Democrats and liberals in general need to stop with civility politics

[136or142]

I've been thinking this as well.  However much more high minded Democrats may think of themselves, they (I say 'they' because I'm Canadian) are no less prone to scapegoating then anybody else.

I think Democrats need to make the idiot Trump supporters as 'the others' by referring to them as 'stupid' and 'braindead cultists who mindlessly chant "fake news'" and so on, so that when the the non idiot Trump supporters finally are 100% tired of Donald Trump, Democrats can point to the Trump supporters and say 'they're to blame for this. Please make sure you turn out to vote so that you can tell them what you think of them as well as what you think of Trump, and to make sure that these idiots never get to decide an election ever again.'

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most Dem losses have been in the South. Bernie didn't do well there in the primary, and would not have done well there in the general election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was due to the hostage crisis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it depends on the candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FDR won the first time as a moderate. 1940 and 1944 were due to Hitler. FDR still always won the entirety of the Deep South, which shows he was not thought to be a left-wing extremist on social issues then. FDR's 1932 and 1936 bases were very similar, so people at the time didn't really consciously vote on the basis of FDR's changes to the Democratic party. FDR massively changed the party for the better, but people did not really understand this at the time. Of course, 1936 does show the value of concerted government action in improving people's lives, but the small government v. big government distinction was barely a partisan issue back then. Had people taken time to fully realize what FDR's transformation of the Democratic party would lead to, upstate New York in 1936 would have been far less Republican, and the Deep South far less Democrat. 1936 was a referendum on the Roosevelt administration's ability to improve people's lives, not on the Democratic Party's future.

Reagan only won re-election because, unlike FDR and Johnson, he didn't force through a right-wing agenda, except on tax cuts, the military, and air traffic controller unions. Spending wasn't cut, the budget wasn't balanced, Social Security was not eliminated. Meanwhile, Mondale was a weak candidate.

Trump's appeal was a lot more complicated than Cruz's. Trump didn't fully promise a straightforward right-wing agenda, as he promised to not cut Social Security and Medicare. He also portrayed himself as a friend of the LGBT community and the inner cities. He was extremely vague as to where he would cut spending. He supported right to work, but this was little noted during the campaign. The 2016 campaign wasn't very ideological, it was more based on education lines and tolerance v. intolerance.

The idea going moderate now alienates Berniecrats is nonsense. Maybe in 1976, when McGovern voted for Ford. But in 2016, Vermont and WI-02 voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. There is hardly any correlation between Sanders primary vote share by county and swing to Trump. There is a strong correlation between Trump primary vote share by county and swing to Trump.

Reagan's base in 1980 was a great deal more similar to Ford's than Goldwater's, so he wasn't seen as anywhere near as extreme as the latter, though he was obviously understood to be to the right of Ford (thus Reagan's losses in Chittenden and Washtenaw counties).

Maybe personality matters, but Romney still lost Loudoun and DuPage counties. Why? Because the median voter there isn't all that far to the right on the issues.

I was 14 in 1984 (13 for most of the year, I believe I turned 14 on election day.)  I wasn't sophisticated in my understanding of politics back then (if I'm sophisticated now is not for me to judge) but I followed the events very closely even at that age.  This is revisionist history.

Ronald Reagan did not cut the deficit because he dramatically increased military spending (which you mentioned).  He may not have slashed social programs as much as some claim, but he slashed them enough that, for one famous example, in order to meet the requirement on vegetables in school lunch programs, his administration declared that pizza sauce was a vegetable.  The increase in the deficit was largely a result of his tax cuts and lower receipts to the government due to the recession.

His income tax cuts and subsequent increases in payroll taxes was also a redistribution of taxation from the upper income bracket to the middle income bracket (though this was offset for many in the lower middle class by the increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit.)

He also slashed regulations on labor protections and the environment. His foreign policy was more aggressive than any prior President (at least until Gorbachev who came after 1984) and his economic policy also included privatization of many government owned companies and a monetary policy of fighting inflation. I personally think Reagan was totally vindicated on those last two, but especially the anti inflationary monetary policy was radical and extremely controversial at the time.

