Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cprise

(8,445 posts)
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 02:58 PM Apr 2016

Two Despised Frontrunners, Two Dying Parties. How Did We Get Here?

Despite the unkillable Whack-a-Mole candidacy of Sanders — who, as I argued this week, has channeled an insurgent and quasi-revolutionary class-consciousness that other politicians didn’t even know existed — we are likely to end up with a general-election campaign between the two least popular major-party nominees in political history. OK, I suppose we can’t know that for sure: We don’t have polling data to consult from the infamous election of 1828, when Andrew Jackson accused President John Quincy Adams of procuring hookers for the Russian czar and running a gambling den in the White House. (Adams accused Jackson of being a bigamist and an adulterer, and also hinted that he might be partly black, despite his overtly racist views.)

snip

Of course polling data is not sacrosanct, and ambiguous perceptions like “favorable” and “unfavorable” tend to wobble around even more than voter preference. But by any standard the CBS/New York Times poll published three weeks ago was remarkable. It sort of blew through the news cycle and then out again, like an indigestible fast-food meal: more weird and crazy numbers in a weird and crazy year. But just take a whiff, and tell me it doesn’t smell like democracy dying on the vine. Donald Trump was viewed favorably by just 24 percent of the voters surveyed, and unfavorably by 57 percent, making him by far the least-liked major-party frontrunner since CBS began asking this question in 1984.

Who’s in second place, in this historic sweepstakes of hate? Hillary Clinton, in the same poll: She was viewed favorably by 31 percent and unfavorably by a mere 52 percent. I see you in the back of the room waving your slide rules, eager-beaver Democrats. And yes, you’re right: Every national survey so far, including that one, shows Clinton beating Trump easily. Math was never my strong suit, but 31 percent is more than 24 percent, as I understand it. But are you guys really going to act like that’s a cause for high-fives and #WeGotThis retweets and celebratory glasses of Sonoma Chardonnay? If that’s a silver lining, it’s made out of aluminum foil from the bottom of the cat box. We’ve got the second least-popular candidate ever — that’s what time it is! Winner-winner chicken dinner!

Just to review, those Trump and Clinton numbers are the two highest unfavorable ratings in the 32-year history of the CBS poll, and also the two largest “negative net ratings,” meaning the difference between the positive and negative numbers. The only previous candidate to come close was Bill Clinton in March of 1992, when he was surrounded by allegations of multiple extramarital affairs. (He came back from that minus-17 nadir to win the election, of course, but even at his low point his negatives were nowhere near as high as Trump’s or Hillary Clinton’s are now.) In the previous eight presidential cycles, there has never been a poll showing both major-party candidates with negative net favorability ratings, let alone double-digit ones.

The nationwide Clinton-Trump hate-fest can be viewed as the continuation or culmination of a long-term downward trend that is easy to summarize: Americans don’t much like either political party or the people they nominate. There are peaks and valleys within that downward arc, to be sure, and significant deviations from the mean: Sometimes people dislike one party considerably more than the other (right now the Republicans are in the doghouse) and occasionally an individual candidate breaks through the antipathy, like Ronald Reagan in 1980 or Barack Obama in 2008. But the data suggests an awful lot of blah: At this point in 2004, John Kerry’s numbers were a smidgen negative and George W. Bush’s a smidgen positive; in the spring of 2012, Mitt Romney stood at minus-7 while Obama’s up-down balance was dead even.

I can only conclude that many people who are embedded within the two-party system glance at that kind of data and shrug it off as a meaningless aberration, because it doesn’t conform to their understanding of the world. They carry on pretending they haven’t noticed the gorilla in the room of American politics, which is that their parties are visibly crumbling beneath them. (To be fair, Republicans are having a tough time ignoring that this year.) The proportion of American adults who identify as either Republicans or Democrats is at or near all-time lows. Much of this seems paradoxical: Democrats hold roughly the same slim edge over Republicans that they’ve held in opinion polling for decades, yet according to this year’s Gallup poll, Democratic identification fell below 30 percent for the first time ever. (Another reason to cancel those “Emerging Democratic Majority” parties.)

more
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/two-despised-frontrunners-two-dying-parties-and-deeply-broken-system-how-did-we-get

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
1. I think the parties are not just dying...
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 03:00 PM
Apr 2016

...they have committed suicide.

