I thought that Rahm Emanuel made a terrible mayor for Chicago but that doesn’t bar me from recognizing that he’s one of the savviest political strategists the Democratic Party has. Here’s his advice to the presidential candidates from a piece at Politico:
Every Democrat shares in the conviction that our overriding priority is making Donald Trump a one-term president. Liberal or moderate, we’re united in wanting to win. And after our big victories last November and earlier this month—which saw Democrats victorious not just in safely blue areas, but also in competitive suburban communities and battleground states—there’s no question about how to get that done.
Which is why, for the life of me, I cannot understand why our presidential candidates are failing to heed the lessons from Democrats’ 2018 and 2019 victories.
The Democratic candidates who have prevailed in battleground contests since 2016 didn’t embrace pie-in-the-sky policy ideas or propose a smorgasbord of new entitlements. They didn’t talk constantly about providing a guaranteed basic income. Or promising to make college free. Or eliminating private insurance and replacing it with a government-run health care system. Or giving $250 more each month in Social Security benefits. Or enacting the Green New Deal. Or calling for the immediate and abrupt end of fossil fuels. Or vowing to seize guns from people’s homes.
They also didn’t run on decriminalization of entering the country without authorization or anything else that might be construed as “open borders”. Okay, what should they be doing?
When Whitmer was running for governor, she made “Fix the Damn Roads!†her campaign slogan because that phrase spoke to Michiganders’ general frustration that government simply wasn’t doing its job. She wasn’t offering voters Shangri-La, in large part because she knew they wouldn’t believe any elected official could deliver it. Instead, she offered the public an appreciation that getting the basics done well would exceed most people’s expectations and help improve their lives in practical, tangible ways. By tapping into the prevailing view, Whitmer was able to fortify our party’s Metropolitan Majority—flipping a swing-state gubernatorial seat Republicans had held for eight years.
That’s why our party enjoyed so much success both in 2018 and then again this Tuesday. What’s so odd is that despite the lessons of their success, our candidates are taking positions during this primary campaign that will almost inevitably be liabilities during the general election.
The dissonance is remarkable. Compare what the candidates who won last year and this year’s elections have done to what the presidential candidates are offering ahead of 2020. On health care, successful Democrats didn’t mention Medicare for All; they explained how they would control prescription drug costs and preserve protections for pre-existing conditions. They didn’t offer free college; they spoke about equity and fairness across the educational spectrum, from early childhood to higher ed. They didn’t talk about the Green New Deal so much as they proposed to expand renewable energy and invest in the jobs and growth that come with it. They didn’t offer to guarantee anyone’s income so much as explained how they would attract good jobs that would provide for a middle-class life. They didn’t talk about confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens; they promised to support the background checks that prevent criminals from getting access to weapons.
That isn’t just politically pragmatic. It warms the cockles of my elderly heart. I believe in good, competent government. That’s why I find the claim that too many Democrats are making, that government employees should resist any policies they don’t like because they don’t like the incumbent so damaging. It isn’t conducive to good government.
Sometimes good government means less government; sometimes it means more. It means making workable policy choices and at least attempting to cobble together a consensus to support those choices rather than ruling by 50%+1.
Then vote for Bloomberg, if you get the chance.
I want to know more about his views on foreign policy but it’s likely I will vote for him, as you say, if I have the chance.
I agree with you here, but …
“It means making workable policy choices and at least attempting to cobble together a consensus to support those choices rather than ruling by 50%+1.”
Even if a democrat wins and pursues the kind of stuff Rahm proposes and you claim you like, we will still have government of 50%+1. McConnell hasn’t changed. Expect non-stop investigations into trumped up pseudo-scandals. refusal to confirm judges and they won’t participate in anything you mentioned above as they won’t want any victories by a Democrat. The GOP will give us a preview by refusing to pass the current Diem bill which would save about $60 billion/year in drug costs for Medicare.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-10/hr3ltr.pdf
Steve
If you can’t get more than 50%+1, don’t do it at the federal level. That’s what federalism is for.
I disagree with your interpretation, however. I don’t think it’s all those mean Republicans. I think that the Progressive Caucus is venue-shopping in the assumption that they can force measures through the Congress that they can’t get enacted in their home states, even in the most progressive. Vermont’s experience with their own version of “Medicare for All” is a case in point.
So you think the GOP Congress would vote for background checks, measures to reduce prescription drug costs, promoting jobs through alternative energy, etc with a Democrat as POTUS?
Steve
“Even if a democrat wins and pursues the kind of stuff Rahm proposes and you claim you like, we will still have government of 50%+1. McConnell hasn’t changed.”
