Man, I love James Carville --- this is a good read on the current state of Dems

[sober_teacher]

Not as vulnerable as he should be which I think is Carvilles overall point.

The sad part is, based on standard metrics regarding presidential elections, Trump should probably not be vulnerable at all. Unemployment is low, the economy overall is in a good place, etc. Normally those factors tend to favor the incumbent. But...Trump is Trump. He's unable to back away from any perceived criticism/challenge (which is everything, seemingly), he literally cannot stay off twitter or ever stay on topic when he's at a rally or in any semi-informal setting. I'm convinced if he were to quit Twitter from now until after the election, he'd win fairly easily (unfortunately). However, he's vulnerable because of who he is. Instead of being even remotely remorseful or contrite, or just magnanimous in victory, he insults and denigrates virtually everyone who didn't support him 100%. And he's been like this for 3+ years.

In regards to the turnout levels at the caucus, I'm not sure how much it means. I didn't attend, in part because I didn't feel like spending my evening at the circus, but also because it doesn't ultimately matter who gets the Democratic nod. I have my preferences of who I want to win, but ultimately I'll vote for who is the nominee because I don't want Trump to get another 4 years. I think a lot of people feel that way.

 

[torbee]

You're all over the map here. Those are three wildly different camps.

I find it insane that people still attempt to have a rational politics discussion with OiT.

I like OiT, but you might as well be chatting with him about astrophysics or gene splicing. You are NOT going to get an informed, coherent or even marginally plausible take from him. Period.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

You're all over the map here. Those are three wildly different camps.

uhhhh, no. all young and liberal leftists and part of the "new dem party" which is leftist socialist

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Yang is just another Bernie or Warren. They speak nonsense.

Natural, you are soooo wrong on this. Watch this, and compare it to the messages of every other candidate:

 

[unIowa]

No offense, but this is a Captain Obvious statement. The Democrats have ALWAYS sucked at staying on messaging or reading the political tea leaves. Part of that is a function of being such a "big tent" party/

I don't think it is as easy as saying it is a big tent party. What I think he is also saying, without saying it, is letting the socialist in the party might not have been that good of an idea and is leading to less unity in the party and is actually making the "big tent" party (your words) unpalatable to swing voters. It is changing the party and not for the better just like how letting the tea-party into the R party spun things out of control and paved the way for a guy like Trump.

 

[hawkifann]

Yang is just another Bernie or Warren. They speak nonsense.

I disagree. Yang is something else altogether. I think I like it, but there's a chance for it all to go very wrong.

 

[Nole Lou]

He's 100% right.

However...they still have to win the primary. It's easy to call out the problem...many of us have seen it, but honestly the candidates are in a tough spot. There isn't any easy way for a candidate to just say "Carville's right, let's do what he says!"

The thing is, Biden should be, and months ago appeared would be, walking to this nomination. If he didn't turn out to be basically enfeebled at this point, Carville's got no problem, and everything goes according to what he would have liked to see. Everyone is positioned to the left because Biden was always the white whale.

The big twist in this whole thing is that Biden looks terrible. It's similar to the Republican primaries which were kind of organized around the premise that Jeb would be a front-runner...so you had Jeb, and mostly a bunch of anti-Jebs...and then Jeb turned out to be deader than dead right from the jump. When that happens, it's chaos, and you can complain about it all you want, but it's not like there's an easy answer to spin out of it.

He has an interesting point about Biden sucking all the air up for the moderates. What would have happened if Biden had realized he didn't have the chops anymore, or those close had been able to convince him. I'm not convinced that Bennett or Bullock could have mounted anything...maybe Booker? But out of that wing, Pete managed to rise...so it's not like nobody could. Carville can be pissed that Pete was better at this game than Booker, because of Pete's soft AA appeal, but what is anyone supposed to do with it? I mean, does he think Mayor Pete DOESN'T want to appeal to African Americans? It's not like he's specifically trying NOT to.

So, Carville is pretty much dead on accurate, but the pieces have fallen where they've fallen, and you can't just snap your fingers and make it not so.

With Warren fading, it is interesting to think of what might have happened had she chosen to position herself as a more traditional Democrat, instead of staking out the ground of "Just as radical as Bernie, but also dishonest!". I wonder if she'd have it over again if she'd known Biden was going to be so pathetic.