Walter Mondale was actually a reasonably strong candidate as evidenced by his take-down of Gary Hart in the primaries.  Reagan won because the economy was booming: "it's morning again in America."  Even Gary Hart campaign insiders (and Gary Hart probably would have been the stronger general election candidate than Mondale) acknowledge that he would have lost by at least 10% to Reagan and would have won no more than about 10 states.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Walter Mondale against Gary Hart.  For instance, unlike Michael Dukakis who basically won the Democratic nomination by being the 'last Democrat standing' (Dukakis took out Joe Biden and inadvertently Dick Gephardt without knowing about it - without Dukakis' knowledge his campaign chief John Sasso released the video of Biden copying U.K Labor Leader Neil Kinnock's speeches that destroyed Biden.  For some reason, the release of this video was seen as the wrong thing to do, and Sasso initially allowed the Gephardt campaign to take the blame for it, which stalled his momentum. It is true, however that the Dukakis campaign finished Gephardt off by creating an ad with a Gephardt look alike who flip flopped around on a school gym, which highlighted Gephardt suddenly discovering he was a pro-choice social liberal just as he decided to run for President.

However, Al Gore, who was Dukakis' last serious challenger, essentially destroyed himself when he did nothing to stop a rambling, vicious speech New York City Mayor Ed Koch gave while endorsing Gore for the New York Primary.

After that, Dukakis only had Jesse Jackson running against him, and the difficulty he had putting Jackson away, signaled what a weak candidate Dukakis was.

In contrast, Walter Mondale showed a very tough and somewhat dishonest campaigning streak.  His 'where's the beef?" stopped Gary Hart's Primary momentum even though Mondale knew that Gary Hart had enormous substance on pretty much every issue.  He knew, though, that Gary Hart had difficulty explaining himself in 30 second sound bites.  So that when the media asked Gary Hart in response to the ads "So, Gary, where is your beef?" all Hart could respond was "I have a lot of detailed position papers you can examine, but I can't do them justice in 30 seconds."

Then, when a tired Gary Hart made a poorly worded comment in a primary debate that could be interpreted as being soft on the Soviet Union, even though Mondale knew that Gary Hart was not soft on the Soviet Union and was, in fact, a technical expert on military policy versus the Soviets, Mondale relentlessly attacked him for his 'soft on communism' stance.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Trump won by promising all things to all his supporters, and in this he was mainly providing his supporters a rationale to vote for him.  To his wealthy supporters, he promised tax cuts for them, and to his working class supporters he promised a tax cut to them, and to both he seperately told them that they didn't have to worry about increasing the deficit because his tax cuts would be only for them.

I don't think too many people voted for Trump on the basis of his promises as much as some of his supporters may protest.  I think his supporters fit into three groups:
1.Regular Republicans

2.Nihilists who wanted him to become President so that he would 'blow the system up.'  (Just like Steve Bannon promised.)

3.Redneck Justice Warriors (most of his working class base) who, whatever else they may claim, did not want a woman to become President.

[136or142]

The last Democratic nominee to win by over eight points was Bill Clinton. Obama couldn't even replicate that even though the Democrats won the House popular vote by double digits in 2008, rather than tying it as in 1996. Why? Because Obama was viewed by too many Americans as extreme. Admit it: centrism wins. McGovernism can't win the country, no matter how much its proponents want it to.

This is a nonsensical comparison and framing of the events. A majority of Americans voted for somebody who was NOT Bill Clinton in both 1992 (43% went for Clinton) and 1996 (49% went for Clinton).

Barack Obama is one of only three Democratic Presidents to win consecutive popular vote majorities (the two others being Roosevelt and Jackson). He won 53% and 51% of the electorate respectively and actually commanded a clear majority of Americans in a way Bill Clinton never actually did (I repeat: a majority of Americans never voted for Bill Clinton).

A majority of Americans voted for a black man twice over Bill Clinton (something that certainly cost Obama more votes than it helped). He's a far more successful progressive president and a much better person than Bill Clinton ever was.

This is also a false comparison.  Bill Clinton got less than 50% of the vote in 1992 and 1996 because there was a major third party candidate running (Ross Perot.)  Despite the lies from Republicans that George H W Bush would have been reelected in 1992 were it not for Ross Perot, the exit polling at the time showed that Perot's votes would have split roughly equally three ways: 1/3 for Bush, 1/3 for Clinton and 1/3 not voting at all.  Had Ross Perot not been on the ballot in 1992, Bill Clinton would have won around 53% of the vote.  I don't know if there was exit polling on this in 1996, but given the weak campaign that Bob Dole ran, Bill Clinton probably would have received 54-55% of the vote if Perot had not been on the ballot.

