*sigh*, in other news, centrist democrats are once again getting salty over the 2000 and 2016 elections, stating if not for Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders, democrats would've appointed 8 out of 9 SCOTUS judges currently serving.
Now, assuming the democrats also won 2004, 2008, and 2012 in this alternate timeline, it could happen, but something tells me that it likely wouldn't have.
Because here's the thing. this is not the fault of third party candidates or their voters. Once again, ultimately fault lies with the parties and their chosen coalitions or electoral strategies.
In 2000, a lot went wrong for Al Gore. It wasn't just florida. Gore was just less popular than Clinton was in years prior. That's how this works typically. Ruling party gets into power, and over time their ability to win elections ends up degrading as they lose popularity. Often times, when the democrats lose popularity, it's their own doing.
FDR was elected four fricking times. Then in 1948 Truman was kinda unpopular, and it was expected that he would lose to Thomas Dewey. As it turns out, he didn't, but there was a moment there.
And in 1952, Adlai Stevenson was the nominee, but no one wanted him.
As I said, the further you get away from the original "great man" of a party alignment, the crappier the coalition gets. The worse the leaders, and the democrats had a habit of picking losers. They liked to choose their candidates in smoke filled back rooms and ended up losing.
Same thing happened in 1968 after 8 years of johnson. No one wanted hubert humphrey and he lost.
Carter was an establishment good old boy chosen after the party sabotaged mcgovern, who the people in the party wanted but the establishment didn't. And then carter ended up basically being 1970s Joe Biden, and lost to Reagan.
Then the GOP had their own "great man" in Reagan, but Bush didn't have the same charisma so lost to Clinton in 1992.
And the same thing happened in mirror for the democrats in 2000. Al gore didnt have clinton's charm, so....he lost.
In retrospect, democrats post 1968 generally only win when they have a charismatic guy on the ticket, and/or when people are pissed off at republicans. Carter won only because Nixon was corrupt and had to resign, and ford was relatively unpopular. Clinton only won because people were tired of republicans after Bush. Obama only won after 8 years of the other bush and a giant recession and the war on terror killing the GOP's electability. Clinton was able to convince the american people they would be better off under him. He also liked to play the saxophone and was considered very 'cool" by 90s standards.
But clinton's pioneering strategy of the new democrats was....kind of middling. I mean, you could make an argument that after the collapse of the new deal coalition, the democrats HAD to do it, just like the republicans HAD to moderate in the 1950s after FDR, but was it just that? or were people just tired of republicans and decided to give the other guys a chance? Eh, a bit of both, probably. The inoffensive centrism was probably the best thing that they could do at the time, but at the same time people also just wanted a change of leadership.
But, the new democratic coalition that clinton forged was an inherently unstable one. It relied on triangulation. Basically a fancy word for "run to the center". Now, running to the center on SOME issues can be politically advantageous, but honestly, clinton lost a lot of support over his presidency, and some states, especially those in the south who had been waving with democratic support for decades by that point, and states like west virginia, well, after clinton sold out their economic interests and solidified the democratic party as not really for the working class any more, went hard right. West virginia was pretty solidly blue up to 2000. Al gore was a southerner himself from tennessee. Tennessee went red that election after clinton carried it twice. Heck, it was in 2000 that the democrats basically lost much the south fully and completely for the first time, and this would be a trend until 2020 when Biden won AZ and GA narrowly.
But hey, let's blame nader voters in florida, it's their fault! Even though there's questions whether Nader's support was actually legit or whether people hit the wrong button and voted for him by mistake because of the way the voting machines were set up. Not to mention the hanging chads.
The point is, 2000 was lost to dems for a multitude of reasons, and a lot of it was simply that the country was sick and tired of their governance. Support had been on the decline throughout the clinton presidency, and by the time gore ran, no one really wanted more of the same.
A lot of people left the democratic coalition and never went back, the realignment had changed the democratic party, and the voters changed their preferences because of that. This meant a lot of people started voting for republicans, and a few voted third party.
Democrats love to focus on third party voters because their entire strategy relies on bullying lefties into voting for them. Triangulation means they keep the left who has nowhere to go, while appealing to a certain kind of centrist voter (while simultaneously losing other kinds of centrists). Generally speaking, the trend in recent decades was losing white working class voters, and picking up white suburbanite voters, while keeping most minority voters as well, who had trended to the democrats from the 60s onward. And they generally just believe that they are owed leftie votes, so their entire pitch is to appease moderates while scolding the left for stepping out of line. They know they need both, so this is how they balance those interests.
THe problem is, that this is unstable, and as the democrats lose popularity, they lose not just centrists who start trending republican, but also have to deal with left wing voters who are tired of being ignored. And sometimes some of them might vote third party. Both in 2000 and 2016 this was never a huge number, but given how small the margins were, it arguably was a factor in losing, and the argument is if those people continued to support democrats, democrats would've won.