 

[torbee]

I don't think it is as easy as saying it is a big tent party. What I think he is also saying, without saying it, is letting the socialist in the party might not have been that good of an idea and is leading to less unity in the party and is actually making the "big tent" party (your words) unpalatable to swing voters. It is changing the party and not for the better just like how letting the tea-party into the R party spun things out of control and paved the way for a guy like Trump.

Oh I think that is definitely the case. But unlike the GOP, the Dems are much less likely to "purge" people that don't toe the line. Look at the big fissure among Dems regarding the DNC - I think many Democrats loathe it as much or more than Republicans do! You rarely see that kind of fracture within the GOP, and when fractures do start showing, they are quickly filled.

 

[Huey Grey]

What's he spending the money on? Granted I saw a Trump ad during the SB, but that's it. I know SB ads are expensive but they arn't $120 M expensive.

I would point out that it's hard to say how the fundraising is going to go til we get closer to the election. Dem nominee will see a big wave of cash once it becomes clear who the nominee is. But once that also becomes clear I expect Trump also gets a big wave of cash.

Who knows what he's spending it on? More porn stars and lawyer fees?

 

[torbee]

Carville can be pissed that Pete was better at this game than Booker, because of Pete's soft AA appeal, but what is anyone supposed to do with it? I mean, does he think Mayor Pete DOESN'T want to appeal to African Americans? It's not like he's specifically trying NOT to.

.

This is a good take. And I tell you what - as an upper middle class, middle-aged, white Midwest man - Trump and his policies have actually been JUST FINE for me and my family. I oppose him primarily on moral and ethical grounds and because I don't like bullies and assholes.

If African-Americans refuse to vote for a guy like Pete Buttigieg because he isn't WOKE enough, well then they are going to have to live with the consequences of four more years of Trump and his tacit acceptance if not outright support for white nationalism. That is literally no skin off my back, but that voting cohort would be insane to cut off their noses to spite their face, IMO.

 

[Nole Lou]

The sad part is, based on standard metrics regarding presidential elections, Trump should probably not be vulnerable at all. Unemployment is low, the economy overall is in a good place, etc. Normally those factors tend to favor the incumbent. But...Trump is Trump. He's unable to back away from any perceived criticism/challenge (which is everything, seemingly), he literally cannot stay off twitter or ever stay on topic when he's at a rally or in any semi-informal setting. I'm convinced if he were to quit Twitter from now until after the election, he'd win fairly easily (unfortunately). However, he's vulnerable because of who he is. Instead of being even remotely remorseful or contrite, or just magnanimous in victory, he insults and denigrates virtually everyone who didn't support him 100%. And he's been like this for 3+ years.

In regards to the turnout levels at the caucus, I'm not sure how much it means. I didn't attend, in part because I didn't feel like spending my evening at the circus, but also because it doesn't ultimately matter who gets the Democratic nod. I have my preferences of who I want to win, but ultimately I'll vote for who is the nominee because I don't want Trump to get another 4 years. I think a lot of people feel that way.

Agreed. If it was anyone but Trump, pretty much everyone would be tacitly operating under the assumption that there isn't really even a much of a race to be had here...it would be considered all but a foregone conclusion.

 

[BelemNole]

What's he spending the money on? Granted I saw a Trump ad during the SB, but that's it. I know SB ads are expensive but they arn't $120 M expensive.

I would point out that it's hard to say how the fundraising is going to go til we get closer to the election. Dem nominee will see a big wave of cash once it becomes clear who the nominee is. But once that also becomes clear I expect Trump also gets a big wave of cash.

That's because he's spending all his money on Facebook ads directed at your parents and other crap that worked in 2016. He learned a lot from the Russians.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Oh I think that is definitely the case. But unlike the GOP, the Dems are much less likely to "purge" people that don't toe the line. Look at the big fissure among Dems regarding the DNC - I think many Democrats loathe it as much or more than Republicans do! You rarely see that kind of fracture within the GOP, and when fractures do start showing, they are quickly filled.

what part about it do they loathe? is it when they give them hills in iowa and throw bern under the bus, or when they give them pete in iowa and throw bern under the bus?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

That's because he's spending all his money on Facebook ads directed at your parents and other crap that worked in 2016. He learned a lot from the Russians.

nobody goes on facebook but the left

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

I disagree. Yang is something else altogether. I think I like it, but there's a chance for it all to go very wrong.