Of course, you can make the argument that had Perot not been on the ballot that the entire campaigns in 1992 and 1996 would have been different, but Perot did drop out for a significant period of time in 1992 and Bill Clinton's lead over George H W Bush increased over that period of time, and in 1996, outside of Perot's hard core voters, he was largely ignored, so his being on the ballot in that election probably had no effect otherwise.

[136or142]

The last Democratic nominee to win by over eight points was Bill Clinton. Obama couldn't even replicate that even though the Democrats won the House popular vote by double digits in 2008, rather than tying it as in 1996. Why? Because Obama was viewed by too many Americans as extreme. Admit it: centrism wins. McGovernism can't win the country, no matter how much its proponents want it to.

This is a nonsensical comparison and framing of the events. A majority of Americans voted for somebody who was NOT Bill Clinton in both 1992 (43% went for Clinton) and 1996 (49% went for Clinton).

Barack Obama is one of only three Democratic Presidents to win consecutive popular vote majorities (the two others being Roosevelt and Jackson). He won 53% and 51% of the electorate respectively and actually commanded a clear majority of Americans in a way Bill Clinton never actually did (I repeat: a majority of Americans never voted for Bill Clinton).

A majority of Americans voted for a black man twice over Bill Clinton (something that certainly cost Obama more votes than it helped). He's a far more successful progressive president and a much better person than Bill Clinton ever was.

This is also a false comparison.  Bill Clinton got less than 50% of the vote in 1992 and 1996 because there was a major third party candidate running (Ross Perot.)  Despite the lies from Republicans that George H W Bush would have been reelected in 1992 were it not for Ross Perot, the exit polling at the time showed that Perot's votes would have split roughly equally three ways: 1/3 for Bush, 1/3 for Clinton and 1/3 not voting at all.  Had Ross Perot not been on the ballot in 1992, Bill Clinton would have won around 53% of the vote.  I don't know if there was exit polling on this in 1996, but given the weak campaign that Bob Dole ran, Bill Clinton probably would have received 54-55% of the vote if Perot had not been on the ballot.

Of course, you can make the argument that had Perot not been on the ballot that the entire campaigns in 1992 and 1996 would have been different, but Perot did drop out for a significant period of time in 1992 and Bill Clinton's lead over George H W Bush increased over that period of time, and in 1996, outside of Perot's hard core voters, he was largely ignored, so his being on the ballot in that election probably had no effect otherwise.

No it is not. A successful third party bid is a clear sign that both Parties are weak.

So, if say Michael Bloomberg ran as an independent in 2008 or 2012, you think he would have got 0% of the vote?  Even if he didn't take votes from either the Democrat or the Republican but brought out people who didn't end up voting, he would have decreased the vote share of the the two main party candidates.  That is simple mathematics.

Ross Perot also had a cult following not all that different from Donald Trump in the people who wanted 'a businessman to be President.' for some reason in 1992, these people were mesmerized by his promise to 'get under the hood of the economy and fix the engine' as if that was an actual specific plan.

I told a couple of these people (this was before the world wide web, so they were Canadians) "you know, George H W Bush was a successful businessman himself who became a multi millionaire prior to getting into politics, so if you think a businessman can inherently solve problems, why do you need Ross Perot to settle the problems of businessman George H W Bush?

[136or142]

The last Democratic nominee to win by over eight points was Bill Clinton. Obama couldn't even replicate that even though the Democrats won the House popular vote by double digits in 2008, rather than tying it as in 1996. Why? Because Obama was viewed by too many Americans as extreme. Admit it: centrism wins. McGovernism can't win the country, no matter how much its proponents want it to.

This is a nonsensical comparison and framing of the events. A majority of Americans voted for somebody who was NOT Bill Clinton in both 1992 (43% went for Clinton) and 1996 (49% went for Clinton).

Barack Obama is one of only three Democratic Presidents to win consecutive popular vote majorities (the two others being Roosevelt and Jackson). He won 53% and 51% of the electorate respectively and actually commanded a clear majority of Americans in a way Bill Clinton never actually did (I repeat: a majority of Americans never voted for Bill Clinton).

