Dems can do better than "too big to fail" campaigns (x-post)

[nashville_brook]

https://thefloridasqueeze.wordpress.com/?p=11570&preview=true

Two months ago the New York Times published an article that gave the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign the “too big to fail” tagline. Titled “Democrats See No Choice but Hillary Clinton in 2016,” the piece revealed that the national Democratic party takes the attitude she’s an incumbent and they have no Plan B to a Hillary nomination. The party is so invested, even 18 months out, that should she run into trouble, they’d have no idea which way to turn.

The problem with this template, which has also been applied to the Patrick Murphy Senate campaign, is it ignores everything we know about how politics works now. As Democrats we like to see ourselves as the smart kids in the class — the ones who believe in climate science and evolution, but we could use some remedial sociology.

The common wisdom has changed since the last Clinton administration. First off, the swing voter is a myth. To win we have to mobilize voters who stay home. That’s the base and left-leaning voter. They’re people who’re motivated to vote because they really believe reform is possible. They want real change. They’re the people who didn’t vote in 2014 because the party eschewed Democratic values, putting an embargo on immigration reform, for example. These are people who voted for Nader or simply didn’t vote for Gore because they had Clinton-fatigue. They want to believe.

When MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki covered the NYT’s article they illustrated their segment with polling. This slide should be particularly troubling for anyone in the Clinton or Patrick Murphy campaigns right now. It shows that voters have a much stronger preference for candidates who promise to bring change, than for those who have experience.



This number has ticked up since 2008, so apparently there’s some “hope and change” that’s been left on the table. This would help explain how Bernie Sanders got 200,000 volunteers, raised $3 million dollars and was able to hire Obama’s entire digital team all in less than a week from announcing. Today he announced a bill to break up too big to fail banks, saying if they’re too big to fail, they’re too big to exist. If only our party understood this.

The next slide drives the point home. Both frontrunners are seen by voters as “representing the past.” On this, Jeb beats Hillary by 9 points, which might explain why we’re hearing a lot less about him lately and a lot more about “young Koch firebrands” like Marco Rubio and Scott Walker. If they put up someone who promises “change” — no matter how radical or shitty — that person could win in a race against a candidate perceived as representing the past.





Our donors have funded us into a corner. The party could let the funding and endorsements flow after the primaries. Let the people decide if Hillary represents change or not. But instead they’ve hedged all their bets in order to drive other candidates from the field. It’s the height of bad faith.

The idea of Democrats pushing “too big to fail” campaigns triggers the need for new measures of wrong-headedness. The most significant defining political themes of our time are the Great Recession, the bailout, and Occupy. There’s no underestimating the impact this has had our collective psyche. Imagine the zeitgeist is an ocean that’s composed of contempt for everything that’s “too big to fail.” We’ve only lived through it, we haven’t recovered from it.

When we say we’d like the candidate who brings change, that’s not an aesthetic preference. We’re not being trendy or hip. We really fucking need change at this point. Look at Baltimore. Hell, look at Orlando, we’re among the worst in the country for income mobility for poor children. Regular folks face crushing defeat every day in the form of bad policy that neoliberals have pre-negotiated with business interests. We can’t afford any “bipartisan negotiations” on Social Security, for instance, which has been on the table for both Patrick Murphy and Hillary Clinton. We can’t afford any of the politics of the past where the middle class gets soaked while the 1% gets bailed out.

more at link --> https://thefloridasqueeze.wordpress.com/?p=11570&preview=true

[merrily]

1. Since 1981, we've had Republican administrations and New Democrat administrations.

Republican Congresses and predominantly New Democrat Congresses.

Small wonder "change" and "new ideas" are big sellers with American voters.

[djean111]

2. Patrick Murphy is outright pandering to Progressives here.

Saying he is against the TPP. But a member of the DINO New Democratic Coalition.
I am hoping I get the chance to vote against him in a primary.
This is an example of why the "if Progressives would vote locally they would have more representation" is utter bullshit. The Third Way folks pick the candidates at a certain level, and there is not much other candidates can do.

From the above link:

Patrick Murphy isn't fit to get the Democratic Senate nomination in Florida. He hasn't done anything for anyone other than for Wall Street since he beat Allen West. Murphy is an overly-entitled, spoiled brat from a wealthy Republican family and was a Republican his entire life-- though an opportunistic one who saw a shot to switch parties and get into Congress by taking on the very polarizing Allen West. Since his election, he's consistently been one of the worst Democrats in Congress across every issue. Right now, according to ProgressivePunch's crucial vote score for the current session, he's tied with Blue Dog Collin Peterson for 4th worst-voting Democrat in the House. The only Democrats with worse scores than Murphy are Brad Ashford (another "ex"-Republican, now a Nebraska Blue Dog), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX, Bush's favorite Democrat), and the odious Gwen Graham (D-FL).

Its not easy to run statewide in Florida is you're not a big supporter of Social Security and Medicare. Murphy has been an enemy of both programs and is frantically scurrying to cover his tracks and try to paint himself as a champion of seniors. One of the very first things he did after beating West was to co-found the right-of-center United Solutions Caucus, which pushes the GOP agenda under the guise of bipartisanship. Murphy's top priority in the caucus was to gather naive sign-ons for a letter indicating a willingness to cut Social Security benefits as part of some anti-working family "Grand Bargain." His pitch was to tell colleagues that CURRENT seniors on Social Security would be safe and that the cuts would only effect future recipients.

THIS is what we are offered. I will drag everyone I know to vote for Alan Grayson if we are lucky enough to get a primary. And Murphy was touted as a Progressive or liberal Dem right here at DU. No he is not. A simple Google search disproves that. Here is a clue - when a politician says he is against the TPP, but belongs to a coalition of Third Way Democrats who are FOR the TPP - that politician is pandering and lying. And doesn't understand that we can look this shit up. Same for Wasserman Schultz.

[merrily]

3. Thank you.

This is an example of why the "if Progressives would vote locally they would have more representation" is utter bullshit. The Third Way folks pick the candidates at a certain level, and there is not much other candidates can do.

Even huger bs: Find your own candidates for POTUS and persuade them to run. That one is so far-fetched, yet got posted at DU so often, it HAD to be a talking point.

While pandering is definitely undesirable, at least they are giving lip service to leftists. Even the perceived need to pander to the left is considerable progress.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777724

Not to mention that pandering to the left sure makes one skeptical that the left of the left is such a small minority everywhere but DU.

If we are such a small minority within the party and/or the country, why are politicians even bothering to pander to us? Why run to the left? After all, Democrats are confident that "the left has nowhere else to go."

Why not run to the alleged centrist majority's way of thinking? Hell, even DLC co-founder Hillary isn't doing that.

[nashville_brook]

4. the people in FL who say Murphy is progressive is his campaign people

[Enthusiast]

7. +1!

[daleanime]

5. Thanks for cross posting....

good internet manners.

[nashville_brook]

6. you're welcome...can't believe it took hours for me to realize to xpost

i've been such a GD poster i just automatically post there. so glad to have an alternative.

not since the old the Election Reform forum, have i seen a group emerge that has so much good energy here!!