So Trump is not popular and yet his popularity caused the loss of both houses of Congress. Interesting analysis. Hangs together really nicely and provides a lot of fodder for strategic thinking about the 2010 midterms.
To the extent that I can take this narrative seriously at all, it just underscores how unpopular centrist Democrats are, which is all I’ve been arguing in the first place.
Trump got 25.2% of the total eligible voter vote, and Hillary got 26.4%. That’s how unpopular people can still be popular enough to sway elections.
And no, 45-50% of eligible voters not voting is not at the feet of the Democrats.
I sure wish I could take this “long-haired freak” on a tour through my own long-haired 1970s-era adolescence in a small redneck town. He’d soon learn to never go into any public restroom – ever.
Is it not obvious that we’re interested in relative popularity here? Clinton didn’t get anyone excited either way. Trump got people excited both for and against – and won where it counted most. Do you want to win where it counts most?
To the extent that this is true, it is a straw man. To the extent that it addresses my arguments, it is false.
Well, as long as you are happy.
If you want to make a case for the idea the Democrats are owed votes even from people who don’t believe in their policies or their (nonexistent) ideals, then please feel free. No one is stopping you.
All I’m arguing is that the party who wins tends to be the one that most excites its base:
-1980: Reagan!
-1984: Reagan!
-1988: George H.W. Bush?
-1992: Bill Clinton!
-1996: Bill Clinton!
-2000: George W!
2004: George W!
2008: Obama!
2012: Obama!
2016: TRUUUUUUUMP!
Clinton isn’t a neoliberal.
Yes, she’s to the right of Bernie Sanders on many issues, and somewhat to the left of Sanders on a couple.
But that doesn’t make her a neoliberal.
He’s going to need a bigger t-shirt.
neoliberalism: a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.
The plain English-language meaning of words suggests that both Clintons are and always have been neoliberals.
Edit:
Try doing an image search for “neoliberal politicians”.
Man, the world is a complicated place, and that’s really scary to people raised on simple-minded certainties.
@beschizza – what’s with the “show full post” on this one?
I noticed that, as well – see here
She’s what I’d call neoliberal-lite, closer to what Nixon or the GOP establishment were on economics in the late 1960s/early 1970s. I’d even go so far as to say that she and Bill have a little to the right of Nixon economically since he signed off on the repeal of Glass-Steagall and got more close-fisted on welfare.
I wouldn’t say they’ve always been neoliberals or neoliberals-lite. In their college and grad school days they were probably like Bernie. The Clintons were afflicted with the same ideals-destroying ailment that a lot of successful Boomers were during the 1980s, the effects only multiplied by the brief success of Third-Way politics as a counter to full-blown neoliberalism during the 1990s.
Of course, times have changed and no Dem should expect to replicate that success in the current environment – especially if that candidate doesn’t come close to having Obama’s charisma and also is a lousy and complacent “my turn, my turn!” campaigner.
Hillary wasn’t. She campaigned for Goldwater.
Yes, but that was when she was in high school. By the time she was in college and law school she’d made a major shift left economically.
According to her wiki article, she was still a Republican in undergrad, and then became a Democrat for apparently identity politics reasons (one year before her undergrad ended, so not “by the time she was in college”). There’s no suggestion in her wiki article that the shift of party was due to economic reasons at all – if you have other evidence to the contrary, please share. All of this actually makes “neoliberal” a completely accurate description.
It also makes your comment a bit misleading.
Whoa. That was intense.
By using square selection boxes and not round one (a.k.a radio buttons), by convention he is allowing any number of selections from 0 to all options. How progressive of him. None= no gender identity, both selected implies any number of fluid options. Wee!
Good thing he didn’t use a radio button otherwise he would have been implying only one choice (although requiring one choice may still not be implied).
Is Paul Krugman a neoliberal?