But again, that's just one of MANY factors, any of which could lead to a different outcome. And generally, my argument is the democrats just...lost too many people in general to maintain electability. They lost not just some lefties, but also a lot of centrists. They chose an electoral strategy, it didnt make everyone happy, and people voted their preferences. Democrats have to learn how to do better to appease their coalitions better, and to adapt with the times, rather than just expecting the same thing to work every election.
It's very rare for a party to hold the white house for more than 8 years, and it really only happens when there's a massive realignment that favors one party. Like the GOP had the white house for 16 years after 1860 with lincoln. The democrats had it for 20 years after 1932 with FDR. And the republicans had it for 12 years after 1980 with reagan. Beyond that, things normally swap once every 8 years or so, or maybe every 4 if the president is particularly unpopular.
Say Al Gore WAS able to win in 2000. What are the odds of him winning in 2004? Unlikely. If 2000 was as narrow as it was, he almost certainly would've lost 2004. If 9/11 happened, the GOP would be "cartering" him and calling him weak and arguing they could do a better job with the war on terror, and given how blood thirsty the american public was after 9/11, I could see the GOP winning 2004 handily. Even if 9/11 didn't happen, Gore's first term would be pretty meh and the problem of democratic motivation would get worse, not better.
And if he did win 2004, what about 2008? 2012? Obama certainly wouldnt have won those years.
Because there's no way they would've been able to maintain their coalition throughout that time. It would have been weirdly ahistorical for them to be able to do that. If that didnt do them in, something else would have in the next election cycle. It's unreasonable to expect, in a fair democracy, one party to keep winning forever and ever. That happens in dictatorships, including fake democracies, but not in real democracies.
The same can be said of 2016. The reason clinton lost was because clinton was UNPOPULAR. Bernie was popular because he offered america a bunch of useful proposals to fix the economic issues facing this country. And the democrats quite frankly undercut him, and mistreated his supporters. Plain and simple. The democrats act like Bernie's mere existence is the thing that screwed the democrats when no, Bernie's popularity was because the mainstream democrats were failing to address economic issues that the American people wanted addressed. And there were populist uprisings on both sides. 2016 was actually potentially a realignment year. It was the modern 1968 moment. And the democrats had two paths, move left, or keep going with centrism. Clinton missed the memo, and even worse, she picked a fight with sanders' supporters. Her campaign was very unfair to them, accusing them of racism and sexism and weaponizing identity politics against them. And her campaign pitch to them was literally trying to bully us into supporting clinton. Which incensed many of us (me included) to vote green in protest.
I didnt vote green BECAUSE of Bernie. I WANTED Bernie because he aligned with my own economic vision, which I was putting together as early as 2014. Bernie just happened to be the guy who ran on some of my ideas. It was the democratic party's refusal to embrace those ideas and to basically treat me and other voters like me like garbage that caused me to NOT vote for the democrats. It was literally hillary clinton that did it. Clinton herself convinced me not to support clinton. The democrats themselves convinced me not to support the democrats. Because when you F around with your voters, you're gonna find out. Maybe don't pick a fight with voters like me next time when we tell you you need to change.
And it wasn't just bernie or busters. A lot of people flipped to trump. And after 2020, Im no longer convinced trump was just a flash in the pan. No, he unlocked something in the american psyche, something dark, but something that also is very appealing. He actually kind of approached the economic populism stuff from the more right wing perspective, and he got a lot of people dying on their sword for him over it. He is a realigning figure, potentially another "great man" whose impact on politics may be felt for decades into the future (Kinda like FDR or Reagan). It is unclear if this will remain a thing. I think 2024 and 2028 are crucial in deciding the fate of the country on this front. All I know is it's looking good for the GOP, and not looking good for the dems.
But let's go back to 2016, before I approach 2024. Say Clinton won in 2016. Would she have won 2020? NO. I am almost completely confident in that. She would have poll numbers that resemble Biden's right now. COVID would've killed any chance of a 2nd term if she had one in the first place. Why? because shes not what wide swaths of the public wanted in the first place. She wouldve barely won, and the problem of democratic motivation would keep getting worse, while the GOP's appeal would keep getting better.
And now we are at a point where Biden is president, he won 2020, because Trump was in, and COVID destroyed HIS shot at reelection, and Biden got in, he's been pretty milquetoast, and everyone is unhappy around him. Biden isnt bad mind you. Clinton wouldnt have been either. But again, there's this insatiable will in the american people right now where they want something new and different, they want politics to be shaken up, they want new solutions to the same old problems, and they are tired of the same fricking thing all the time. Democrats dont get that memo. So they let trump be this lightning rod of populism and change, while the democrats keep trying to be relatively conservative and inoffensive.
