The term “yellow dog Democrats” refers to an old Southern wisecrack about voters who would “vote for a yaller dog if it ran on the Democratic ticket”. It was first applied to Democrats around the turn of the last century (it had previously been applied to Republicans) and was popularized a quarter century later. What I think that Michael Gerson doesn’t appreciate:
One of the lively debates among conservatives over the past several months has been: Is Clinton a strong candidate or a weak one? I have been on the “strong†side. She is knowledgeable, tough, experienced and certainly imaginable as president. She has almost managed the remarkable achievement of clearing the Democratic field through a perception of her own inevitability and a reputation for remembering disloyalty.
But arguments on the “weak†side are getting stronger. Since her video announcement in April, perceptions of Clinton’s character and leadership have worsened — which is not really the purpose of a campaign. Her vulnerability on the populist left — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is supported by a majority of white Democratic liberals — has shifted Clinton’s candidacy decisively to the left. And the candidate looks as comfortable in this overcorrection as Mitt Romney did in his “severely conservative†phase.
is that most Democrats are yellow dog Democrats who wouldn’t vote for a Republican because they’re convinced that Republicans are evil. They’re abetted in that belief by a compliant press and undisciplined Republican candidates always ready to produce a sound bite to confirm the belief and Democrats are just shy of an outright electoral college majority.
That’s Hillary Clinton’s greatest strength as a candidate but it’s a strength that any Democratic presidential candidates will possess.
Which brings us to another expression. Hillary Clinton’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep, somewhat like the candidate herself. The question isn’t whether Democrats will vote “Hillary Clinton” but whether they’ll turn out in sufficient numbers to push her over the line in the few “swing states” they need to carry to make her president in November 2016.
Drip, drip, drip.
Hearing more and more crowing from Dems that massive immigration will finally turn both Florida and Virginia solid blue by the November 2016. They also seem exceptionally excited that all the PRs, Haitians and Jamaicans are going to bring the styles of government that worked so well in their home countries to Florida. Woo-fucking-hoo.
Increasingly, though, I think something massive is going to break between now and 2020. The Trump Surge is interesting, because he’s doing it on the strength of two things: first, stating an opinion that is popular with everyone but the press, the politicians, rich people, and those looking for cheap mail order brides from the Third World; and second, by not backing down no matter what he says. It doesn’t matter that Trump was on the opposite side of the issue making him popular within my daughter’s short lifetime (she’s five), or that he’s manifestly a horse’s ass. Bernie Sanders isn’t having quite as large an impact, which is primarily because Dems are sheep, and it takes a lot for them to start to change their minds. (A a Magic Negro has a lot more appeal than an old Jew.)
I’ll add to this that I’m meeting fewer and fewer people of any political bent that believe that votes, either theirs individually or millions together, mean a damned thing. They’ll still vote, but they don’t really think it will make a difference.
All of that tells me that the political consensus that has been running the country for the last fifty or so years is about to fall apart.
There are other trends that point to dissolution and chaos as well. I’m not going to bother pointing to them because what’s the point?
“Hearing more and more crowing from Dems that massive immigration will finally turn both Florida and Virginia solid blue by the November 2016.”
I’ve heard the same overjoyed comments from the democratic side, in their open-armed, enthusiastic anticipation of transfusing their party membership by flooding the country with immigrants. That’s why our immigration policies seem so illogical, misguided and even damaging, because there’s so little consideration given to creating policies that are both fair and reasonable to those coming here as well as to those already living here.
Basically, the game of politics is killing this country, which is probably why so many people are grasping a hold of any candidate who they “hear” and then “feel” is empathetic to their own grievances. Consequently, you have two old, white men gaining ground in the two top tier parties, gleaning respectable, and in some cases surprising, presidential poll numbers. One is an earnest but devoted democratic socialist, while the other is a flippant, hard nose business man, who has been all over the map in his recent party affiliations, changing and exchanging conflicting stances on almost every issue of importance — immigration, the economy, rights to life, taxation and so on. It’s actually a comedic, if not ironic, political scenario, if not for the possibility that one of these guys actually might have a chance of becoming POTUS!
It’s actually a comedic, if not ironic, political scenario, if not for the possibility that one of these guys actually might have a chance of becoming POTUS!
Jan, I don’t see where either Sanders or Trump becoming President will be any less tragic than any of the other major candidates out there.
Excuse me, any MORE tragic, of course.
She is a lousy candidate. I still expect her to implode. However, if she is nominated, her best chance to win will be the same reason the Dems won in 2008 and 2012, the GOP candidates.
Steve
Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem is Bill Clinton and herself. Bill Clinton is the Michael Jordan of politics, and he makes it look easy. Like most other people, Hillary thinks it is easy, and she thinks she can do it as well as he can. She cannot, but she will never believe it.
She cannot empathize. She will never feel anybody’s pain. She will never pick up a baby like a mother would. She will never connect with real people over real issues, and the harder she tries will only make her seem creepy.
“She is a lousy candidate. I still expect her to implode.”
That’s a big concession for you to make, Steve. However, it’s turned around by taking a swipe at the contenders in the opposite corner. You’re never one to disappoint.
It’s how the dems occasionally admit to an Obama flaw, which is immediately rationalized by pointing to something GWB did they contend was “evil.” What a game!