2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPrimaries and Elections are when parties define themselves. The current "fight" is a good thing.
A fundamental element of our system is that political parties have to periodically redefine themselves in elections. Often it means they simply reinforce their established identity and role. But this has not been a typical year. Both parties have been forced to wrestle with fundamental questions about what they are and who they will represent, institutionally.
That is currently happening in the GOP. The conventional wisdom was that Jeb Bush (or some other old familiar) would buy the nomination with some token opposition from a Tea Party type. Then along came Trump, who totally upended the table.
For better and worse, Trump has thus shaken up the GOP. More accurately, the forces Trump unleashed and is channeling has brought the underlying tensions within the GOP to the fore.
The Fat Cat Establishment suddenly find themselves on the outside. Having to accommodate a disreputable disruptor who they have disparaged and dismissed. They also have to deal with a basic question. Is he a Populist Opponent of the elite corporate Wall St power structure or is he a wolf in sheeps clothing?
The hardcore Social Right Wing and the Tea Party Wing of the GOP are in an odd position. Trump has adopted many of their positions -- but has he really? Does Trump really believe those Bible thumping homilies he inserts into his speeches or is he still the Boobs and Butts Trump who made part of his fortune with beauty pageants and made his reputation as a womanizer before running for president? Is he an economic populist who will represent workers on issues like Trade, or will he perpetuate the Corporate Status Quo in the long run?
In a "chicken and egg" situation, how it shakes out will ultimately depend on how Trump does in November. And that will depend on how the GOP lines up between now and then. Whatever the case, however, it has forced the GOP to figure out what it is and who it truly will represent.
The Democratic Party has faced a similar identity crisis. The conventional wisdom was that the Clintons (TM) would buy the nomination with perhaps some token opposition from "The Left." Then along came Bernie.
Clinton Inc.(TM) is smarter than the Bushes. They started purchasing the nomination and lining up favors earlier than the Bushes, and learned from their mistakes of 2008. So therefore when those pesky opponents came along, they had the narrative already in place that Clinton Corp. (TM) was the most electable presumptive nominee, regardless of who else might come in to challenge them. And it looks like they may have succeeded with their marketing and branding.
But there has been a hitch. Rather than staying on the margins as a nice little symbolic opponent, Sanders became a channel for the discontent among many rank and file Democrats, as well as attracting new voters among young people and alienated independents.
Sanders generated a surge of enthusiasm as a candidate and Instead of getting 10 or 15 percent of the "ultra liberal fringe" vote,he has gotten somewhere around 40 percent. And, while he did not win a large enough share of the Clinton defacto voters, many of them also express support for Sanders positions and desire for reform and change from the stale Democratic status quo.
Sanders could still pull off an upset. But whether or not he does, he has forced the Democratic Party -- as an institution and among individuals -- to decide who it is going to represent and what it is going to stand for.
Will it circle the wagons and continue to be a party of Political Gentrification, with nice liberal social policies while allowing Big Bidness and Wall St. and the Elites to suppress Liberal and Progressive Reform on issues of Wealth and Power? Or will it open up the door of actual power to become a true Liberal/Progressive Party that actually represents the majority?
That is the real stakes in this election -- regardless of who wins the Primary, and the General.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
w4rma
(31,700 posts)1494 / (1768 + 1494) *100
Armstead
(47,803 posts)To be honest, my gut feeling (and what a number of personal acquaintences express) is that probably at least 65 percent of Democrats overall would prefer that the party reflect Sanders goals and message, even if they voted for and support Clinton for "pragmatic" reasons or because she is a woman.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)voters weren't discriminated against, in the Democratic primary.
For one thing, Hillary is very unclear about her policies. She obfuscates so that she can triangulate.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)There is no barrier to anyone joining.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)but don't complain when there are limitations on those who choose to remain outside.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)You copy your idol well.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)I've got time, bro.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
Spacedog1973
(221 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And some of us are too old to be "bros"
Spacedog1973
(221 posts)Its purely heterosexual, so don't worry. And age truly is but a number. You'll be (or not) surprised at the age of many online trolls/bros. You two should bro-hug and make up. Far too much seriousness here.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Next time, don't fabricate things about new members not being welcomed.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)into actual change.
And whether the whole policy debate will be placed in the rear view mirror in the "pivot" to the General Election....And whether it will once again be buried by the Clintons/DLC Corporate faction in governance.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)There's a lot of hair pulling and teeth gnashing on both sides over it, but it's clear to me where things are headed. Hillary will be the next president, but she'll have to move left to remain relevant. And the next Democratic candidate after her will be more progressive.