Series of two articles on 4 possible ways the Trump presidency may play out and how it would look if he is the last gasp of the Reagan regime. It's good news for 2020 Democrats, but it will be a very bumpy ride in the meantime.
How will we know whether Trump is a disjunctive president or is a reconstructive president who is about to establish a new Trumpian regime? We really won't know for some time. But the central difference is that in reconstructive presidencies, the new leader unites an energized party around a common set of values, interests, and agendas that overwhelms the political opposition. In a disjunctive presidency, the new leader can't keep his party's coalition together and so it is every person for him or herself. This lack of unity allows the opposition party to grow stronger and enables the opposition to seize the political agenda in the next election. (Again, think of the period between 1976 and 1980, or between 1824 and 1828)
Basically, the partys leading funders and operatives decided that they didnt have to pander to white people living outside of cities anymore, because with each passing year their voters were cementing a new majority and redrawing the electoral map. Every election now was going to be a turnout election; get the people who already agree with you to the polls, and you dont have to worry very much about persuading anyone else...
...And so this was Hillarys driving theory of the race. Her campaign was effectively nothing but a giant turnout operation, crunching data on reliable Democratic voters while simultaneously keeping the candidate herself from saying anything remotely interesting. She ran on a database, rather than on an argument; the more Trump alienated and motivated her base, the less she felt the need to make any discernible case...
...But the Cult of Demography was built on some very flawed assumptions...
... even if you buy that a Democrat can maximize turnout among minorities and the already converted, it doesnt mean you can simply forget about everyone else. In politics, how well you do among your own constituencies isnt all that matters; theres also the question of just how poorly you do among the groups you cant win.
An analysis by The Hill newspaper found that while Clinton actually performed better than Obama in the most densely populated counties of states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, she trailed him by much larger margins in the all-white rural areas, which sealed her defeat.
Why? Because she never so much as looked in their direction...
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It's an enduring myth in American politics, we always want outsiders to come in and fix things. Five of the last six presidents have been Washington outsiders when they ran for their first term. The only except was Bush Sr. Obama was a Senator, but he was barely two years into his first term when he announced his candidacy. I think he realized that his best shot was before he got tainted as just another Washington politician. Now in this election, we had the ultimate outsider vs. the ultimate insider. This dynamic worked against Clinton when Trump kept asking, "You've been there for 30 years, why haven't you fixed everything?" Of course it's a stupid question, but Clinton didn't have a good answer.
I edited this post to remove the comment about Bernie, because he isn't really the point. It's about insider vs. outsider.
Hi, I've been lurking here for years, and finally decided to join. I'm very nervous about today and I need a friendly place to post instead of the mixed party swamp I usually post at.
Profile InformationMember since: Tue Nov 8, 2016, 02:02 PM
Number of posts: 12,344
- 2021 (1)
- January (1)
- 2019 (10)
- 2018 (49)
- 2017 (36)
- 2016 (7)