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

SunSeeker

(51,546 posts)
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 12:31 PM Nov 2013

The Media’s 2016 Presidential Fantasies

Race matters. There’s no mention of the Democratic Party’s ethnic demographics in theNew Republic’s or the New York Times’ Warren pieces. Scheiber reminds us that Obama was able to upset Hillary Clinton: “All it takes is a single issue and a fresh face to bring the bad memories flooding back” among progressives. Both Scheiber and the New York Times’ Jonathan Martin mention Bill de Blasio’s victory in New York City’s Democratic primary for mayor. And you can’t explain the Obama or the de Blasio win without black voters.

A refresher: The president beat Clinton in a 50-state primary that she nearly won, by the end, as the salience of the Iraq War faded. Obama trounced Clinton in most of the caucuses, building a delegate margin, but he only stayed competitive because of black voters in Southern primary states. Obama was fading until the South Carolina primary, when an electorate that was mostly black gave him a landslide that polling hadn’t predicted. There were 35 primaries to go: Clinton won 21 of them. (That number includes the Florida and Michigan races, which held votes but saw no campaigning due to a party dispute. Still, Clinton won them.) Of the states that went for Obama, only six of them—Illinois, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin—gave him the win among white voters.
...

The point isn’t just that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic front-runner. No one doubts that; everyone’s a little bored by that. The point is that it’s risky, weak strategy to make a presidential primary the test kitchen for policy change. Conservatives learned this brutally in 1972 when they urged Ohio Rep. John Ashbrook to run against Richard Nixon. “What I fear is a dissipation of our strength,” wrote William F. Buckley to a friend. He was perceptive: Ashbrook won a wan 9.7 percent of the New Hampshire vote, and Nixon was emboldened to ignore the right.

Over time, conservatives stopped expecting a president to get elected, lead, and solve all their problems. They built a grassroots machine and a litany of policy goals—the activists would speak, and the president would nod along. By 2012, Grover Norquist could tell a national conferencethat the next Republican president need only come to the job “with enough working digits to handle a pen.” That’s where progressives need to get, that un-glamorous and under-covered triumph of movement over party. Maybe, like Ron Paul, they can use a campaign to build the ranks. But if the Obama experience hasn’t taught them that a dreamy presidential candidate won’t bring about paradise, what will?


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/11/elizabeth_warren_hillary_clinton_and_2016_speculation_media_is_applying.html




1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Media’s 2016 Presidential Fantasies (Original Post) SunSeeker Nov 2013 OP
This is a bit amnesiac frazzled Nov 2013 #1

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
1. This is a bit amnesiac
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 12:34 PM
Nov 2013

One of the big reasons Obama won that primary was that he competed heavily in caucus states that Clinton ignored in favor of the big primaries. He racked up a lot of delegates early on that way, and it became increasingly difficult for her to win enough of the primary delegates to undo that. It was a tactical error on the part of the Clinton campaign: one I doubt they would make again.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Media’s 2016 Presiden...