Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The Hillary/DLC flawed electability assumption

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The Hillary/DLC flawed electability assumption

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:49 am Post subject: The Hillary/DLC flawed electability assumption

Matt Yglesias gets it right on coalitions:

Quote:

It seems to me you need to cut this closer. Certainly one easy opportunity Clinton has to expand her coalition is that versus John McCain she would pick up all these African-American Obama supporters. But conversely, I don't see Hillary Clinton's feminist supporters suddenly deciding that they want to see John Paul Stevens replaced with an abortion-banner. The theory here seems to be that Clinton's strength among white working class Democratic party loyalists will translate into strength among white working class non-loyalists. But there's no evidence for this theory -- both Al Gore and John Kerry formed "beer track" primary coalitions and then went on to perform terrible among white working class voters overall. This is an electoral challenge for either candidate, but it really is an electoral challenge for either candidate. Young, anti-war Obama supporters will back Hillary over Old Man War and Clinton's supporters in the public sector unions (notice all the AFT and AFSCME signs behind her at every rally) will easily sign on with Obama.

"White working class", "Reagan Democrats"... none of the labels really capture the voters that Obama is having trouble with. The best way to put it is that Obama's support declines as the voter becomes more white, more male, less-educated, lower-income, and more rural.

Hillary's contention is that she can reach deeper into these indices than Obama can, while keeping everybody at the other end. That's a contention that is very difficult to support. For instance, no Democratic candidate has won the white male vote since Carter. Mondale, Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Gore, and Kerry all made DLC- or proto-DLC-inspired populist attempts to woo older, more rural, lower-income white males, to little discernible effect. Why does Hillary think they'll vote for her? Will they really choose a liberal woman over an older, conservative man, merely because they chose a liberal white woman over an even more liberal black man? Polling and voting history make that an unlikely proposition.

The Democrats haven't run a really "insurgent" candidate since Carter, either. (Yes, staid Jimmy was very much an insurgent in the 1976 campaigns.) The DLC wing of the party has elevated Clinton's 20%-spoiler-abetted win over Bush 41 into electoral gospel -- but it looks far more like the exception than the rule. Obama can argue that he will energize turnout in the people who do typically vote Democratic, while ceding no voters to McCain that Clinton would not cede as well. Union voters and Democratic loyalists will vote for Obama if they'd vote for Clinton, and the rest of the Reagan Democrats won't vote for Clinton if they wouldn't vote for Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, etc.

He's not going to convince the DLC of the validity of this strategy, obviously. Which is why I sincerely hope that he gets the nomination and wins the election -- nothing would so effectively cast the DLC into the outer darkness. (Of course, they'd argue that anyone could have defeated McCain this year, and the beat goes on.)

The worst-case scenario is for Obama to get the nomination and lose convincingly. If Obama is the McGovern of 2008, it will inarguably validate the DLC's approach. Many analysts have made the point that Obama is a roll of the dice for the Democrats. Perhaps the more important point is that he's a roll of the dice between the Democrats as well.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject:

Hillary and Obama are equally electable. The fundamentals favor either; the only prejudice right now is against the GOP. And sorry, but McCain has not been doing an excellent job with taking advantage of an opportunity.

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: The Hillary/DLC flawed electability assumption

stillnotking wrote:

That is because those voters tend to be more susceptible to things like fear mongering, manufactured outrage, bigotry, etc.

Hillary was not doing fantastically with that group until she started with the scare tactics and manufactured the "bitter" outrage.

The GOP is using those same tactics in NC against Democrats by running an ad depicting Obama's pastor saying "God Damn America!"

It's what works, and it's about the only thing that does work with those types of people.

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Hillary and Obama are equally electable. The fundamentals favor either; the only prejudice right now is against the GOP. And sorry, but McCain has not been doing an excellent job with taking advantage of an opportunity.

Agreed on all counts.

I guess you're aware that this undercuts Hillary's entire pitch to the super delegates.