After 200 years of the Republic, they forgot how it was created. It wasn't pretty. And if they don't want to see that happen again, they ought to take a look at what 99% of the citizens need. The 99% will not be patient forever.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
7. When people confront Hillary with gross, she just laughs at them.
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 03:34 PM
Apr 2016

At 20min 14sec. Its creepy.

The point Abby makes about Clinton joining Goldwater's campaign on the heels of the Civil Rights movement is an interesting one. She's part of a class who saw government as the problem because it could no longer place whites above everyone else ...at least, on paper. We're talking about a politician who suddenly claims to be progressive, but didn't square with gay rights until the year 2013 as she was planning her run for office. She seems more comfortable with policies that denote some people as second-class citizens.

onecaliberal

(32,863 posts)
4. We let the monied interests take over everything, now they have awakened a sleeping giant.
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 03:22 PM
Apr 2016

people are mad as hell, and they aren't going to fucking take it any more.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
5. I think it's related to how much better sorted the parties are
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 03:32 PM
Apr 2016

There are no more politicians who vote more with the other party. The last time I checked the lowest was a 60/40 split and the overwhelming majority were at least 70/30.

Similarly voters, particularly the most politically engaged are more polarized than ever. Voting isn't seen as just a political act, it's a moral imperative and anybody else is "unamerican". But because these are the most politically active, the parties (particularly Republicans) are pulled further from the center because we no longer have a single bell curve of political preferences, it's instead a two humped curve around each party's base. Think how many people here say they can't listen/watch entertainment from conservatives or how many people say everybody I know is voting for Clinton or Sanders.

I think part of it is how/where we get our news. It's no longer one of three evening news shows or the local paper. It's sources like Limbaugh or Fox News or usuncut.com or other sources which have an overt bias, but believed unquestioningly.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
8. There may be a real difference between Hillary and the Republicans TODAY
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 03:52 PM
Apr 2016

but I see very, very little difference between Hillary and a politician from the Bush II administration. Dick Cheney even supported gay marriage before she did. And she subscribes to his view on international relations and finance. The Bushs and even Trump are among the Clintons closest friends.

So the political sphere has continued to shift right while the populace has shifted left. Democrats are still moored to their second-fiddle performance of Reaganism. They became enablers of people who got drunk on their own ideology, hence today's "hangover Republicans".

If Sanders' mission is to shift Hillary to the left, then its mostly failed. She is known to send her top campaign manager to heads of state informing them that she'll reverse position on an issue as soon as she gets in office. And there are very few concessions on which she has to flip back anyway.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
6. As a Bernie supporter myself,
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 03:34 PM
Apr 2016

Hillary's negatives are not simply dissatisfaction with the establishment parties. The GOP has demonized her and her husband for a long long time, and its that very demonization, based on a whole lot of horse shit, that has truly made her supporters dig in their heels, and stand united against any attack on her, from the right or left.

The sad part is that its all just part of the kabuki theater. Its the excuse democrats have used for ages as to why they can't get good legislation passed, and so, won't even propose it, or why they have to do disappointing things like sponsor anti-flag burning laws, and just generally play to the middle right. I have, at least on occasion bought into this rationality, but in a year that the GOP can't offer up a credible national candidate, this would be the time to make a clean, populist break. Turns out, corroborating my worst fears, the DNC isn't really working for us. But it doesn't matter, because its team D versus team R, and divide and conquer is in full effect.

Still, its really important to make a distinction between Republicans, who tend to dislike Hillary because they were told she's the Devil, and liberals, who are having a hard time getting a read on what she stands for.

cprise

(8,445 posts)
9. I can agree with that, at least when it comes to older voters
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 05:08 PM
Apr 2016

But you have to look at why a person like Rush Limbaugh is becoming unpopular... He is a Republican partisan and drives the kabuki theater, which was largely about making the Clintons follow through on the conservative deals they paid lip service to. It was also about resentment that the other team was getting credit for accomplishing some policy.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
10. much of it is that she's trained her voters to see any criticism as a GOP smear campaign
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:23 PM
Apr 2016

basically they subscribe to the "horseshoe theory," where the RW and LW are basically similar--intolerant, zealous, extremist; so anything you do to them builds up democracy and the Dems' left wing will merrily carry water for the hard right because they don't understand how the world works

Vanity Fair had a great article on how her woundedness leads her to both retreat and lash out, a combination that feeds itself
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/hillary-clinton-inside-circle-huma-abedin

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Two Despised Frontrunners...