The Death of Clintonism

[Saint Milei]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-2016-loss-democrats-214570?cmpid=sf

[Suburbia]

Clintonism may be finished, but moderate Democrats are still around. Period. Cory Booker, etc, are moderate on some issues.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I only wish the price for the death of Clintonism wouldn't be so high.

[Pericles]

I think a lot of people would appreciate if it had died in June instead of November 8.

[Chief Justice Keef]

I'm glad it is. It's done a great job at removing pretty much any kind of ideological contrast between the Democrats and Republicans.

[Mr. Smith]

Pity the price is so high, but I welcome anything that forces out Reaganomics as the centerpiece of the Overton Window.

[Frodo]

How many members will the New Democrat Caucus have in the coming 115th Congress?

[Mr.Phips]

Thank Goodness.  Clintonism has been a huge factor in the downfall of Democrats at the congressional and local levels.

[Suburbia]

Thank Goodness.  Clintonism has been a huge factor in the downfall of Democrats at the congressional and local levels.

They did something right in 1992 and 1996.

[RaphaelDLG]

That quote that Yoda says to the Emperor in Revenge of the Sith comes to mind, not only because of the long-term perniciousness of this grand strategy, but also because I wouldn't be so quick to pronounce death.

[Shadows]

Thank Goodness.  Clintonism has been a huge factor in the downfall of Democrats at the congressional and local levels.

They did something right in 1992 and 1996.

Bill Clinton was an insanely good orator. He had H.W. (look @ my watch, recession, gives cold responses & doesn't care about domestic issues) & Bob freaking Dole against him. And Ross Perot running 3rd party. That surely helped in 1996 as I felt in a Dole vs Clinton race, Dole would have retained a large portion of the Republican Perot voters but Clinton would have struggled to hold on to the privacy, anti-free trade democrats, many of whom would have stayed home.

[Mr.Phips]

Thank Goodness.  Clintonism has been a huge factor in the downfall of Democrats at the congressional and local levels.

They did something right in 1992 and 1996.

A potted plant would have beaten Bush in 1992 with his approval ratings (he never reached 40% from February forward) and in 1996, Clinton had the benefit of a good economy as an incumbent.  Even as Clinton won in 1996, Democrats made up almost no ground in Congressional and local races after their 1994 massacre and even lost two more Senate seats. 

[Suburbia]

Thank Goodness.  Clintonism has been a huge factor in the downfall of Democrats at the congressional and local levels.

They did something right in 1992 and 1996.

A potted plant would have beaten Bush in 1992 with his approval ratings (he never reached 40% from February forward) and in 1996, Clinton had the benefit of a good economy as an incumbent.  Even as Clinton won in 1996, Democrats made up almost no ground in Congressional and local races after their 1994 massacre and even lost two more Senate seats. 

You can't just throw away the economic expansion of the 1990s-2001 and the Clinton legacy for nothing.

[Pericles]

Clintonism was good in the 1990s when otherwise a conservative Republican would have won and some progress was made, and Obama did do some good, however ultimately its time has come and gone. The Democrats need a new approach to get the base out and appeal to white voters if they want to win elections.

[MaxQue]

Thank Goodness.  Clintonism has been a huge factor in the downfall of Democrats at the congressional and local levels.

They did something right in 1992 and 1996.

A potted plant would have beaten Bush in 1992 with his approval ratings (he never reached 40% from February forward) and in 1996, Clinton had the benefit of a good economy as an incumbent.  Even as Clinton won in 1996, Democrats made up almost no ground in Congressional and local races after their 1994 massacre and even lost two more Senate seats. 

You can't just throw away the economic expansion of the 1990s-2001 and the Clinton legacy for nothing.

Well, the Clintons were good in the 90's. So was 56k dial-up internet.

[Person Man]

Thank Goodness.  Clintonism has been a huge factor in the downfall of Democrats at the congressional and local levels.

They did something right in 1992 and 1996.

A potted plant would have beaten Bush in 1992 with his approval ratings (he never reached 40% from February forward) and in 1996, Clinton had the benefit of a good economy as an incumbent.  Even as Clinton won in 1996, Democrats made up almost no ground in Congressional and local races after their 1994 massacre and even lost two more Senate seats. 

You can't just throw away the economic expansion of the 1990s-2001 and the Clinton legacy for nothing.

Well, the Clintons were good in the 90's. So was 56k dial-up internet.