A majority of Americans voted for a black man twice over Bill Clinton (something that certainly cost Obama more votes than it helped). He's a far more successful progressive president and a much better person than Bill Clinton ever was.

This is also a false comparison.  Bill Clinton got less than 50% of the vote in 1992 and 1996 because there was a major third party candidate running (Ross Perot.)  Despite the lies from Republicans that George H W Bush would have been reelected in 1992 were it not for Ross Perot, the exit polling at the time showed that Perot's votes would have split roughly equally three ways: 1/3 for Bush, 1/3 for Clinton and 1/3 not voting at all.  Had Ross Perot not been on the ballot in 1992, Bill Clinton would have won around 53% of the vote.  I don't know if there was exit polling on this in 1996, but given the weak campaign that Bob Dole ran, Bill Clinton probably would have received 54-55% of the vote if Perot had not been on the ballot.

Of course, you can make the argument that had Perot not been on the ballot that the entire campaigns in 1992 and 1996 would have been different, but Perot did drop out for a significant period of time in 1992 and Bill Clinton's lead over George H W Bush increased over that period of time, and in 1996, outside of Perot's hard core voters, he was largely ignored, so his being on the ballot in that election probably had no effect otherwise.

No it is not. A successful third party bid is a clear sign that both Parties are weak.

So, if say Michael Bloomberg ran as an independent in 2008 or 2012, you think he would have got 0% of the vote?  Even if he didn't take votes from either the Democrat or the Republican but brought out people who didn't end up voting, he would have decreased the vote share of the the two main party candidates.  That is simple mathematics.

It never happened. This is all conjecture. I'm going off based what has actually occurred. Past hypotheticals are just fun experiments that can't actually be born out in reality since the past has already occurred.

The fact of the matter is that the first black President accomplished a feat not seen in a Democratic President in nearly 4 generations ago with FDR. To say that Clinton was a superior candidate isn't true.

Sure, but because there were two major candidates in 2008 and 2012 and three major candidate in 1992 and 1996, to compare the results in the way that you are is not an 'apples to apples' comparison.  The more accurate comparison would be a 'two party preferred' comparison.

[136or142]

Being black was a net negative for a presidential candidate. There's a reason why it took decades before a black person could finally become the nominee of either Party.

The 21st century is not decades ago. No, being Black is not a net negative at all for a candidate. Take a look at the 2014 Oklahoma Senate races if you don't believe me.

Just to also point out that because I disagree with Technocratic Timmy does not mean I agree with this (sorry.)  I thought the analysis was a bit sketchy, but there was an academic paper of 2008 that suggested Barack Obama being black caused him to get a 3% lower share of the vote than he would have received were he white.  By 'a bit sketchy' I mean I actually thought it was a very poor analysis, but it's very unlikely being black helped Obama.

In the case of Oklahoma (I believe your actually thinking of Republican South Carolina Senator Tim Scott) I think most Republicans vote for him in part because he is a conservative black, but also as a case of 'virtue signalling.'  (See, we're not racist, we have a black Senator!)

[136or142]

The last Democratic nominee to win by over eight points was Bill Clinton. Obama couldn't even replicate that even though the Democrats won the House popular vote by double digits in 2008, rather than tying it as in 1996. Why? Because Obama was viewed by too many Americans as extreme. Admit it: centrism wins. McGovernism can't win the country, no matter how much its proponents want it to.

This is a nonsensical comparison and framing of the events. A majority of Americans voted for somebody who was NOT Bill Clinton in both 1992 (43% went for Clinton) and 1996 (49% went for Clinton).

Barack Obama is one of only three Democratic Presidents to win consecutive popular vote majorities (the two others being Roosevelt and Jackson). He won 53% and 51% of the electorate respectively and actually commanded a clear majority of Americans in a way Bill Clinton never actually did (I repeat: a majority of Americans never voted for Bill Clinton).

A majority of Americans voted for a black man twice over Bill Clinton (something that certainly cost Obama more votes than it helped). He's a far more successful progressive president and a much better person than Bill Clinton ever was.

This is also a false comparison.  Bill Clinton got less than 50% of the vote in 1992 and 1996 because there was a major third party candidate running (Ross Perot.)  Despite the lies from Republicans that George H W Bush would have been reelected in 1992 were it not for Ross Perot, the exit polling at the time showed that Perot's votes would have split roughly equally three ways: 1/3 for Bush, 1/3 for Clinton and 1/3 not voting at all.  Had Ross Perot not been on the ballot in 1992, Bill Clinton would have won around 53% of the vote.  I don't know if there was exit polling on this in 1996, but given the weak campaign that Bob Dole ran, Bill Clinton probably would have received 54-55% of the vote if Perot had not been on the ballot.

