At The Atlantic Ronald Brownstein presents James Carville’s characterization of the Democratic National Convention:
Ahead of Biden’s speech last night, the longtime Democratic strategist James Carville, the campaign manager for Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 race, feared that Democrats might be heading down a similar path again this week. He gave high marks to the convention’s personal introduction of Biden and its outreach to young people, but he worried that the event wasn’t following the formula Democrats used to win the House in 2018: Minimize discussion of Trump and emphasize bread-and-butter economic concerns, such as defending the Affordable Care Act and its protections for Americans with preexisting health conditions.
“The way I would say it is, I wish the convention was a little more 2018—because 2018 actually worked,†he told me. “We ran a play, and the play was: Talk about people’s daily lives, talk less about Trump, make it more about them. We’ve done some of that. I don’t want to say it’s nonexistent. But I would have been happy with 20 percent more 2018.†Carville was reassured by Biden’s speech, though. Shortly after the former vice president finished, Carville texted me: “Thought it was really good. Think he brought some needed 2018 to the convention.â€
and contrasts it with the remarks of a Republican political consultant:
Alex Conant, a GOP public-affairs consultant and former communications director for Marco Rubio, says the Democrats’ choice to downplay discussion of their plans through the week reflected their determination to keep the focus on Trump. “For the most part, conventions are never heavy on policy, but this one is striking in its lack of any real policy discussion,†he told me. “At the end of the day, they want this to be a referendum on Trump’s four years in office, not a choice between their vision of the future and Trump’s.â€
I think that Mr. Carville’s advice is good but I doubt that Democrats are in a mood to heed it. Presently, Democrats are unified in their attitude towards Trump but divided in much else. Focusing on their plans for the next four years run the risk of emphasizing those differences.
If Biden wins, I seem him being driven from office sooner rather than later by the AOC crowd who will be feeling their oats. Harris being the opportunist that she is will be perfectly fine with that and their program (she already votes left of Sanders). If Biden loses, I see the AOC crowd completely taking over the Democratic Party. Either way, I doubt the Democratic establishment will survive. AOC will be running for President in 2024 and will either displace Harris as the Democratic candidate or crush the field, through votes, intimidation, or both.
The first election for which she would be eligible would be 2028.
If Harris were running for statewide office in Nebraska, she would be a moral and fiscal conservative. She reflects California is all. She’s smart, her positions are deliberate and subject to change.
A.O.C. is just loud and lipstick.
I find Carville’s advice less viable than it was during the Clinton years, mirroring now how Clinton, himself, is less of a political heavyweight in his own party. The one observation Carville made, though, about the riskiness of having a message be nothing but anti-Trump, has merit. People can stand only so much down-grading of another, until it gets not only tedious but also may contribute to a negative backlash. Nonetheless, being that the dem’s platform has many of Sander’s super duper socialist agenda items folded in, it’s probably best to not highlight policy too heavily least the public gets a realistic gist on how badly they will be taxed and screwed over should Biden win.
Conservatives talk about AOC much more than do democrats. The next time I quote AOC here will be the first time. Her main purpose is triggering conservatives. It works.
Biden represents the moderate wing of the party but they need the progressives to vote. Didnt really expect much besides the kind of campaign promises that arent real.
Steve
Steve, whatever makes you think Biden is a “moderate? What policies is he backing/calling for himself that would fall into the definition of moderate?
My own view, as I have said, is that VP Biden has consistently been a centrist (with respect to the Democratic Party). When being in the center of the Democratic Party was moderate, he was a moderate. As the Democratic Party drifted farther left, so did he.
“Steve, whatever makes you think Biden is a “moderate? ”
His entire history. He has not supported radical policies in the past. He has explicitly said, as an example, that he doe not support defunding the police. He has also been willing to work across the aisle, unlike the radicals on either side.
“https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-abcs-robin-roberts-dont-defund-police-trump/story?id=72524405”
Steve, Biden’s comment about police funding was carefully worded, circumventing the word “defund,†substituting in reallocation, which means moving funds away from the police,, doesn’t it? Biden used to, have a number of policy stances, but has reversed himself and is now paddling along with the left. His support of the green new deal, the AFFH reconfiguration of neighborhoods, the wealth tax, late term abortion, are these signs of being a moderate candidate?
Just pick one because it takes too much time to fisk all of these. On the Green New Deal in right wing world that means the version that included jobs for everyone, free education, free child care, health care for everyone, etc. On the actual platform it doesnt have those. It centers on CO2 reduction and clean energy with major investments in that sector setting a goal of 2050 for clean energy. Not that radical and if it passes it will be slimmed down quite a bit.
Steve