Pretty much. Maybe there will be a new Clintonianism, but that is as likely as us finding something entirely new.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hillary Clinton ran on the most progressive platform of basically any mainstream nominee ever, was one of the most liberal members of the senate during her tenure there, and has consistently stood up for those who have fallen through the cracks.

This idea that she's some kind of moderate is ridiculous. She and her husband decided in the 90s that the political reality of the day meant they could either get nothing accomplished or meager versions of what they wanted accomplished. They decided some action was better than none.

And now they're sellouts.

[Shadows]

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA.

Bill Clinton repelaed Glass Steagal which even Reagan couldn't.

Bill Clinton cut welfare by significant margins.

Bill Clinton went for mass incarcerations, mandatory minimums which blew the prison population

Bill Clinton approved the homophobic DOMA


Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War which killed millions of people & gave us ISIS.

Hillary Clinton is against Marijuana de-criminalization

Hillary Clinton is for fracking & against a Carbon Tax or even cap & trade (what is her environmental plans)

Hillary Clinton is for the death penalty

Hillary Clinton supported TPP & NAFTA

Hillary Clinton is against Single Payer

Hillary Clinton supported Key Stone XL

Hillary Clinton sold Senate votes for campaign funds according to President Obama & Elizabeth Warren


I could go on & on - Minimum Wage, College Tuition, Gay Marriage. She adopted Bernie's ideas into the Dem platform to get his endorsement, which she barely campaigned on or promoted. That doesn't make her a progressive anymore than if Tim Kaine ran on it.

If Hillary is a progressive, then who is a moderate? She herself has admitted multiple times that she is a moderate.

In her Wall Street Speeches, she said she is so seeped in her millions that she lost all connect with the sufferings on the middle class & she occupies a centrist position where she is lonely as most of her party is much to the left of her.

You are living in your own parallel world, if you believe she is a progressive in 2016.

[Del Tachi]

A more apt name would be Obamaism. 

Barack Obama's legacy will be that he is the President that built the America that Trump won in 2016. 

For all the faults of the '90s, there were genuine bipartisan success stories to speak of.  Democrats were still quite healthy (especially in the South and lower Midwest) when Clinton left office in 2000.  Democrats suffered their fair share of midterm losses in 1994, but it wasn't the complete bottoming out of Democratic party support we saw under Obama in 2010 and 2014. 

Obama, after essentially losing Congress in 2010, decided to rule by executive fiat rather than bipartisan consensus.  This gave plenty of ammunition for Republicans to run against Democrats in Congressional and downballot races.  Now, don't get me wrong, Republicans are equally as guilty as Obama in creating the political environment we see now, but President Obama never provided any "cover" to moderate-to-conservative Democrats by forcing Congressional Republicans to take votes on controversial matters.

[Shadows]

A more apt name would be Obamaism.  

Barack Obama's legacy will be that he is the President that built the America that Trump won in 2016.  

For all the faults of the '90s, there were genuine bipartisan success stories to speak of.  Democrats were still quite healthy (especially in the South and lower Midwest) when Clinton left office in 2000.  Democrats suffered their fair share of midterm losses in 1994, but it wasn't the complete bottoming out of Democratic party support we saw under Obama in 2010 and 2014.  

Obama, after essentially losing Congress in 2010, decided to rule my executive fiat rather than bipartisan consensus.  This gave plenty of ammunition for Republicans to run against Democrats in Congressional and downballot races.  Now, don't get me wrong, Republicans are equally as guilty as Obama in creating the political environment we see now, but President Obama never provided any "cover" to moderate-to-conservative Democrats by forcing Congressional Republicans to take votes on controversial matters.

Bill Clinton lost 54 House Seats & 8 Senate Seats in 94. In around previous 50 years of Presidency. no president ever had that kind of disastrous numbers. It was a bottoming out & they barely made much ground after that.

Ofcourse only Obama with 64 House seats loss & then 6 Senate seat loss in 2010 & then 9 seat loss in 2014 could only be comparable or worse. But Bill Clinton was one of the worst presidents in House/Senate performance for his party.

While you could argue about Executive actions, Republicans gave a record filibusters to Obama, tried to delegitimize the 1st Black president & never tried to work with him.

This whole idea of bipartisanship is a bit nostalgic for some. While there was some bipartisanship & really willingness to work, the government was essentially shut down in 95 & 96 over refusal to compromise under Bill Clinton.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A more apt name would be Obamaism. 