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: The Hillary/DLC flawed electability assumption

Pligganease wrote:

stillnotking wrote:

There are a lot of reasons that the word "liberal" has become a dirty word to the white working class. Whether they're legitimate reasons or not depends on one's perspective. If a voter's primary concerns are a strong (i.e. bellicose) national security profile and moral-values issues like abortion, he's not going to vote Democratic. It really wouldn't matter who the Democrats ran.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject:

stillnotking wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Agreed on all counts.

I guess you're aware that this undercuts Hillary's entire pitch to the super delegates.

Just because I back Hillary doesn't mean I think her shit don't stink.

Hillary staying in the race is a win-win for her.

If Barack stumbles badly (we're talking more than a mistatement in San Fran), she'll have a shot at the nomination. If she stays in it, she's gratifying her supporters and creating a bargaining position. If she didn't have a good 40% of Democrats behind her, superdelegates would have booed her out already. They're not afraid of McAulliffe or Woflson or even Bill himself: they're afraid of offending the Clinton electorate.

The worst mistake Obama made was not his gaffe in San Fran. It was coming out after Texas and Ohio, two Clinton victories (throw delegate counts at me all you want, she won a clear majority of votes in TX), and saying she should drop out. WHAT? No, you ask for people to drop out after they have lost. Obama caught on really quickly that this was alienating Clinton-voters, you know, the ones who he wanted to vote for him in November. He's turned around and is only getting nasty with Clinton when he has to do so (which, given his stumbles of late, has been often enough).

We're in the end-game now. Each candidate is going to get what they want. Obama will get Clinton's endorsement and her supporters for the Fall, and Clinton will get whatever position she wants outside of Obama's administration. And if you think bitterness will last against Clinton, wait until after a McCain campaign. No, if Al Gore, a man who lost an election he should have won in 2000, can be hailed as some sort of party wise-man and honorary member now, history will be kind to Clinton. Remember Gore's nasty attacks on Bradley? I don't, either.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject:

The only good democrats are the democrats from the DLC. I even felt that way when I voted for Clinton and Gore. If Clinton had not been a new democrat then he probably would not have been able to win over Bush in 1992. For the record the last democrat to make it to the White House who was a liberal democrat was Jimmy Carter. I don't think a Move On / Daily Kos/ Media Matters - Pat Buccanan coalition has enough votes to win the general election. If 50% (probably 40%) of the DLC voters don't vote for the Democratic candidate then the Democrats won't win. If more than a few DLC voters feel uncomfortable with the Democratic party this time around then McCain will win the election.

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject:

I actually think it will come down to Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Although Florida's got an incredibly popular Republican governor and legislature so it might just come down to Pennsylvania and Ohio. I should also not that Hillary Clinton has won 6 of the 10 largest states, including NY. Obama has only won 3 of the largest states, including IL. NC is the 10th largest state. Even though it's an outside shot, should she win NC, she will have a convincing case to bring to the superdelegates.

kabrams

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject:

Pluto wrote:

I actually think it will come down to Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Although Florida's got an incredibly popular Republican governor and legislature so it might just come down to Pennsylvania and Ohio.

I should also not that Hillary Clinton has won 6 of the 10 largest states, including NY. Obama has only won 3 of the largest states, including IL. NC is the 10th largest state. Even though it's an outside shot, should she win NC, she will have a convincing case to bring to the superdelegates.

Clinton is never going to take NC, and even if she does she still wouldn't have enough delegates to beat Barack Obama.

Like she said before, a win is a win, and if Barack Obama wins more states, more pledged delegates and more of the popular vote, I don't see why she thinks that entitles her to the nomination or any of the undecided superdelegates. She's completely changed her story from "We should let the voters decide" (when she thought she was going to clean Obama's clock) to "Well...the superdelegates should elect who they think will be the best president...voters be damed."

And how annoying is it that she's counting Michigan and Florida? The very same states she (and others) said "didn't matter for anything" when she thought she was going to win in Iowa, suddenly matter when she needs them.

Sick, this one.

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:09 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

stillnotking wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Agreed on all counts.

I guess you're aware that this undercuts Hillary's entire pitch to the super delegates.