So what? Democrats can’t control what the Republicans do. Naval-gazing about how bad the GoP is won’t get Democrats elected.
The Republicans have ceded a large part of the center. Instead of taking that ground and trouncing the GoP, many Democrats seem determined to avoid competing there for fear of compromising progressive ideology. What’s for certain is that you will never make McConnell minority leader (IOW getting Democrats elected to the Senate) by moving further to the left.
“So you think the GOP Congress would vote for background checks, measures to reduce prescription drug costs, promoting jobs through alternative energy, etc with a Democrat as POTUS?”
What is the point of this argument? That Democrats will inevitably be stymied by the GoP, so they shouldn’t bother to run on those issues and should go full-progressive instead? That doesn’t make any sense if your goal is actually winning elections.
A devils argument.
For every moderate that won in 2018, there was an AOC / full progressive that won – and in contested districts. How can one conclude it was the moderate message that is the key to winning again?
As for Bloomberg — my guess is he will have a higher $/vote then the other billionaire (Steyer) and the current mayor of New York (de Blasio) combined.
Some of his firmer policy positions – gun control, soda tax, free trade in extremis — are electoral poison in a national contest (primary or general)
“For every moderate that won in 2018, there was an AOC / full progressive that won – and in contested districts. How can one conclude it was the moderate message that is the key to winning again?”
I don’t think that’s true. Progressives, like AOC, won in safe blue districts by primarying moderate Democrats. Progressives didn’t do well at all in competitive areas compared to moderates.
And in a national contest for President, it seems to me that a more progressive candidate will have a harder time winning key battleground states necessary for the EC than a moderate candidate would.
The arguments about the electability of progressives has been a live argument since Nov 2018, with evidence on both sides.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/house-progressives-declare-victory-after-midterms/575701/
The key quote – ‘ Of the 57 incoming Democratic House members, 37 support “Medicare for all,†expanding Social Security, or another Medicare-policy option, according to an analysis by the Progressive Change Institute. That’s 65 percent of the incoming freshman class.’
There is also a spreadsheet in the article where they showed freshman positions and whether they beat a Republican. To my eyes, there was a lot of overlap between support for ‘Medicare for all’ and ‘beat R’ that it is not conclusive taking progressive positions is a definite liability.
“What is the point of this argument? ”
Dave seems to think that if Democrats attempt to pass more centrist legislation that it will garner GOP support. Isn’t happening. If the Democrats will want to pass legislation it will have to be on a 50+1 basis, or whatever Senators they manage to garner if they win a majority. If they dont win a majority they won’t be passing anything.
Does that mean they should go for radial legislation? I dont think so. One can hope that if a party makes an effort to pass moderate laws it will garner wider support and maybe we get out of this tribal hole.
Steve
Define what is meant by radical.
As long as campaign promises are permitted by the constitution, if a Democrat wins, they should go full throttle in fulfilling their campaign promises, like M4A, if that was their top promise. To do otherwise is to betray all the voters who voted for the Democrat because of that promise.
In short, having Warren act as if Biden won is just as bad as Biden act as if Warren won.
Which is much what the “democratic socialists” in the Democratic Party have been saying. I have a grave problem with the 50%+1 strategy in general but when it is employed intraparty it’s disastrous for the country.
” if a Democrat wins, they should go full throttle in fulfilling their campaign promises, like M4A, if that was their top promise. ”
I am not sure that has ever been the case, but it was not true for Trump, or maybe I misread his top promises. There were a lot of hyperbolic promises/campaign goals and they arent being kept, but Trump remains popular with Republicans. Democrats are, unfortunately, copying that.
Steve
It is a good attempt at a strawman – but let’s look at it through.
Here are some top promises from 2016 and let’s see if Trump attempted to follow through
Repeal Obamacare – failed after a multi-month effort in Congress.
tax cuts / tax reform – passed
Travel ban – implemented through executive action
“Get tough on immigration†– immigration of all types (legal, illegal) is harder, but not less.