Barack Obama's legacy will be that he is the President that built the America that Trump won in 2016. 

For all the faults of the '90s, there were genuine bipartisan success stories to speak of.  Democrats were still quite healthy (especially in the South and lower Midwest) when Clinton left office in 2000.  Democrats suffered their fair share of midterm losses in 1994, but it wasn't the complete bottoming out of Democratic party support we saw under Obama in 2010 and 2014. 

Obama, after essentially losing Congress in 2010, decided to rule my executive fiat rather than bipartisan consensus.  This gave plenty of ammunition for Republicans to run against Democrats in Congressional and downballot races.  Now, don't get me wrong, Republicans are equally as guilty as Obama in creating the political environment we see now, but President Obama never provided any "cover" to moderate-to-conservative Democrats by forcing Congressional Republicans to take votes on controversial matters.

I suppose my idea of a "moderate Democrat" is different than many here.  Hillary Clinton is not a moderate Democrat; she is a liberal Democrat.  Bill Clinton is a moderately liberal Democrat, but he's not a moderate.  

Truthfully, the "moderate" Democrats were, for the most part, wiped out in 2010, and the few left were wiped out in 2014.  What "moderate" Democrats are left?  John Bel Edwards?  Roy Cooper?  They're both Governors.  Cooper hasn't taken office yet, and both of these guys have the luxury of being all things to all people for a while.  Bill Nelson?  Mark Warner?  These guys have voted as liberals, regardless of what their positions once were, have they not?

The problem is not there are "moderate" Democrats.  The problem is that "moderate" Democrats are for fringe liberalism on social issues, but conservatives on trade and economics.  They also embrace the kind of elitist environmentalism that costs working-class folks their jobs.  It's how you get to be a "moderate" or a "centrist" that makes all the difference in the world.

[Cashew]

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA.

Bill Clinton repelaed Glass Steagal which even Reagan couldn't.

Bill Clinton cut welfare by significant margins.

Bill Clinton went for mass incarcerations, mandatory minimums which blew the prison population

Bill Clinton approved the homophobic DOMA


Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War which killed millions of people & gave us ISIS.

Hillary Clinton is against Marijuana de-criminalization

Hillary Clinton is for fracking & against a Carbon Tax or even cap & trade (what is her environmental plans)

Hillary Clinton is for the death penalty

Hillary Clinton supported TPP & NAFTA

Hillary Clinton is against Single Payer

Hillary Clinton supported Key Stone XL

Hillary Clinton sold Senate votes for campaign funds according to President Obama & Elizabeth Warren


I could go on & on - Minimum Wage, College Tuition, Gay Marriage. She adopted Bernie's ideas into the Dem platform to get his endorsement, which she barely campaigned on or promoted. That doesn't make her a progressive anymore than if Tim Kaine ran on it.

If Hillary is a progressive, then who is a moderate? She herself has admitted multiple times that she is a moderate.

In her Wall Street Speeches, she said she is so seeped in her millions that she lost all connect with the sufferings on the middle class & she occupies a centrist position where she is lonely as most of her party is much to the left of her.

You are living in your own parallel world, if you believe she is a progressive in 2016.

I agree with most of what you said, but I can understand him passing DOMA. If he did not placate the opponents of gay marriage, there could have been real momentum for a constitutional amendment.

[RaphaelDLG]

A more apt name would be Obamaism. 

Barack Obama's legacy will be that he is the President that built the America that Trump won in 2016. 

For all the faults of the '90s, there were genuine bipartisan success stories to speak of.  Democrats were still quite healthy (especially in the South and lower Midwest) when Clinton left office in 2000.  Democrats suffered their fair share of midterm losses in 1994, but it wasn't the complete bottoming out of Democratic party support we saw under Obama in 2010 and 2014. 

Obama, after essentially losing Congress in 2010, decided to rule my executive fiat rather than bipartisan consensus.  This gave plenty of ammunition for Republicans to run against Democrats in Congressional and downballot races.  Now, don't get me wrong, Republicans are equally as guilty as Obama in creating the political environment we see now, but President Obama never provided any "cover" to moderate-to-conservative Democrats by forcing Congressional Republicans to take votes on controversial matters.

I suppose my idea of a "moderate Democrat" is different than many here.  Hillary Clinton is not a moderate Democrat; she is a liberal Democrat.  Bill Clinton is a moderately liberal Democrat, but he's not a moderate.  

