3 ms·
These are often called "champagne liberals" or even "champagne socialists" and is very much true. I saw this in the 2016 election. What Demorats failed to unde
by jmyeet 4y ago
These are often called "champagne liberals" or even "champagne socialists" and is very much true.
I saw this in the 2016 election. What Demorats failed to understand was the groundswell against the status quo. This is why Trump won and Hilary lost. Hilary was very much a vote for the status quo and an increasingly large number of people are angry about the status quo. To be clear, Trump didn't deliver on any of his promises (other than on judges) but it explained a lot of his support, particularly in the Rust Belt. It's also why Bernie Sanders nearly clinched the nomination.
Hilary apologists like to blame her loss on any number of things (eg Bernie spoilers, Russia) but ignore the compltely obvious and actual reason: she was a terrible candidate. No one made her choose an anti-choice running mate. No one made her no campaign in Wisconsin.
I remember having a conversation with someone who is liberal about the estate tax. He opposed Bernie because Bernie wanted to lower the estate tax from $10 million. Huh? Clearly that affected him and this is of course an encdote but I found in illuminating as an example of how much momentum for Hilary was about protecting the status quo.
- krapp 4y ago> What Demorats failed to understand was the groundswell against the status quo. This is why Trump won and Hilary lost. Hilary was very much a vote for the status quo and an increasingly large number of people are angry about the status quo. I mean, Trump won with several million fewer votes than Clinton. The common narrative around Hillary Clinton and the Democrats is, as you mention, the failure to tap into an anti-establishment zeitgeist that Trump did more successfully. But the numbers alone (apart from electoral votes, obviously) show the Democrats were at least as successful, if not technically more successful, than Trump at messaging. The Democrats' failure was one of tactics, not strategy.
- nradov 4y agoIt's kind of meaningless to look at popular vote numbers because presidential campaigns are explicitly planned to maximize electoral college votes. Hypothetically, if we picked presidents by popular vote then campaigns would look completely different. For example, there would be a much greater effort to get out the vote in states like Oklahoma and Maryland, which are currently non-competitive. In the 2016 race, the Clinton campaign spent about twice as much per popular vote received than the Trump campaign. So by that metric, Democrat messaging wasn't successful.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> presidential campaigns are explicitly planned to maximize electoral college votes. Well, no, they have numerous objectives, many of which are in tension. In rough order of priority for a typical Presidential general election campaign, though there is considerable variation from campaign to campaign: (1) Maximizing the probability of at least 270 EC votes (this can be quite different, and conflict with, maximizing the expected total number of EC votes), because that’s how you win, (2) Maximizing downballot coattails, because that’s how you get people in position to pass your agenda into place, and get the people that are in that position to see you as important to their position, (3) Maximizing EC and Popular vote totals, both of which are important to the perception of a mandate, which helps your agenda.
- ipaddr 4y agoHaving more votes does not make Hillary's run successful. Getting millions of extra votes in California but losing in other parts of the country was a poor tradeoff and the opposite of a good campaign. She gerrymandered her own voter base. Poor strategy killed her campaign. Poor tactics doubled down her poor strategy. Poor decisions (remember when she decided to self host email), poor judgement when in power followed her entire public life. Look for a demoralizing 2024 run if Biden doesn't run or crown someone.