Of course, you can make the argument that had Perot not been on the ballot that the entire campaigns in 1992 and 1996 would have been different, but Perot did drop out for a significant period of time in 1992 and Bill Clinton's lead over George H W Bush increased over that period of time, and in 1996, outside of Perot's hard core voters, he was largely ignored, so his being on the ballot in that election probably had no effect otherwise.

No it is not. A successful third party bid is a clear sign that both Parties are weak.

So, if say Michael Bloomberg ran as an independent in 2008 or 2012, you think he would have got 0% of the vote?  Even if he didn't take votes from either the Democrat or the Republican but brought out people who didn't end up voting, he would have decreased the vote share of the the two main party candidates.  That is simple mathematics.

It never happened. This is all conjecture. I'm going off based what has actually occurred. Past hypotheticals are just fun experiments that can't actually be born out in reality since the past has already occurred.

The fact of the matter is that the first black President accomplished a feat not seen in a Democratic President in nearly 4 generations ago with FDR. To say that Clinton was a superior candidate isn't true.

Sure, but because there were two major candidates in 2008 and 2012 and three major candidate in 1992 and 1996, to compare the results in the way that you are is not an 'apples to apples' comparison.  The more accurate comparison would be a 'two party preferred' comparison.

At the end of the day, I wouldn't compare the two men at all for a variety of reasons (including the third party factor, that they slightly were more than a generation apart, black midwesterner and a white southerner, one ran in the middle of the Reagan Revolution while the other came closer to the end, generational differences in the Democratic base with GIs in the 1990's and millennials in 2008/2012, etc.) Too many variables to control for.

But given that OP brought up the idea that Clinton was superior to Obama (particularly in regards to future races), I completely disagreed with that analysis. The Obama coalition was the most successful Presidential coalition for a Democrat since Roosevelt and Jackson. It didn't translate well down-ballot (but Clinton got blown out just as badly in 94') but they were there for Obama.

Sure, but one last point: Bill Clinton increased his vote margin in 1996 while Barack Obama's was cut in half in 2012.

[136or142]

^ That's a fair point.

But in regards to who was the better President to emulate moving forward and who had the better vision for the Party post-2016, there's no question which candidate is superior. The Clinton Third Way days are over and Obama's vision will ultimately win out over Bill Clinton's.

Bill Clinton was fairly liberal for his day. I would also point out that had Clinton not conceded on welfare and crime that it's likely a future Democratic President (like say, Barack Obama) would have had to.

Crime dropped as an issue mostly due to demographic changes, but we saw the trouble Barack Obama got into over the so-called "Obama phones" and the allegations that he was trying to undo some of the Clinton era changes to welfare reform.

On economics, I don't think there was much difference as both are centrist liberal believers of neo classical economic theory.  Obama obviously correctly rejected the idiotic financial deregulation that was the rage of the late 1990s (the Washington Consensus) but, on most other items in the Washington Consensus, he and Bill Clinton were pretty much in agreement.  Don't forget that one of Bill Clinton's final acts as President was his attempt to introduce massive changes in ergonomic regulations.

[136or142]

Sure, but one last point: Bill Clinton increased his vote margin in 1996 while Barack Obama's was cut in half in 2012.

The state of the economy and the fact that Obama took office even as the country was still losing jobs certainly hurt him, as well as the backlash that swept rabid obstructionist Republicans in the House who, seeing as a Democrat was now in the White House, reverted to their usual "there is no money to do anything and we must cut, cut cut," which didn't exactly help the recovery or the perception of the current administration. Obama's focus on healthcare also didn't seem appropriate for the time, either.

Point being that I think Obama's smaller margin in 2012 definitely makes sense when you consider the environment he ran in.

The economy had improved by 1996 much more than it had in 2012, but Clinton faced the exact same obstruction: not a single vote for either his deficit cutting budget or for his health care reform proposal.  The same argument you mentioned against Obamacare was also raised in 1994: this isn't the time.  The only difference then is that a large number of Republicans voted for NAFTA, which, although it was an initiative of George H W Bush, was modified by and passed under Bill Clinton.

In an interesting way, Bill Clinton's 1993 (or 1994) budget was also meant to be stimulative. Although it raised taxes and cut spending, the neo classical economists of the day argued that with this budget cutting the government deficit, that would allow long term interest rates to fall which would stimulate business investment (which businesses tend to do with the sale of long term bonds.)  I believe at that time that the spread between short term interest rates and long term interest rates were the highest they had been in many years. 

There is significant debate over whether the budget caused long term interests rates to decline, but long term interest rates did decline (just not in a linear fashion), the budget deficit fell and the economy boomed.

[136or142]

^ That's a fair point.

But in regards to who was the better President to emulate moving forward and who had the better vision for the Party post-2016, there's no question which candidate is superior. The Clinton Third Way days are over and Obama's vision will ultimately win out over Bill Clinton's.

Bill Clinton was fairly liberal for his day. I would also point out that had Clinton not conceded on welfare and crime that it's likely a future Democratic President (like say, Barack Obama) would have had to.

Crime dropped as an issue mostly due to demographic changes, but we saw the trouble Barack Obama got into over the so-called "Obama phones" and the allegations that he was trying to undo some of the Clinton era changes to welfare reform.

On economics, I don't think there was much difference as both are centrist liberal believers of neo classical economic theory.  Obama obviously correctly rejected the idiotic financial deregulation that was the rage of the late 1990s (the Washington Consensus) but, on most other items in the Washington Consensus, he and Bill Clinton were pretty much in agreement.  Don't forget that one of Bill Clinton's final acts as President was his attempt to introduce massive changes in ergonomic regulations.

Clinton kowtowed pretty strongly to the GOP congress on a number of issues: the crime bill, deregulation of financial markets, lowering the capital gains tax, NAFTA, and welfare reform. Obama actually pardoned quite a few nonviolent drug offenders, engaged in financial re-regulation, filed complaints to the WTO about china dumping products into the US, didn't cut taxes on financial institutions (beyond anything that was a carryover from Bush since we were still in a recession), and actually got his healthcare plan through (which originally had a public option in it til Lieberman refused to come on board) and was suppose to be a step towards single payer.

On many issues Obama simply refused to go towards where the Tea Party wanted and allowed gridlock to prevail whereas Clinton actively moved to the center to get a number of intiatives through. Obama is definitely a few steps ahead of Bill Clinton in regards to progressive issues. I also didn't bring up the work Obama did on climate change.

I should've been more clear though: The visions of both Obama and Sanders will be the defining vision of the Democratic Party. The days of folks like Bill Clinton and Joe Manchin guiding the Party are over. The model moving forward will be progressives united with heartland populists like Sherrod Brown and Jason Kander.

Both the crime bill and deregulation of financial markets had enormous bipartisan support at the time.  I believe the bill repealing Glass Steagal passed 90-9 in the U.S Senate. (I believe this was a revised bill, but the original bill was rejected over nothing that had to do with the repeal of Glass Steagal.)

Both President Clinton and President Obama support free trade agreements.

Obama and Sanders agree on many social issues, but, to the degree that Sanders (or his supporters) has any well thought out foreign policy views, Sanders is basically a peacenick, whereas Obama believes in 'real politik' (or 'enlightened self interest' if you prefer.)

On economics, Obama is a believer of neoclassical economics, while Sanders and those further left Democrats like him are believers in NeoKeynesian economics (or post Keynesian economics.)  Other than they are both supported by Democrats and generally believe in 'progressive politics' they really don't have much in common in their policy views.

I'm sure they agree on 'single payer' but there actually isn't one single definition of single payer (does the government own the hospitals or are they still private?)  However, as we saw Obama is an incrementalist on this, while Sanders would have gone for all or nothing which, for instance, left the Democrats with nothing when Nixon offered a 1970s version of Obamacare.

Just because Obama and Sanders both reject the reactionary politics of the modern Republican Party does not mean the Sanders wing and the Obama wing of the Democratic Party share the same views or have the same vision for the United States.

[136or142]

Would insulting Republicans more win more votes?

"Attack, attack, attack!" has been both parties's mantra since Bill Clinton was President. But don't worry, the polarization was inevitable.

Is calling a stupid person 'stupid' an insult or just a statement of fact?