Truthfully, the "moderate" Democrats were, for the most part, wiped out in 2010, and the few left were wiped out in 2014.  What "moderate" Democrats are left?  John Bel Edwards?  Roy Cooper?  They're both Governors.  Cooper hasn't taken office yet, and both of these guys have the luxury of being all things to all people for a while.  Bill Nelson?  Mark Warner?  These guys have voted as liberals, regardless of what their positions once were, have they not?

The problem is not there are "moderate" Democrats.  The problem is that "moderate" Democrats are for fringe liberalism on social issues, but conservatives on trade and economics.  They also embrace the kind of elitist environmentalism that costs working-class folks their jobs.  It's how you get to be a "moderate" or a "centrist" that makes all the difference in the world.

I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded.

However, your whole screed neglects to mention that there are even fewer moderate Republicans, and that basically all Republicans outside of a handful of governors from Massachusetts and Maryland have extreme right wing positions on economic issues.

The overall problem of lack of economic courage is a combination of campaign finance incentives, low information voting, a pernicious gospel of greed is good neoliberalism preached during the 70s and 80s, and non-competitive single-member districts.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Good riddance.  When people have to choose between two right wing parties they will always pick the one that is at least honest about being right wing.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A more apt name would be Obamaism.  

Barack Obama's legacy will be that he is the President that built the America that Trump won in 2016.  

For all the faults of the '90s, there were genuine bipartisan success stories to speak of.  Democrats were still quite healthy (especially in the South and lower Midwest) when Clinton left office in 2000.  Democrats suffered their fair share of midterm losses in 1994, but it wasn't the complete bottoming out of Democratic party support we saw under Obama in 2010 and 2014.  

Obama, after essentially losing Congress in 2010, decided to rule my executive fiat rather than bipartisan consensus.  This gave plenty of ammunition for Republicans to run against Democrats in Congressional and downballot races.  Now, don't get me wrong, Republicans are equally as guilty as Obama in creating the political environment we see now, but President Obama never provided any "cover" to moderate-to-conservative Democrats by forcing Congressional Republicans to take votes on controversial matters.

I suppose my idea of a "moderate Democrat" is different than many here.  Hillary Clinton is not a moderate Democrat; she is a liberal Democrat.  Bill Clinton is a moderately liberal Democrat, but he's not a moderate.  

Truthfully, the "moderate" Democrats were, for the most part, wiped out in 2010, and the few left were wiped out in 2014.  What "moderate" Democrats are left?  John Bel Edwards?  Roy Cooper?  They're both Governors.  Cooper hasn't taken office yet, and both of these guys have the luxury of being all things to all people for a while.  Bill Nelson?  Mark Warner?  These guys have voted as liberals, regardless of what their positions once were, have they not?

The problem is not there are "moderate" Democrats.  The problem is that "moderate" Democrats are for fringe liberalism on social issues, but conservatives on trade and economics.  They also embrace the kind of elitist environmentalism that costs working-class folks their jobs.  It's how you get to be a "moderate" or a "centrist" that makes all the difference in the world.

I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded.

However, your whole screed neglects to mention that there are even fewer moderate Republicans, and that basically all Republicans outside of a handful of governors from Massachusetts and Maryland have extreme right wing positions on economic issues.

The overall problem of lack of economic courage is a combination of campaign finance incentives, low information voting, a pernicious gospel of greed is good neoliberalism preached during the 70s and 80s, and non-competitive single-member districts.

I believe that the triumph of Trump will change that.

Moderate Republicans of yore believed in SOME government.  While their numbers in Congress are almost nil, their numbers in the population were large enough to nominate Trump.  Their views aren't well represented in their Representatives and Senators, but Trump's triumph was a MAJOR pushback against the "miniscule government" conservatives.

Trump's a New Yorker.  He knows that the Middle Class, which is stronger in the Northeast than in much of the rest of the country, was built and maintained with lots of government help, state and federal.  He knows that a middle class society doesn't maintain itself.  And he knows that one reason so many in depressed WV and Rust Belt areas turned to him is because they believe Trump believes that the government ought to do something about THEIR plight.  Trump's a moderate Republican with an extreme persona.  I'd prefer this than one of these folks like Paul Ryan who act "moderate" and "reasonable" while doing nothing to stop irresponsible sequesters or government shutdowns.