Just because I back Hillary doesn't mean I think her shit don't stink.

Hillary staying in the race is a win-win for her.

If Barack stumbles badly (we're talking more than a mistatement in San Fran), she'll have a shot at the nomination. If she stays in it, she's gratifying her supporters and creating a bargaining position. If she didn't have a good 40% of Democrats behind her, superdelegates would have booed her out already. They're not afraid of McAulliffe or Woflson or even Bill himself: they're afraid of offending the Clinton electorate.

The worst mistake Obama made was not his gaffe in San Fran. It was coming out after Texas and Ohio, two Clinton victories (throw delegate counts at me all you want, she won a clear majority of votes in TX), and saying she should drop out. WHAT? No, you ask for people to drop out after they have lost. Obama caught on really quickly that this was alienating Clinton-voters, you know, the ones who he wanted to vote for him in November. He's turned around and is only getting nasty with Clinton when he has to do so (which, given his stumbles of late, has been often enough).

We're in the end-game now. Each candidate is going to get what they want. Obama will get Clinton's endorsement and her supporters for the Fall, and Clinton will get whatever position she wants outside of Obama's administration. And if you think bitterness will last against Clinton, wait until after a McCain campaign. No, if Al Gore, a man who lost an election he should have won in 2000, can be hailed as some sort of party wise-man and honorary member now, history will be kind to Clinton.
Remember Gore's nasty attacks on Bradley? I don't, either.

I agree with all this except the contention that Obama told Hillary to drop out. The only person I recall telling her to quit was Leahy. Obama has said several times that she has every right to stay in the race as long as she wants.

I especially agree with your perceptive observation that this isn't really about winning anymore, for Sen. Clinton. She knows she is not going to be the 2008 nominee, but she can continue to raise tons of money and increase her profile in the party by staying in the race. Whether or not this is a good thing for Obama's chances remains to be seen; there are arguments both ways. I tend to think it isn't, but that's my opinion.

She does have every right to stay in the race. She's got widespread Democratic support and is still a viable candidate. I seriously doubt she takes it all the way to the convention, though. At that point it really becomes a net negative for her.

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:16 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

The only good democrats are the democrats from the DLC. I even felt that way when I voted for Clinton and Gore. If Clinton had not been a new democrat then he probably would not have been able to win over Bush in 1992. For the record the last democrat to make it to the White House who was a liberal democrat was Jimmy Carter.

I don't think a Move On / Daily Kos/ Media Matters - Pat Buccanan coalition has enough votes to win the general election.

If 50% (probably 40%) of the DLC voters don't vote for the Democratic candidate then the Democrats won't win.

If more than a few DLC voters feel uncomfortable with the Democratic party this time around then McCain will win the election.

I don't think either Clinton or Obama is in serious competition for your vote in November, Joo. Which is my entire point: the voters who prioritize foreign policy in their voting choices and who agree with the DLC point of view have almost entirely defected to the Republicans. Why would anyone who favors a bellicose foreign policy vote for Clinton over McCain?

Bill Clinton's 1992 victory would have been impossible without H. Ross Perot. It's the height of absurdity that the DLC holds him up as the model Democrat, when the other four recent Dem candidates all ran an essentially DLC/Clintonian campaign -- and lost. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:51 am Post subject:

stillnotking wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Actully studies have shown that Clinton probably would have won even w/o Perot being there though he made it closer.

The New Republic is still with the Democrats. There are still those that follow the DLC way of doing things who follow the Democrats.

I would bet you that both Thomas Friedman and Marty Perez will still support the Democrats this fall.

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

stillnotking wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Actully studies have shown that Clinton probably would have won even w/o Perot being there though he made it closer.

Really? Interesting. Got any links? I'd like to read about that.

Of course Perot wasn't the only factor. There were several other things at work, including GHWB's lack of conservative cred following his "read my lips" fiasco. I always figured Bill would have narrowly lost if HRP hadn't been in the race, though.

Quote:

The New Republic is still with the Democrats. There are still those that follow the DLC way of doing things who follow the Democrats.

