i submit that this is *not* an election year of "change"

[unblock]

much has been made of the sanders and trump candidacy, the intensity of support they have attracted, and the one thing they have in common, namely "change".

i submit that it is a misreading of the situation to say that their popularity implies that this is a year of change and therefore a hillary candidacy, being strongly identified with the status quo, is on thin ice as a result.

i think change is coming, but its time is not yet. there are broad demographic changes that are having a bit of an impact already and will reach a tipping point soon, likely when the 2020 census takes effect.

however, that backdrop for potentially dramatic change in the overall political environment doesn't translate to "change" in the sense of replacing the incumbent party with the challenging party, or at least an incumbent party change candidate.

the fact of the matter is that obama handled his presidency quite well in a very trying environment.

- we are not in a recession
- the economy is growing. slowly, but it is growing, certainly better than under shrub
- the obama administration has been impressively scandal-free
- obama has avoiding any real foreign policy blunders
- hillary avoided a truly contested convention
- there's no serious third party candidate (sorry gary johnson)
- there are no domestic riots or major protests
- trump is just not a compelling candidate.

all these factors bode well for the status quo. people might not love the status quo, but this is just not the kind of backdrop that gets people to switch the party in charge. if the economy were in the crapper, sure, we'd have a problem.

but all in all, things are improving, and i think the democrats will be rewarded in november for obama's good work.



now, 2020 is another story. we're due for a recession (11-12 years without a recession would be incredible), so hillary's re-election might be a tough battle. but that's getting a bit ahead of things

[kcjohn1]

1. Medium income is still below 2008 figures

Economy has recovered since 2008, but that has being only experienced by privileged few. The vast majority of people are still economic worse off since the great recession.

[unblock]

5. agreed that the limited gains have not been distributed well. but

but poor distribution of gains isn't enough for people to switch the party in control.

in any event, people are doing better under obama than they did under shrub.

shrub was a disaster in pretty much every category.

[kcjohn1]

13. Then what is change environment in your definition?

Lets not argue about GOP and Bush because we all agree they are not the solution.

But if I'm working class person, my plight hasn't changed in 8 years. Things have not gotten better. The average person is exactly where they were 8 years ago prior to crash. That maybe accomplishment given how bad things were during the crash, but people don't have that long of attention span. And honestly they shouldn't.

In terms of change environment, all you have to do is look what is happening in the global political environment. Fringe and extreme candidates are taken over from the establishment. Another point to consider. In 08 in the heart of the crash (Oct) 75% polled people said things were going in the right direction. In Oct '12, 55% said wrong track. Right now 68% say wrong track. It will be interesting where we are in Oct '16 because if that is closer to 75% than 55%, then it will favor Trump.

[unblock]

16. but things are getting better.

unemployment is down considerably. upward wage pressure is only just beginning for most people, but it is beginning.

plus, many have health coverage who didn't before.

as for right track/wrong track, a lot has to do with who gets the blame, and congressional approval is even lower than usual, and that's on the republicans.

we don't have major layoffs like we used to, there's no watergate, there's no hostage crisis, there are no 1968-style riots, trump is no reagan, the economy is not all it could be but it's not a recession and it's better than it had recently been.

[uponit7771]

20. This was true in 2010 - 2012 but not now (link). Its just being repeated now by the M$M for ratings

But there's little truth to the privilege part now

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-low-wage-recovery-is-a-myth/2015/05/20/029f92d2-fe69-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html

[stopbush]

2. Agree 100%. This will be an experience and competency election.

Here's why:

RW pissed a black man elected president = angry tea party = anger meme picked up by the media and repeated ad infinitum = even Ds feel angry = anti-establishment change election.

The so-called anti-establishment election is at heart an anti-black man as president election. And the only people who buy that are the white people who hate black people.

The D convention changed the narrative of this election.

We are in great shape for November.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. I'd like a few changes, but not the kind of crazy shit

That trump wants .... Supreme court KKK members and so on,

I'm completely supporting Hillary.

[uponit7771]

21. +1

[awake]

4. So the year that we get the 1st woman running and we are told that is not a change

But a rich white male Republican is a change?

[unblock]

9. i know, weird.

on my part, i mean "change" almost exclusively in the incumbent party vs. challenging party sense.

but yeah, weird. trump is "change" in the sense that we've had many, many white men as presidents, but one that's an obvious looney-tune overt bigot is a bit out there even by republican standards.

and hillary's historic nomination has been mentioned in the press, though largely as a sort of in-the-moment footnote of history sense.

good point, though, that having a woman as president could be our way to satisfy whatever desire for "change" there actually is out there.

