Dems can do better than "too big to fail" campaigns

[nashville_brook]

https://thefloridasqueeze.wordpress.com/?p=11570&preview=true

Two months ago the New York Times published an article that gave the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign the “too big to fail” tagline. Titled “Democrats See No Choice but Hillary Clinton in 2016,” the piece revealed that the national Democratic party takes the attitude she’s an incumbent and they have no Plan B to a Hillary nomination. The party is so invested, even 18 months out, that should she run into trouble, they’d have no idea which way to turn.

The problem with this template, which has also been applied to the Patrick Murphy Senate campaign, is it ignores everything we know about how politics works now. As Democrats we like to see ourselves as the smart kids in the class — the ones who believe in climate science and evolution, but we could use some remedial sociology.

The common wisdom has changed since the last Clinton administration. First off, the swing voter is a myth. To win we have to mobilize voters who stay home. That’s the base and left-leaning voter. They’re people who’re motivated to vote because they really believe reform is possible. They want real change. They’re the people who didn’t vote in 2014 because the party eschewed Democratic values, putting an embargo on immigration reform, for example. These are people who voted for Nader or simply didn’t vote for Gore because they had Clinton-fatigue. They want to believe.

When MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki covered the NYT’s article they illustrated their segment with polling. This slide should be particularly troubling for anyone in the Clinton or Patrick Murphy campaigns right now. It shows that voters have a much stronger preference for candidates who promise to bring change, than for those who have experience.



This number has ticked up since 2008, so apparently there’s some “hope and change” that’s been left on the table. This would help explain how Bernie Sanders got 200,000 volunteers, raised $3 million dollars and was able to hire Obama’s entire digital team all in less than a week from announcing. Today he announced a bill to break up too big to fail banks, saying if they’re too big to fail, they’re too big to exist. If only our party understood this.

The next slide drives the point home. Both frontrunners are seen by voters as “representing the past.” On this, Jeb beats Hillary by 9 points, which might explain why we’re hearing a lot less about him lately and a lot more about “young Koch firebrands” like Marco Rubio and Scott Walker. If they put up someone who promises “change” — no matter how radical or shitty — that person could win in a race against a candidate perceived as representing the past.





Our donors have funded us into a corner. The party could let the funding and endorsements flow after the primaries. Let the people decide if Hillary represents change or not. But instead they’ve hedged all their bets in order to drive other candidates from the field. It’s the height of bad faith.

The idea of Democrats pushing “too big to fail” campaigns triggers the need for new measures of wrong-headedness. The most significant defining political themes of our time are the Great Recession, the bailout, and Occupy. There’s no underestimating the impact this has had our collective psyche. Imagine the zeitgeist is an ocean that’s composed of contempt for everything that’s “too big to fail.” We’ve only lived through it, we haven’t recovered from it.

When we say we’d like the candidate who brings change, that’s not an aesthetic preference. We’re not being trendy or hip. We really fucking need change at this point. Look at Baltimore. Hell, look at Orlando, we’re among the worst in the country for income mobility for poor children. Regular folks face crushing defeat every day in the form of bad policy that neoliberals have pre-negotiated with business interests. We can’t afford any “bipartisan negotiations” on Social Security, for instance, which has been on the table for both Patrick Murphy and Hillary Clinton. We can’t afford any of the politics of the past where the middle class gets soaked while the 1% gets bailed out.

more at link --> https://thefloridasqueeze.wordpress.com/?p=11570&preview=true

[WillyT]

1. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[nashville_brook]

6. thank YOU willy T :)

[DirkGently]

2. "We're the richest and best connected."

Probably not the most the Democratic basis for favoring one candidate over another -- that's really not Team Democrat's best argument.

[nashville_brook]

3. every day it seems Sanders announces another policy for the 99%

and the DNC announces how they intend to tilt the field for Hillary.

if she's such a strong candidate why does she need so much preferential treatment?

[DirkGently]

4. If nothing else, it's far too early to have

anointed one person.

[nashville_brook]

5. and yet they've done that in many races

not just the presidential.

[DirkGently]

7. Noticed that. What's THAT about?

The impact of unlimited money, maybe?

Much easier lining up a few giant donors than lots of little ones.

Of course, that strategy necessitates favoring exactly the interests Dems are supposed to stand against.

[nashville_brook]

8. our electeds, then, are beholden to business interests instead of us

and, it seems as if we don't even get the chance to put up a candidate for the people..not even for shits and giggles. the party's attitude is "this is our show," back off plebes.

[DirkGently]

17. It's the corporate dynamic

The executives always prefer not to let the shareholders, or even the board of directors, have input on how things are run.

An aristocratic attitude, and the antithesis of democracy.

[BrotherIvan]

9. Very much agree

Bernie is bringing out a lot of people who stayed home. He is firing up the base that went for Obama in 2008. He just needs to get the structure together to keep the enthusiasm and momentum going and to get those people to vote in the primaries. He may be the oldest candidate, be he sounds like a fresh spring breeze.

[TheKentuckian]

10. I think they prefer as small and conservative an electorate as possible without it going regressive

They don't want to be put under pressure to get their maws out of the pig trough.

[nashville_brook]

11. i think they're cutting this too close to the bone

thank god bernie got in

[BrotherIvan]

16. You're right, it's so obvious

Obama turning around and giving OFA the finger didn't help either.

[DirkGently]

19. It's the wrong approach for Democrats -- especially now.

Everyone seems to get that we're poised for a heavy dose of populism -- they've all picked up at least part of Warren's points about the rampaging financial class.

But when it comes down to it, a lot of operatives and insiders are still relying on cozy relationships with the usual empowered interests. After Citizens' United, the assumption has been reinforced that huge money -- and thus the same monied interests -- are the way all the battles will be won from hear on out.

I don't think that's as true as people assume. But part of the problem is there is entire industry built around that huge money. Operatives and advisors and strategists, all making a great living off of the bloated, endless campaign cycle.

But Sheldon Adelson is not going to pick the next President. Neither are the Koch Brothers.

And neither are the equal opportunity or the conditional Dem-friendly financial giants like Goldman Sachs.

Not only do we not need them, but they're not going to be decisive. Turnout's going to be decisive, and ad buys don't drive turnout. Ideas do.

Whether Dems run Hillary or Bernie or someone else, a few kind words about the middle class and a tsunami of dark money aren't going to cut it. That's a formula Republicans can maybe win with, but not Dems.

[nashville_brook]

12. morning kickee

[99Forever]

13. K&R

[nashville_brook]

14. ..

[L0oniX]

15. “too big to fail” campaign. Wow that says it all. The Hillary Wall Street connection.

We can’t afford any “bipartisan negotiations” on Social Security, for instance, which has been on the table for both Patrick Murphy and Hillary Clinton.

Ouch!

[nashville_brook]

18. let's say something improper does emerge from fundraising + state dept duties

the party has no choice but charge in and support her regardless of the facts. that puts us in a terrible situation. i'm not saying she DID do anything improper with the clinton foundation and the state dept and the emails -- but if someone were to start making a *convincing* case for that. we'd be screwed.