Our Yang group had former Gary Johnson voters, former Trump voters, former Hillary voters, and completely new voters. It had Caucasians and Hispanics. It was ideologically and socio-economically diverse (except for being a sausage party). It was like the physcial embodiment of the people Democrats need to start speaking to, rather than speaking at.

 

[Huey Grey]

That's because he's spending all his money on Facebook ads directed at your parents and other crap that worked in 2016. He learned a lot from the Russians.

Didn't he just blow $10 million on Super Bowl ads?

 

[BelemNole]

Didn't he just blow $10 million on Super Bowl ads?

Yeah, but that's not where the bulk of this money is going.

 

[Nole Lou]

This is a good take. And I tell you what - as an upper middle class, middle-aged, white Midwest man - Trump and his policies have actually been JUST FINE for me and my family. I oppose him primarily on moral and ethical grounds and because I don't like bullies and assholes.

If African-Americans refuse to vote for a guy like Pete Buttigieg because he isn't WOKE enough, well then they are going to have to live with the consequences of four more years of Trump and his tacit acceptance if not outright support for white nationalism. That is literally no skin off my back, but that voting cohort would be insane to cut off their noses to spite their face, IMO.

The African American block is the LEAST woke element of the democratic base. They aren't considered soft on Pete because he isn't woke enough.

I actually think the "blacks won't vote for Pete" thing is actually self-perpetuated. They were saying that before 90% of African Americans even got a look at the guy or heard a word from him. I think that's a Biden team talking point that's going to backfire on them, now that the first (or well, second) thing that AAs know about Pete is that they aren't supposed to like him.

I think there's also some implied racial stereotyping there, as African Americans have generally been the least open to alternative sexuality. I don't know if they actually believe that blacks won't vote for him because of that, or it's just talking points meant to capitalize on that stereotype.

 

[Rudolph]

I find it insane that people still attempt to have a rational politics discussion with OiT.

I like OiT, but you might as well be chatting with him about astrophysics or gene splicing. You are NOT going to get an informed, coherent or even marginally plausible take from him. Period.

Like a Chinese crossword puzzle. Have fun!

 

[gohawks50]

The sad part is, based on standard metrics regarding presidential elections, Trump should probably not be vulnerable at all. Unemployment is low, the economy overall is in a good place, etc. Normally those factors tend to favor the incumbent. But...Trump is Trump. He's unable to back away from any perceived criticism/challenge (which is everything, seemingly), he literally cannot stay off twitter or ever stay on topic when he's at a rally or in any semi-informal setting. I'm convinced if he were to quit Twitter from now until after the election, he'd win fairly easily (unfortunately). However, he's vulnerable because of who he is. Instead of being even remotely remorseful or contrite, or just magnanimous in victory, he insults and denigrates virtually everyone who didn't support him 100%. And he's been like this for 3+ years.

In regards to the turnout levels at the caucus, I'm not sure how much it means. I didn't attend, in part because I didn't feel like spending my evening at the circus, but also because it doesn't ultimately matter who gets the Democratic nod. I have my preferences of who I want to win, but ultimately I'll vote for who is the nominee because I don't want Trump to get another 4 years. I think a lot of people feel that way.

That's exactly how I felt about the caucus, but come next November nothing will stop me from voting for the Democratic nominee.

Right now the candidates are trying to win the nomination so they have to attack each other's positions. The eventual nominee will adopt ideas from the others to use in the general election. One thing I'm sure of is all of them will fully support whoever is the nominee. Everyone of them have stated the most important goal is beating Donald Trump.

 

[torbee]

The African American block is the LEAST woke element of the democratic base. They aren't considered soft on Pete because he isn't woke enough.

I actually think the "blacks won't vote for Pete" thing is actually self-perpetuated. They were saying that before 90% of African Americans even got a look at the guy or heard a word from him. I think that's a Biden team talking point that's going to backfire on them, now that the first (or well, second) thing that AAs know about Pete is that they aren't supposed to like him.