I would bet you that both Thomas Friedman and Marty Perez will still support the Democrats this fall.

Friedman hasn't endorsed anyone, and may prefer Clinton, but it's very likely that he will vote for whichever Dem gets the nod. Peretz is one of Obama's strongest supporters anywhere; he's written anti-Hillary invective that makes Andrew Sullivan look fair and balanced.

It all goes to show that Obama isn't ceding anything to Clinton in the general election. There is no significant group of voters whose preferences run Clinton > McCain > Obama.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:26 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Plurality Wins in the 1992 Presidential Race: Perot's Contribution to Clinton's Victory
Kentucky, 8 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush won by 56% to 44% in Kentucky. In 1996, Clinton barely defeated Dole, 45% to 44%, with Perot taking 8%. In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush 45% to 41%, with Perot taking 14%. The 1992 and 1996 results would indicate that a significant portion of the Perot vote was coming from Republicans. Republicans currently hold both U.S. Senate seats and five of six U.S. House seats in Kentucky.

Montana, 3 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis 52% to 46%, while in 1996, Dole defeated Clinton by 44% to 41%, with Perot picking up 14% of the vote. In 1992, however, Clinton narrowly edged Bush by 38% to 35%, with Perot collecting 26% of the vote.

New Hampshire, 4 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush crushed Dukakis by 63% to 36%. In 1992, however, Clinton narrowly defeated Bush, 39% to 38%, with Perot taking 23% of the vote. By 1996, New Hampshire was more securely Democratic, but for Clinton to win the state in 1992, it likely required the Perot candidacy to keep traditional Republican voters from supporting Bush.

Nevada, 4 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis 59% to 38% in Nevada. In 1992, Clinton edged Bush 37% to 35%, with Perot picking up 26% of the vote. Clinton won Nevada again in 1996 by 1%, with a much lower turnout.

Here are four states that Perot's candidacy possibly allowed Clinton to win, although it is less persuasive. The total electoral vote in these states was 49. They are:

Louisiana, 9 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 54% to 44%. In 1992, Clinton won 46% to 41%, with Perot taking 12% of the vote. The Perot vote would have needed to break three to one for Bush over Clinton to change the result; unlikely, but possible.

Maine, 4 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush won Maine by 55% to 44%. In 1992, Clinton won 39% to 30%, with Perot taking fully 30% of the vote. By 1996, Maine was solidly in Clinton's camp, but Perot provided a gateway for traditional Republican voters to shift to Democrats. There is a chance that without Perot in 1992, a good number of these voters might not have been ready to shift to Clinton over Bush.

New Jersey, 15 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush won New Jersey by 56% to 42%. In 1992, Clinton edged Bush, 43% to 41%, with Perot taking 16% of the vote. Given the anti-tax spirit of many in New Jersey at that time, given the unpopularity of Gov. Jim Florio�s tax increase, it is possible that the Perot vote would have broken toward Bush. By 1996, the state had become more firmly Democratic in federal elections � Clinton won by 18%.

Ohio, 21 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis 55% to 44%. In 1992, however, Clinton narrowly defeated him, 40% to 38%, with Perot taking 21% of the vote. If that Perot vote had split 12% to 9% in favor of Bush as a second choice, he would have won the state � a plausible assumption, although not a definite one.

Analysis: Perot's vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush's victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s: Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer.

Plurality victories in 1992

49 plurality victories total:

31 won by Clinton
18 won by Bush
Of 49 states won by a plurality:

36 were won with less than 45%
6 were won with less than 40%

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1640

anway going back to what we were saying

anyway there are at least some DLC types who are still supporting the democrats - for now.

they haven't all gone to McCain.

If the democrats go too far to the left that could change.

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:28 am Post subject:

Thanks for the link, that's interesting reading. It's always hard to pin down causes with any certainty. I agree that if the Dems go too far to the left, they'll lose. I suspect we disagree on what constitutes "too far". Clinton and Obama differ significantly on only two issues: health care (where Obama is arguably to her right) and Iraq. Do you think Obama's Iraq position is too far left for the general election?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe