was 'left vs right' giving way to 'populist vs establishment' the message of the 2016 election?

[NRQ891]

Think how much things have changed since Bill Clinton ran in 1992 - entities that are now large institutions, hadn't ever been heard of - Yahoo (arguably, has come and gone), Google, Facebook - and even the internet itself

Compare this to the 'old guard' of American companies:

Ford - created 1903

General Electric - 1892

But both of these companies are 49 and 38 years (respectively) newer than the creation of the last political party, the GOP.

Trump didn't just defy the expectations of the Democratic party, he defied the GOP as well, breaking every rule known to politics to do it, at a fraction of the budget. Howard Dean was the first social media candidate, President Obama perfected it. Trump created news cycles with Tweets. Sanders went a very long way with mostly small donors. Jeb Bush had perhaps the largest war chest, yet went nowhere and out with record dispatch. So much so that many have already forgotten him

This election wasn't left vs right, it was populist vs establishment. I remember being bored in 'flyover' territory years ago, nothing but fundamentalist Christian radio for the drive, and tired of my own CDs. But it was interesting, a guy talking about how evangelicals were being 'played' by the GOP, strung along for social issues, but sold out on economic ones, the issues they raise their families on, and pointing out that the biggest 'family value' is feeding it. They're not all as dumb as you think. And they could be shaken out of the GOP, not into this party perhaps, but something else. (a lot of them have already become independent, George Will, for instance)

With the advance of technology, the 'proof of concept' of Trump's completely unconventional campaign style, I would not be shocked to see the rise of a 3rd populist party, somewhat libertarian on social issues but populist on economic ones. I think it could pull 1/4 of Democrats, 1/4 of Republicans, and 1/4 of Independents, giving it parity with other parties almost overnight. Please understand I'm not advocating such a thing, I'm stating that such a possibility is out there and must be considered, when assessing next elections. They say generals always fight the last war, but true preparation means some vision of a possible landscape. Ross Perot tried this in 1992, but it was 15 minutes before the internet, and still in the 'old rules' era. I don't see the 'Reform party' coming back, as it went FUBAR, but something fresh could start up

[still_one]

1. Then explain to me why Russ Feingold and Zyper, Teachout lost? Why did every swing state Democrat

running for Senate lose against the establishment republican incumbent?

Most of those Democrats being progressive.

As much as some would like it to be things aren't that simple

[andym]

6. Large amount of cash funded non-stop ads calling Feingold the establishment candidate.

Most of the other Democratic Senate candidates were not populists. Teachout was the only one-- she was portrayed as an elitist by a large amount of outside money from some Hedge fund billionaires.

[PatsFan87]

10. I was following Teachout's race very closely and can attest to this.

She was doing extremely well in a rural district and I still think if Democrats are serious about winning back some of these rural districts, they should listen to what she was talking about. She had a lot of ads about

- expanding broadband to rural areas to help businesses and making their communities competitive
- decreasing unnecessary regulations for small businesses which are pushed by big corporations to squeeze out competition
- explaining how big agriculture is screwing the small farms and how we need local processing
- speaking out on the destructive provisions in the TPP and being one of the few to go into detail while still keeping it pretty short
- speaking out against common core and connecting that to special interest money
- framing Citizens United as drowning out the voices of regular folk- which plays into the "rigged system" message
- she framed green energy as a money/tourism issue, saying fracking and oil barges would drive tourists away meaning loss of money in their communities
- Since she challenged Andrew Cuomo she also had the privilege of pitching herself as an "independent voice" who would take on her own party if need be. WE NEED TO RUN MORE CANDIDATES WHO CAN DO THIS.

There were other issues as well but those were the big ones. Polls had her tied leading up to the election but since she's an Elizabeth Warren type and the billionaires/hedgefunders were arguably most scared of her out of all the house candidates, they poured money into her campaign slamming her. Her opponent didn't even need to run negative ads against her, the superPACs did all the work for him.

[still_one]

11. at least you gave me an answer, though it doesn't hold water. Johnson was the establishment

candidate. It might be argued in 2010 when he ran against Russ, he was a "populist", but not in 2016. In 2016 he towed the establishment republican view, hook, line and sinker.

The people of Wisconsin knew where Russ stood and where Johnson stood on the issues. In fact, based on this last election, I think Wisconsin has now demonstrated they might even be considered a red state now. Look how many chances they had to throw Scott Walker out, and they didn't

The people in the swing states knew the people who were running for the Senate, and they knew where the candidates stood. In the most critical states all the Democrats were liberal, except Kirkpatrick who was a moderate, and they all were defeated by the establishment republican incumbent:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Deborah_Ross.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Katie_McGinty.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Russell_Feingold.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/PA/Patrick_Murphy.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Ted_Strickland.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jason_Kander.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Ann_Kirkpatrick.htm

This election was more clear than any election in recent times. People knew what the issues were

The Supreme Court was an issue, the environment was an issue, women's rights, civil rights, health care, the economy, social security, and Medicare, and the ACA.

[andym]

12. Knowlegeable voters knew where they stood-- but they are a minority

but the ads did their damage-- slander and lies work even against people who have been around for a while. Feingold had a double digit lead in the polls as late as the beginning of October before the ad onslaught. It really is possible to convince people up is down-- Feingold had served 3 prior terms and that was used against him. Johnson only had one and promised to not run for re-election after this election. That was the basis of the establishment claims- 18 years in DC for Russ.

People play little attention to the "issues" btw, except at a high level and personal factors tend to outweigh them.

[still_one]

13. I think people did know the issues. We're just going to disagree. Scott Walker won multiple times

Wisconsin is a conservative state unfortunately

[PatsFan87]

15. All the Democrats were liberals except Kirkpatrick?

Jason Kander was an unabashed moderate. He had an ad assembling an assault weapon and never mentioned Hillary in fear of being tied to her. He rarely spoke about social issues either. I mean, it is Missouri. I did like him, though he was no liberal.

Patrick Murphy is a former Republican who was known as being one of the most moderate members of Florida's congressional delegation.

I think most importantly though, the primary winners were more "establishment" picks. Katie McGinty was the chosen one for the Democrats but I felt she came across a bit stiff, careful, and uninspiring. I wonder how a more unconventional pick like the tough looking John Fetterman would have fared in a "blue collar rust belt" state.

Patrick Murphy was an establishment pick though not a terribly inspiring one. If we want to beat Rubio, we should perhaps start looking at potential latino/a candidates. Ted Strickland was quite uninspiring as well. Deborah Ross was a bit too liberal for North Carolina though she was basically the only Democrat to step up. With the largest military base in the world, Democrats should run a veteran there.

[still_one]

18. While I don't completely agree with all your characterizations, I do agree with the point

you are making that one size does not fit all.

It depends on the state. You cannot expect a liberal to win in a conservative state, just as you cannot expect a conservative to win in a liberal state, and those of us who make up the Democratic party need to understand that.

That is why Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was so successful.

He didn't go into a red or purple state and push for choice, or other issues that a more conservative state would not subscribe to, but rather focus on the issues that were common to everyone no matter what state you were in. Jobs, healthcare, social security, medicare, etc.

It is going to be a long road back, and it will have to start at the local and state levels

[NRQ891]

16. A lot of republicans thought Hillary was going to win - most people did

so in house and senate, they were voting to block her in congress. my comments about populist vs establishment was the presidential race

[msongs]

2. donald trump is a celebrity. that is more important than any reason issue IMO

the content of his blathering may be of interest to many of his fans, but his being famous and how he got famous override any content he offered

[NRQ891]

3. I was also refering to the energy behind Sanders nt

[TwilightZone]

4. Nearly all GOP incumbents won.

So, I'd say that the anti-establishment claims are overblown.

Besides, Trump is the ultimate elitist. If people believed his populist bullshit, I'm not sure what we could do to persuade them otherwise.

They're about to find out, though, that they've been played. They'll probably spend the next four years in denial.

[emulatorloo]

5. Well said, plus 1

Never understood how some DU'ers could claim that a racist predatory capitalist was a "change" candidate.

[andym]

7. They got in partially because they were seen as being permissive to the change Trump would bring

Not all that different from 2008, when President Obama, a real change candidate (unlike Trump), helped many mainstream Democrats get re-elected or elected.

[NRQ891]

17. they didnt really think Trump would win

they were voting to contain President H Clinton in Congress

[Garrett78]

8. Rate of incumbent re-election even higher than usual and most Wall Street-friendly candidate ever!

So, I'd say no.

[still_one]

14. I agree with everything except the clueless part. I don't think people were clueless.