Build the wall and make Mexico pay for it – never made Mexico pay for it. Triggered longest gov shutdown and used emergency act to get funding for wall
Renegotiate Nafta or rip it up – USCMA
awaiting Congressional approval
Apply 45% tariff on Chinese goods unless new trade relationship negotiated – 25% tariffs on > 60% of Chinese imports
Rip up Iran deal unless rengotiated – left Iran deal
Recognize Jeruselem as capital of Israel – done
Repeal regulations – unprecedented use of Congress power to disapprove regulations
Appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court / Federal Courts – 2 Supreme Court justices and filled most vacancies available
Do not change social security / Medicare – not touched
Get out of middle eastern wars – has not started a new war, tried to withdraw from Syria, but troops still in the same countries
Infrastructure – no attempt
Drain the swamp – no attempt
You can disagree with the goals, that Trump’s way of trying to achieve his promises was bad, and think the results of those promises were bad — but Trump has put serious effort to accomplishing his campaign promises.
steve,
If Warren says she seriously supports her M4A plan, her de-facto open borders proposals, and all the other things that are actually on her website, why shouldn’t I believe that’s what she actually wants?
First, you do realize he made contradictory promises in some of these issues? Makes it easy to claim he was a success if you get to choose which side you want.
Next, if we fisk each one of your items it doesn’t come out looking so good. He hasn’t actually built any new wall, and the money is, last I checked, still held up in court, and Mexico still isn’t paying. Look at regulations. Very few regulations have actually been overturned because once Trump signs the order they actually have to have hearings and there may be challenges in courts. The Trump administration is losing the large majority of the time, largely due to incompetence. Also, I posted the link here a week or two ago where the Mercatus institute is tracking regulations. We have the same number as when Trump took office. So his (hyperbolic) claim was that we would have massive deregulation. What we have is moderate slowing. On NAFTA he said he would rip it up AND get a much better deal. We just got a bit different version of TPP instead. The promise for Chinese tariffs was that he would use them to reduce our trade deficit. Not happening. He promised to save Medicare, Medicaid and Social security without cuts, yet his budgets proposed big cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. (Also, I dont get why bright people claim that appointing conservative judges is viewed as an accomplishment. You got the same judges you would if any Republican would have been elected.)
https://www.propublica.org/article/president-donald-trump-losses-fred-barbash-washington-post-q-and-a
In short, it doesn’t look like he has accomplished anything that would require working across the aisle and even most of the stuff he promised that he could accomplish by executive order is modest compared with the promise. So he made lots of big promises and lots of little ones. He is keeping a lot of the little ones (Jerusalem) but the big ones that require actual effort or the ability to make a deal have fallen far short.
Steve
Steve,
The point is Trump actually tried to fulfill what he promised. He gave them actual effort. That he did so incompetently in some cases or was stymied by the courts or Congress doesn’t mean he wasn’t serious about his proposals.
“If Warren says she seriously supports her M4A plan, her de-facto open borders proposals, and all the other things that are actually on her website, why shouldn’t I believe that’s what she actually wants?”
You should believe that just as much as Trump saying he was going to build a wall (a 30 foot wall across the entire border to be specific) and Mexico would pay for it. What we will get is some old wall rebuilt, a bit of, maybe, new chain link fence and we will take the money out of military housing. In the case of M4A we might get some revisions of the ACA or maybe a public option. (Let’s not forget the prediction/promise of 4%, 5% or 6% economic growth also.) Warren will have to compromise just like every other politician who makes claims they can’t deliver on.
“That he did so incompetently in some cases or was stymied by the courts or Congress doesn’t mean he wasn’t serious about his proposals.”
That is way too generous. He should have known that it was not possible to deliver on a lot of that as he had no ability to make it come true. And as far as effort goes even the GOP criticized his lack of leadership and effort on the health care attempt. In fact, as I said above, he hasn’t done much of anything that requires real effort. Tearing up the Iran deal and naming Jerusalem probably took a total of 30-45 minutes of effort. McConnell gets the judges approved after Trump picks one off the Federalist list. Infrastructure,health care, Mediare, Medicaid, Social Security, drain the swamp (whatever that is) are the ones that would take real effort and he hasn’t made much of an effort or has already broken the promise, like with Medicaid/Medicare.
I have no idea what he is serious about, and I don’t think anyone else does either. All we know is what promises. I assume like other politicians he doesn’t really care about a lot of what he promises and he is just looking for votes.
Steve
My point in all this: What standard should we use when evaluating candidates and politicians? Am I just supposed to ignore Warren’s entire platform because the likelihood of most of it passing is practically zero? How am I supposed to evaluate her as a candidate – or any other candidate?
My advice is don’t elect amoral cads to the presidency. If we’re going to continue to do that, we should define what they are and aren’t allowed to do much more precisely.
“…working across the aisle…”
Have another drink.
“My advice is don’t elect amoral cads to the presidency.”
Let’s see. Kennedy. Johnson. Nixon. Clinton. Obama. Trump.
Know any?
Ford? Carter? GHWB? GWB? Reagan? You don’t seem particularly fond of them, nor do others, depending.
Its the null set.