I think there's also some implied racial stereotyping there, as African Americans have generally been the least open to alternative sexuality. I don't know if they actually believe that blacks won't vote for him because of that, or it's just talking points meant to capitalize on that stereotype.

You are correct - it is the SJWs on the Dem side that talk the most about how blacks won't vote for Pete. SJWs do love to speak FOR black folks. Quite ironic.

 

[unIowa]

This is a good take. And I tell you what - as an upper middle class, middle-aged, white Midwest man - Trump and his policies have actually been JUST FINE for me and my family. I oppose him primarily on moral and ethical grounds and because I don't like bullies and assholes.

If African-Americans refuse to vote for a guy like Pete Buttigieg because he isn't WOKE enough, well then they are going to have to live with the consequences of four more years of Trump and his tacit acceptance if not outright support for white nationalism. That is literally no skin off my back, but that voting cohort would be insane to cut off their noses to spite their face, IMO.

Don't fool yourself, African Americans have consistently shown to poll as more disapproving of homosexuality and frankly it is one of the big reasons Pete has a hard time with the AA vote....especially the southern AA vote.

If we are going to call out bigotry lets call it all out.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Don't fool yourself, African Americans have consistently shown to poll as more disapproving of homosexuality and frankly it is one of the big reasons Pete has a hard time with the AA vote....especially the southern AA vote.

If we are going to call out bigotry lets call it all out.

plus they are increasingly showing support for trump due to the booming economy and jobs. for AA and Hispanics and all. it's really a "perfect storm" happening here

 

[unIowa]

Our Yang group had former Gary Johnson voters, former Trump voters, former Hillary voters, and completely new voters. It had Caucasians and Hispanics. It was ideologically and socio-economically diverse (except for being a sausage party). It was like the physcial embodiment of the people Democrats need to start speaking to, rather than speaking at.

Sadly he is toast and outside a top 3 finish in NH I think he is done pretty quickly.

 

[Nole Lou]

Oh I think that is definitely the case. But unlike the GOP, the Dems are much less likely to "purge" people that don't toe the line. Look at the big fissure among Dems regarding the DNC - I think many Democrats loathe it as much or more than Republicans do! You rarely see that kind of fracture within the GOP, and when fractures do start showing, they are quickly filled.

Hmm...I don't know about that. Do you know how many pro-life Democrats there were 25 years ago? The Democrats can purge with the best of them.

I think there have been plenty of fractures in the Republican party in the last several decades. I definitely agree with you that the GOP has gotten pretty good (probably because they've dealt with it 2-3 times now) and pivoting as necessary to make the politics of it work. I have to say, this is pretty much the first time around for Democrats going through this kind of internal chaos in the 40 years or so I've been watching so yeah it's not surprising that they're flailing a bit.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Sadly he is toast and outside a top 3 finish in NH I think he is done pretty quickly.

Yep, and "sadly" is right. He would be a perfect VP pick for Sanders if Bernie wins the nomination.

 

[ctghawk]

Carville's a really smart dude, but it's too late now. It might have been different if he had been in charge instead of Tom Perez.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That's because he's spending all his money on Facebook ads directed at your parents and other crap that worked in 2016. He learned a lot from the Russians.

Well he's wasting his money on my parents. My dad thinks he's an idiot and my mom thinks he's just about the worst human being to ever occupy the WH in her life. They are both right on that.

However my in-laws and others that I know have bought into him hook, line and sinker.

 

[Nole Lou]

Don't fool yourself, African Americans have consistently shown to poll as more disapproving of homosexuality and frankly it is one of the big reasons Pete has a hard time with the AA vote....especially the southern AA vote.

If we are going to call out bigotry lets call it all out.

African Americans poll pretty moderate to conservative on a lot of things, and still vote nearly 90% Democrat. There was no reason to assume that his homosexuality had to be a disqualifying thing for AAs. Especially because as a moderate (well, by 2019 standards) he was actually pretty well positioned for African American voters, who tend to like their Democrats moderate and haven't exactly flocked to line up between the white ivory tower intellectual socialists in the past.