And going into 2024, no one is really happy with Biden. Now, some grievances against him are made up, and some are legit. Inflation is a legit concern, but blaming biden for it isn't. The immigration crisis is just fear mongering by the GOP. The alleged crime wave is fear mongering by the GOP. And Biden just happened to get in at a bad time, ya know, like CARTER did. Carter wasnt a bad president, but everything happened on his watch and the american people arent very understanding sometimes. The same thing is happening with biden now. he was charged with the recovery from COVID, and all the crap related to that got blamed on him, often unfairly. And now his poll numbers are terrible and trump is almost certainly gonna win 2024 barring a criminal conviction (and he still has a chance even if convicted because Biden is down that much).
And before anyone, either the self righteous pro palestine people, OR the blue no matter whoers, blame leftie voters for Biden's upcoming defeat, I'm gonna stop you right now.
I see both the antagonistic left, and the antagonistic center, gearing up for a giant flame war over this, with the left being like "YOU GOTTA EARN MY VOTE BY NOT SUPPORTING A CANDIDATE WHO SUPPORTS GENOCIDE" and the center being like "YOU GOTTA VOTE FOR BIDEN OR ELSE". And I'm going to be blunt. The amount of people protest voting over fricking Israel and Gaza is statistically negligible. As we see with the primaries, Biden has a commanding lead, and the amount of dissent to his presidency from within the left is negligible. Gone are the 25-45% of the party supporting someone like Bernie. We got 25% in New hampshire, with only 1.2% voting "cease fire now", and around 4-11% in other states so far. And there's little to no indication it's over israel. I mean im likely gonna vote for dean phillips if he's still in the race. I aint doing it over israel. Im doing it over liking dean better than Biden in general.
And in polling, there's no indication that a significant number of people's big issue is israel in particular. It's all economics, particularly inflation, it's immigration, and it's the fact that the dude's FRICKING 80 SOMETHING. Seriously. The dude's OLD. He's TOO OLD. And while Im not convinced he is unhealthy enough to serve an i think replacing him with another establishment dem is just a new face with the same policies, people just dislike biden as a person on the basis of his age. The dude really IS "sleepy joe", in the sense that he looks like hes about to fall asleep on camera half the time. I know, it's a dumb, petty thing to hate the guy for (although I admit if he wasnt already in office id DEFINITELY want someone younger, I think 80 should be a hard cutoff on an informal level), but that's where the country is.
Seriously, here's the current data. AT BEST, you got 6% on the anti israel train, and that's split over 3 categories: foreign policy (3%), International issues (2%), and Wars (1%). And in the grand scheme of things, that's background noise. It's pretty clear what's killing him just looking at the chart. A lot of people think he's unfit to lead for whatever reason, there's the border crisis, and then the economy and inflation. beyond that, everything else is negligible.
So Im just gonna stop the dems, AND the lefties trying to protest vote right here. THis isnt the issue. Biden is losing primarily from blows hes taking on the right, as well as kitchen table issues, as well as just being unpopular. Its possible some lefties will protest over economic inaction, but most of them im talking to planning on not voting for Biden are doing it over the gaza thing. They dont seem to be focused on the economy right now, and I am, and I'm rallying behind biden because i understand a loss under these circumstances could be a repudiation of the left in general, making it harder to win elections in the future and to pass agendas amenable to my goals.
Okay? Stop freaking out over third party voters. They're often a blip on the radar combined to just long term weaknesses the democrats have. And if democrats won the elections the dems complain about, they would almost certainly lose others.
They should be happy they only BARELY lose when they lose. They havent taken a real walloping since the 80s electorally. Every defeat has been relatively narrow. Which is why they complain about third party voters in the first place. 2024 might be their worst electoral defeat since 1988 at this rate and does serve as a more thorough repudiation of the democrats current trajectory. Whether that will be good or bad for them and the country in the long term remains to be seen, but I honestly suspect it will be more negative than positive, hence why I wanna help them out (again, biden gives me jimmy carter vibes, and not in a good way).
Honestly, even if Biden does pull it off, we still might lose massively in 2028 and likely lose the white house until 2036 after that. Unless the dems DO change course and DO put up a different face with a different brand of politics. Because again, every election it becomes harder to maintain a party in office. The longest any one party has remained in power uninterrupted was 20 years. 8 is average. 12+ is abnormally long and only happens during realignments. And the party in power is normally the dominant one in a realignment. And I just dont see that happening for the dems unless post Biden they start putting up lefties with progressive economic platforms that bring younger voters (gen Y and Z) into the party.
No comments:
Post a Comment