The Death of Clintonism

[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.

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.

Reconcile your read on Trump with his cabinet picks, who all want to dismantle the parts of government that they are supposed to run

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If Tulsi Gabbard wins the Democratic party nomination in 2020, the Democratic party is a pragmatic left of center party.  The triangulation and the getting around things and trying to spin things like Clinton, Obama and Bill did things is over.

But, this isn't the Democratic party of the the Walter Mondale era. It is a left of center party and even Bernie Sanders would have governed to the lesser of the extreme of socialism

[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.

Reconcile your read on Trump with his cabinet picks, who all want to dismantle the parts of government that they are supposed to run

There is a difference between eliminating "regulation" and eliminating "government". 

I would argue that many of Trump's picks are all for big government.  They may not be in favor of big government redistributing wealth in the manner they have been doing, but they're not for Ron Paul-ism. 

[Lincoln Republican]

If Tulsi Gabbard wins the Democratic party nomination in 2020, the Democratic party is a pragmatic left of center party.  The triangulation and the getting around things and trying to spin things like Clinton, Obama and Bill did things is over.

But, this isn't the Democratic party of the the Walter Mondale era. It is a left of center party and even Bernie Sanders would have governed to the lesser of the extreme of socialism

For the life of me, I fail to see the obsession some have with Tulsi Gabbard.

She is not ready for a national candidacy, not now, nor in 2020.

Congresswoman Gabbard has a long way to go until, if ever, she is ready for national office.

I don't know, she may be a nice young politician, but national candidacy any time soon, no.

[Chief Justice Keef]

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.

Yes, precisely. And any Clinton hack like you can try and defend her to death like a cultist, but she ran two terrible campaigns. Hell, she and her smug campaign tarnished the image of the Democrats in a way I don't know how we can repair over the next four years.

Saying she ran on "the most progressive platform" doesn't matter, because Hillary Clinton didn't run on a platform. I hardly saw a campaign speech, and never saw an advertisement about any major progressive issues. Her campaign focus was basically "Donald Trump is a bully and a con man", and by giving voters something they could only vote against caused her loss.

She and Bill are irrelevant centrists who have been desperately trying to keep a hold on the party for the past 20 years, and now the Democratic Party is moving on. By the time 2020 rolls around, Millennials and Gen-Zers will represent a large portion of the voting demographic, and unless Democrats accept that the time of the Third Way is up, they'll lose an entire generation by trying to stick to their guns instead of giving their base what they actually want.