I really think the attacks on Pete's African American appeal were disingenuous, as they started before anyone even know who he was. I suspect they came out of Biden or Booker's camp. I think they pretty much spoke it into existence. I do think it is a concern now, but I'm not so sure it had to be.

 

[gohawks50]

Another factor that I think we forget is how prior to the 2016 election everyone expected Hillary to win. The morning of the election the news shows sounded like Hillary might as well start picking out the curtains for the White House. I wonder how many Democrats who weren't that excited about Clinton decided to stay home because their vote wouldn't be needed to stop Trump. Our eyes are open now and anyone who doesn't want to see Trump get another 4 years will exercise their right to vote no matter what the polls say.

 

[SalAunese]

Maybe they should stop focusing on Trump and spend more time spreading a different message. One that may resonate with voters. All they’ve manage to do is to put a spotlight on the widening gulf between different groups of Americans.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Hmm...I don't know about that. Do you know how many pro-life Democrats there were 25 years ago? The Democrats can purge with the best of them.

I think there have been plenty of fractures in the Republican party in the last several decades. I definitely agree with you that the GOP has gotten pretty good (probably because they've dealt with it 2-3 times now) and pivoting as necessary to make the politics of it work. I have to say, this is pretty much the first time around for Democrats going through this kind of internal chaos in the 40 years or so I've been watching so yeah it's not surprising that they're flailing a bit.

I wonder how much of it has been purging and how much of it has been the electorate becoming more and more ideological.

The idea was in the past that in a conservative area a good moderate democrat candidate had a chance to win. In a liberal area a moderate Republican candidate had a chance to win. And you can name off a lot of names in the past that fit. Now it feels like even the moderates are written off for having the wrong party label.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Another factor that I think we forget is how prior to the 2016 election everyone expected Hillary to win. The morning of the election the news shows sounded like Hillary might as well start picking out the curtains for the White House. I wonder how many Democrats who weren't that excited about Clinton decided to stay home because their vote wouldn't be needed to stop Trump. Our eyes are open now and anyone who doesn't want to see Trump get another 4 years will exercise their right to vote no matter what the polls say.

I'm thinking this might be a big part of it. Her campaign lacked enthusiasm as it was then you add in the fact that most people thought Trump couldn't win. It adds up to people thinking about going to the polls and thinking "IDK that's a really long line". And this is probably more true in cities where her base is anyway.

 

[Nole Lou]

I wonder how much of it has been purging and how much of it has been the electorate becoming more and more ideological.

The idea was in the past that in a conservative area a good moderate democrat candidate had a chance to win. In a liberal area a moderate Republican candidate had a chance to win. And you can name off a lot of names in the past that fit. Now it feels like even the moderates are written off for having the wrong party label.

Well, in the case of pro-life, it's been a pretty blatant purge. There hasn't been any substantial shift if the pro-life/pro-choice identification of the electorate in the last 20 years, nor in examples of electability, that would explain pro-life among democrats going from like 25-30% to 0.00 percent. That's definitely been an ideological purge.

I don't know about the second part. Maybe, but it's really tough to tell as both sides have gerrymandered the shit out of districts until there's only a relative handful of competitive districts.

On one hand, I think it's still the case that a moderate Republican can win Democrat-leaning states, and vice-versa. But on the other hand I do agree with you...for example, it's getting really hard to imagine a Republican winning state-wide office in California or NY for example. Moderate republicans could win in those state fairly recently, and even conservatives could win in those states 30 years ago.

I don't know if that's relevant to the Democratic purge of pro-life candidates though...if anything, the rise of non-competitive districts would make it MORE possible for a Democrat to be pro-life and still be safe against republicans in the general. The danger is being primaried over it by their own party, which makes it a purge.

 

[Tenacious E]

James Carville

I want to give you an example of the problem here. A few weeks ago Binyamin Appelbaum, an economics writer for the New York Times, posted a snarky tweet about how LSU cancelled classes for the National Championship game. And then he said, do the “Warren/Sanders free public college proposals include LSU, or would it only apply to actual schools?”

You know how ****ing patronizing that is to people in the South or in the middle of the country? First, LSU has an unusually high graduation rate, but that’s not the point. It’s the goddamn smugness. This is from a guy who lives in New York and serves on the Times editorial board and there’s not a single person he knows that doesn’t pat him on the back for that kind of tweet. He’s so ****ing smart.