[Rex]

6. The first female POTUS? Are you kidding me?

Another moment in history, just like 2008.

[unblock]

11. yes; very much looking forward to it ;)

[scheming daemons]

7. If it was a "change" year... Obama's approval rating wouldn't be pushing 55%

[stopbush]

8. Bingo!

[unblock]

10. right; and yet the media can't stop talking about the mood for change.

[roamer65]

15. It means we need to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

Thank God we didn't have in the 1930's and 1940's. We needed FDR in 1940 and 1944 more than ever!

[uponit7771]

22. +1

[Cha]

29. Zing!! Obama was the change and Hillary will build on that.

trump's chump "change".

[Doctor Jack]

12. Ive made the same argument

Lets assume that Trump and Sanders represent the "change" vote in this election. Now to be fair, Sanders and Trump are nothing alike and the change they are arguing for is 100% different from each other. But if we lump them togeather to make the change argument as strong as possible, combined they only got about 40% of the vote in the primaries. 60% were for establishment, status quo candidates. Peoples desire for radical change, either positive in sanders case, or negitive when it comes to trump is greatly exaggerated.

Are people ready for a new president? Sure, although i think obama would easily win a 3rd term if that allowed, but most people want only minor, incremental change. They really arent looking to upend the goverment and take it into a radically new direction

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I look at it like this...

The electorate will be 30% or so non white. Clinton will get 85% of them because Trump is just scary.

That means Hil only has to get 35% of everybody else.

[emulatorloo]

18. Well said.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I don't believe I am being Pollyannasish.

PBO won 39% of the white vote and won by 4% nationally.

That's our margin for error.

I suspect Clinton ends up with 38% -41% of the white vote. If she hits the latter number she is going to have an electoral college blowout.

[uponit7771]

23. +1

[emulatorloo]

17. There's nothing more status-quo than a racist predatory capitalist

Thanks for the post.

[betsuni]

19. I agree.

[RobinA]

25. Couldn't Agree More

The "change" being touted is superficial at best. Trump not the establishment? Pullleessseee. He's in real estate for f*ck sake. I believe we are far from change in any real sense. But that could change. Seriously.

[unblock]

28. ha!

[NCTraveler]

26. It is the year of change for Republicans.

The Democratic Party and its base have made it extremely clear that our goal is to continue to build off the success of Obama.

[unblock]

27. republicans are baffled that a black man was elected and re-elected and still

for some reason the country isn't going to punish the democratic party for it.

[Armstead]

30. You are mixing apples and oranges

Obama has done as well as can be expected, and if he were eligible for a third term I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

But that doesn't mean Democrats should behave like everything is hunky dory, and we have just had a few bumps in the road that are now behind us. There are systemic problems that people sense and know and see all around them. Concentrations of wealth and power that have been occurring regardless of which party is in control.

"Change" is not merely the political handoffs between political parties. Nor is "good times" a "recovery" that occurs while things continue to get worse overall for people, and the nature of wealth distribution continues to be obscenely narrow.That's the same shallow thinking that has allowed the GOP to run roughshod for the last 25 years, and which has also contributed to the return of a New Gilded Age.

Plus people are fed up with the gridlock on many issues,which has made people cynical about how the political system and government operate overall. They don't necessarily distinguish between the two.

Trump is scary because he is portraying himself as something different -- which is what many people want, to varying degrees. His version of change is obviously awful -- and likely dictatorial.

The only way to avoid the possibility of getting Trumped this year is to honestly acknowledge and address those things -- and be sincere about wanting to fix them.

[unblock]

32. obviously, the world is vastly more complex than the media portrays it

and yes, "change" is hardly a binary function.

the whole media "change" narrative linking sanders and trump is incredibly simplistic.

sanders is tapping into frustration over how the economy has left many behind but that government needs to be a serious part of the solution. trump is tapping into frustration over advances that women and minorities have made over the years, brought to the fore by eight years of a black president and who knows what his solution really is. he certainly doesn't really care.

that's not much to link them, yet the media has enjoyed playing up that angle.


bill clinton has been very savvy to refer to hillary as a change-maker. she can be the status quo candidate, yet push for the kind of change we need, never mind the obvious change of having a woman in the oval office.

[Cosmocat]

31. It is a "change" year

for POTUS because it is coming off a two term POTUS, and doubling down on that a Democratic POTUS.

Honestly, I had this 100% as an R win about 16 months ago, until the Donald ran for the republican nomination throwing the country a lifeline.

That said, I do agree, IF Hillary wins, it is going to be four years of more republican jackassery, and a likely economic downturn, and reelection is going to be a bear.