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think part of the problem here is that I don't think you aren't as aware of President Clinton's record as much as you seem to think you are.

1.President Obama accomplished practically nothing on addressing climate change in the same way that President Clinton accomplished practically nothing: they both made efforts but ended up getting nowhere as they were both stalled by Congress.  Obama tried to address climate change through executive orders, but this was blocked by the courts and overturned by Trump.

President Clinton, pushed by Vice President Gore, tried to get a BTU tax (British Thermal Unit) passed under his first budget, but it was removed by Congress.

2.The Canada-U.S free trade agreement of 1988 was the first modern bilateral free trade agreement to pass and it was the first time that workers were promised retraining.  I was reading a book about the 1960s recently that commented that even at that time workers were being displaced by automation and the need for retraining, but I don't think serious research into effective retraining programs were taken up until after NAFTA passed.  So, I don't think Bill Clinton can really be blamed all that much for the ineffectiveness of those programs unless you want to blame him for passing NAFTA in the first place, but then, how much could he have known that the retraining programs wouldn't be all that effective?

Also, if the retraining programs under Obama were all that effective, why did Trump win on a ridiculous promise to 'bring back millions of manufacturing jobs'?

3.President Bill Clinton in his first budget increased the top income tax rate from 35% to 39.6%.  George W Bush reduced it back to 35% but used a budget resolution that cancelled those tax cuts after 10 years.  So, President Obama had a strong hand to insist that the 'tax increase' back to 39.6% stay in place.

4.I can't find anything on the internet in a hurry unfortunately, but President Clinton shifted tens of billions of dollars to infrastructure spending, scientific research and education.  If I were to look over the Clinton budgets, I have no doubt I could find the exact numbers of the increases and that they'd be pretty significant.

---------------------------------------
Also:

1.I should have written that many Sanders' supporters are basically peaceniks, not Sanders himself.  Foreign policy was not something that Sanders really campaigned on and I believe he even admitted
in the primary that his knowledge of foreign policy was no match for Hillary Clinton's.

Because he was 'further left' I think many Sanders supporters (as well as myself and likely many others) just assumed he'd be a reflexive anti war type.

To the degree that you mention 'the Sanders wing' (of course Sanders himself isn't a Democrat) you are really referring far more to his supporters than to Sanders himself.  So, it's their views (or, at least, the majority of their views) on foreign policy that matter, not whether Sander's himself actually shares those views.  

2.There were a number of reasons behind TPP, some geopolitical, but I think getting Japan into a free trade arrangement with the United States was also a major selling point that convinced President Obama to enter into the negotiations.

------------------------------------------------------------

I follow a couple Hillary Clinton supporters on twitter who are still bitter about Bernie Sanders and blame the issues that he raised against Hillary Clinton late in the primary campaign for her defeat, and I've said to them "however justified your anger of Bernie Sanders may be, Bernie Sanders is mostly supportive of the Democratic Party, the real backstabber is Senator Joe Manchin and those like him who regurgitate dishonest Republican talking points that falsely attack other Democrats." (the sleazy Evan Bayh was also a frequent nasty purveyor of this 'I'm in this for myself' strategy.)

So, I don't disagree with you about Joe Manchin being the Benedict Arnold of the Democratic Party.

However, their is a major difference between Bernie Sanders (and his supporters) and Hillary Clinton type Democrats.  Ultimately Bernie Sanders is a neo-Keynesian which means he still believes that increasing demand is the way to grow the economy. This leads to things like greatly increasing the minimum wage over a short period of time and that budget deficits won't increase the debt because the multiplier from the increased spending will 'pay for itself.'  (A completely different process but ultimately as much voodoo economics as the idea that tax cuts 'pay for themselves.)

Hillary Clinton type Democrats, whether they fully understand it or not, are followers of neo-classical economics which means they believe that increasing supply through increasing the productive capacity of the nation is the only long run way to grow the economy.

I realize this may sound like an academic debate, but it's actually a huuuuuuge difference between these two camps as that means on the fundamental government issue of economic policy they are entirely in disagreement, even if on some basic liberal issues like investment in infrastructure and welfare policy they are more or less in agreement.  (I recognize these are hardly small agreements, but their disagreements are still significant and they would likely result in Bernie Sanders types wanting to spend a lot more on social spending than a Hillary Clinton type Democrat.)