Appelbaum doesn’t speak for the Democratic Party, but he does represent the urbanist mindset. We can’t win the Senate by looking down at people. The Democratic Party has to drive a narrative that doesn’t give off vapors that we’re smarter than everyone or culturally arrogant.

Sean Illing
A lot of Democratic candidates don’t talk like that. Warren doesn’t talk like that. Sanders doesn’t talk like that. Buttigieg doesn’t talk like that. Cory Booker never talked like that.

James Carville
Warren knows her stuff, and I’m particularly hard on her, because she was the star pupil, the one who was smart, had a good story. But I think she gets distracted and loses her core anti-corruption message, which resonates. With a lot of these candidates, their consultants are telling them, “If you doubt it, just go left. We got to get the nomination.”

And then Biden gets in and blocks out good candidates like Cory Booker or Michael Bennet or Steve Bullock by occupying this mainstream lane. There just isn’t enough oxygen and they couldn’t get any traction. But these are serious people, professional people, and they could’ve delivered a winning message.

Sean Illing
Are you confident that any of the remaining candidates can beat Trump?

James Carville
I don’t know, I just don’t know. I’m hoping that someone gets knocked off their horse on the road to Damascus.

Sean Illing
Buttigieg seems to model the sort of candidate you think can win.

James Carville
Mayor Pete has to demonstrate over the course of a campaign that he can excite and motivate arguably the most important constituents in the Democratic Party: African Americans. These voters are a hell of a lot more important than a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter.

Sean Illing
I take all your points about power and the Senate and the need to be a majoritarian party. I just wonder where the limits are, especially in this media ecosystem where even the best Democratic messaging gets deformed and bastardized in right-wing media and thus never reaches the people Democrats need to reach, or at least doesn’t reach enough of them.

James Carville
I think the other side wants us to think there are no swing voters, that we’re doomed and it doesn’t even matter if you have a message because you can’t reach anyone. I think that’s bullshit. I think that’s a wholly incorrect view of American politics. But look, if no one’s persuadable, then let’s just have the revolution.

Falling into despair won’t help anyone, though. I mean, you can curse the darkness or you can light a candle. I’m getting a ****ing welding torch. Okay?

talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. They’re talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking. You’ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesn’t matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments — talking about that is not how you win a national election. It’s not how you become a majoritarian party.

For ****’s sake, we’ve got Trump at Davos talking about cutting Medicare and no one in the party has the sense to plaster a picture of him up there sucking up to the global elites, talking about cutting taxes for them while he’s talking about cutting Medicare back home. Jesus, this is so obvious and so easy and I don’t see any of the candidates taking advantage of it.

The Republicans have destroyed their party and turned it into a personality cult, but if anyone thinks they can’t win, they’re out of their damn minds.

Sean Illing
I wouldn’t endorse everything every Democrat is doing or saying, but are they really destroying the party? What does that even mean?

James Carville
Look, Bernie Sanders isn’t a Democrat. He’s never been a Democrat. He’s an ideologue. And I’ve been clear about this: If Bernie is the nominee, I’ll vote for him. No question. I’ll take an ideological fanatic over a career criminal any day. But he’s not a Democrat.

Awesome stuff.

 

[runkpanole]

nobody goes on facebook but the left

Trust me, plenty of whackos from all sides go on Facebook.

 

[markfromj]

"The fate of the world depends on the Democrats getting their shit together and winning in November": Give me a break, James.

 

[SalAunese]

Trust me, plenty of whackos from all sides go on Facebook.

Very true. Twitter might be more virulent but a lot of older folks still use Facebook

 

[eightno2002]

nobody goes on facebook but the left

what? All the tattered American flags and crying bald eagles on my feed would dispute that.

 

[hawkifann]

Our Yang group had former Gary Johnson voters, former Trump voters, former Hillary voters, and completely new voters. It had Caucasians and Hispanics. It was ideologically and socio-economically diverse (except for being a sausage party). It was like the physcial embodiment of the people Democrats need to start speaking to, rather than speaking at.

Amen. He's a different type and I'm a fan.