black and Latino support to the standard affluent and educated Dean/Bradley insurgent coalition, while Clinton held on to the white working class. Today, everything is scrambled.
For this reason, Sanders seems best poised to take on Trumps support among the sort of union-member, working class whites won to the right under Nixon and Reagan. Clintons hold on a large majority of black voters poses a big problem for Sanders in the primary (though one that could very well diminish, given Clintons slide in the polls and the growing number of high-profile black activists feeling the Bern). In the general election, however, either Democratic candidate would win overwhelming black support. What Sanders can likely do in a way that Clinton cannot is win over genuine swing voters, crafting a true Rainbow Coalition that for the first time includes white working class voters.
The Democratic Party is today far more unified than it was in 1972, four years after a convention that witnessed police violence in the streets and chaos on the floor as New Left activists fought to dislodge the establishment. It was really, really bad. AFL-CIO head George Meany turned labor against McGovern, calling him an apologist for the Communist world. Sore loser Democrat Hubert Humphrey, congratulating Nixon after his reelection, suggested that he had worked to defeat his own partys nominee. Today, party establishment figures like Ed Rendell might defect to support a third-party run by a neoliberal technocrat like Michael Bloomberg. But whereas in 1972 Democratic voters were deeply split, the Sanders candidacy has exposed a new and different gap: the enormous abyss between party voters and officials. The vast majority of rank-and-file Clinton voters would likely back Sanders as the nominee. The same was not at all true of McGovern.
(snip)
The New Deal coalition was fracturing and Nixon adroitly picked up the pieces. Today, things are quite different: Many of the hard hats that arent rioting toward Donald Trump appear to be mobilizing around democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. Todays electorate is once again undergoing a big-time churn but in a totally new way. Sanders campaign, as Matt Karp writes at Jacobin, has united working-class whites and young people while Clinton is attracting support from the affluent and voters of color. In 2008, Obama added overwhelming black and Latino support to the standard affluent and educated Dean/Bradley insurgent coalition, while Clinton held on to the white working class. Today, everything is scrambled.
For this reason, Sanders seems best poised to take on Trumps support among the sort of union-member, working class whites won to the right under Nixon and Reagan. Clintons hold on a large majority of black voters poses a big problem for Sanders in the primary (though one that could very well diminish, given Clintons slide in the polls and the growing number of high-profile black activists feeling the Bern). In the general election, however, either Democratic candidate would win overwhelming black support. What Sanders can likely do in a way that Clinton cannot is win over genuine swing voters, crafting a true Rainbow Coalition that for the first time includes white working class voters.
from:
[link:http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/the_electability_argument_is_bogus_why_bernie_sanders_isnt_the_second_coming_of_george_mcgovern/|
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
51 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
FDR May Have Been Wealthy, However His Heart AND Policies Were FOR THE PEOPLE!
CorporatistNation
Mar 2016
#32
This is your FDR chance so here's praying! In terms of vision, he's somewhat like JFK.
appalachiablue
Mar 2016
#7
unneeded, but funny meme, I'm putting the edit there instead for the other votes... n/t
blueintelligentsia
Mar 2016
#48
Right, which is why it makes perfect sense for me to send you morse code smoke signals, here
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2016
#34
The POTUS that Hillary Clinton reminds me most of in terms of policy and method is Richard Nixon.
PufPuf23
Mar 2016
#40
Ive noted certain parallels, too. Which is ironic given her resume, starting with watergate.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2016
#45