Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bucky

(54,003 posts)
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 07:37 PM Apr 2016

My big fear: This is 1988 all over again.

I don't know how long you've been around politics. But I remember a guy in 1988 named Mike Dukakis. Competent, a little weak on the stump, but a proven performer in political administration. He started the Fall campaign with a 17 point polling lead over Poppy Bush (a universally ridiculed and idiosyncratic candidate), which is far better than Clinton's 9 points over Trumpenstein.

How did Bush win and reverse those numbers, winning with a 7% spread in November? He repaired relations with the conservative base and appealed to independents and hammered away at Dukakis's fundamental weaknesses as a candidate.

I don't think we should ever, ever underestimate the conservative populace's earnest willingness to rally round their One Strong Man. The wingnuts did it for Poppy Bush in 1988 (and cashed in their chips throughout the first Bush White House--mostly with SCOTUS nominees and killing condom-based AIDS prevention programs in Africa--fuck all yall conservative motherfuckers very much). Did they like him? No. Did they trust him? No.

But they pinched their noses and voted for him because if there's one thing a conservative has a talent for, it's willingly suspending doubts about a flawed man in service of a higher cause, and then marching along with the crowd. I'm sure there's some evangelists out there already figuring out how to convince their flocks that Donald Trump is just like that adulterous, murdering, corrupt, vainglorious King David. Hell, he's already married to Bathsheba.

(Yes, in this analogy, Goliath would be Howard Stern--do not trouble the minds of the Right or question the mysteries of the Lord)

But I digress. Well.

In our corner, apparently (and give me a minute here, guys, sniff) we've got our establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton. Now, I respect Clinton. She's done great service for the nation. But she's never provided that spark of inspiration that unites broad groups of people. Her negative are high--something Dukakis in his 24 point drop never had to contend with. She doesn't give the sort of inspiring speech that gradually or even temporarily wins over her opponents. Bubba had it. Godfuckhim, even Dubya had it, though to be fair, only when he had 9/11 at his back (it never worked on me or you, of course, but he quite deftly managed to parley his passing popularity into getting his Congressional agenda passed--and frequently he personally was more popular than his atrocious policy agenda). Obama, obviously, has that inspirational spark by the bucketloads.

By contrast, Secretary Clinton has been just barely able to beat Bernie Sanders for the nomination in a fight that has, unfortunately, exposed a lot of fundamental fissures within our party. Yet look at all her advantages. She had millions of dollars just drop into her lap--so many millions that she hardly made an effort to do real grass roots fundraising. The corporate media all but shut down all coverage of Sanders, a crotchety old septuagenarian with a harsh regional accent most associated with cranky misanthropic neighbors on sitcoms, a man who wasn't even a Democrat a full year ago, a man from a tiny state that even other New Englanders think is idiosyncratic, and on top of that he calls himself a Socialist. And this is the guy she's barely able to beat, even with the endorsements of practically every politician on Capital Hill and every state house? Oy.

Don't get me wrong. I love Bernie. But I won't kid myself that he's only ever been a stand-in for Elizabeth Warren.

Let me diagnose the problem right now, my beloved fellow Democrats. We suffer from overconfidence. We suffer from hubris. All this chatter about the Republican Party breaking up misses one key point. Republicans and conservatives are followers. They are by nature hungry to belong to something bigger than themselves. They want a big daddy to tell them what to do. They worship at the altar of Mammon and are about to nominate the golden-haired living son of Mammon... and they will do and believe anything to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. They will even swallow Donald Trump's outright mockery of the Bible as straight Gospel quotations just to believe that they're voting for the right side.

The time for Democratic Party in-fighting is just about over. I acknowledge my imminent defeat. But the people among the Hillary supporters who are crowing victory and now demanding that we all concede the day and fall in line behind the nominee are talking to the wrong fucking party. Republicans fall in line. How else do you explain Rednecks for Romney or College Graduates for George W. Bush? Democrats are cats; we won't be herded. You gotta open up a can of tuna fish if you want us to come to your kitchen. The job isn't of the losers to fall in. The job is of the winning side, the leaders of the party, to give us something to believe in. You've GOT to win the Bernie voters over--which is how it should be in a democracy. Hell, half the Bernie voters aren't even Democrats. He's pulling his votes from independents and new voters who are still developing their political philosophies. That's exactly who you have to win over to beat Trump. Don't think for a second he doesn't have a plan to win over pro-reform voters. Clinton has got to get there first with a bigger offer.

Berners can be won over, but the appeal has to be genuine. This would be unexplored country for Secretary Clinton. She's been so scrutinized, so abused by so many powerful, hate-filled people over the years, that she's simply not inclined to be open and generous of spirit even on the eve of victory. She's not just inexperienced at keeping it real; she's quite bad at it. She plays that "I'm an outsider cause I'm a woman" card as if it's fooling anyone. No, Mrs-heir-apparent-to-the-president-of-the-United-States, you're not an outsider. You make a quarter of a million dollars telling something secret to Goldman Sachs; you're not an outsider. You had most of the Superdelegates in your pocket before a single vote was cast. You keep an enemies list with numerical rankings, confident that you'll be able to do payback on anyone who crosses you. I'm not stupid. I fucking know you don't have a bottle of hot sauce in your purse. You're not an outsider. Don't insult me.

The biggest complaint among us Sandernistas is that we're losing our democracy. In a democracy, the voters are sovereign and the leaders are simply public servants. This is how it should be. Clinton needs to approach us, give us concessions, bargain with us, pitch her cause to us in terms we understand and will believe. Don't pull up in a limo and talk about how hard your struggles are. You caved on $15/hour. Cave to us again--not on every issue; you did win, after all--but give us a reason to come into the fold. This is how bargaining and compromise work in a democracy. That is how leaders lead, at least among Democrats. That is how you win.

47 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
My big fear: This is 1988 all over again. (Original Post) Bucky Apr 2016 OP
Hillary Clinton is not a dull, lifeless wimp like Dukakis was. nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #1
That is part 2 as to why this makes no sense. But he wasnt a whimp, although that is how he was Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #3
he was a technocrat trying to make it as a national leader geek tragedy Apr 2016 #4
But calling him a wimp is rewarding the right wing asses who painted him that way. Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #6
it's how I remember him. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #9
I wouldn't say Dukakis was a wimp Trenzalore Apr 2016 #16
Yes, and are you not entertained? Fumesucker Apr 2016 #8
she was having a great time last night. nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #10
Dukakis had much better favorable ratings than Hillary has jfern Apr 2016 #11
Dukakis was a terrible candidate. Adrahil Apr 2016 #17
But still better favorables jfern Apr 2016 #19
Well, he hadn't been attacked by the national GOP for 25 years. Adrahil Apr 2016 #21
He still had better favorables even on election day than Hillary has now jfern Apr 2016 #22
True enough. Not concerned, really. Adrahil Apr 2016 #23
Yeah, right. quaker bill Apr 2016 #24
No. She's a foreign policy neoconservative, John Poet Apr 2016 #39
Sexist language if I EVER heard it. Buying into the "he-man" mythos. nt Bonobo Apr 2016 #41
Comparing Poppy Bush to Drumpf or Cruz ends this as a serious discussion. Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #2
It really does. yardwork Apr 2016 #13
of course the people are different, it is the dynamics that fit GreatGazoo Apr 2016 #25
Yeah, Bush and Trump are not even on the same planet, can't compare them in any way Bluerome Apr 2016 #28
The most Hillary would do is just outright lie. djean111 Apr 2016 #5
exactly. She is a corporatist neocon, if she is our nom we all lose. Even if we "win", we lose. peacebird Apr 2016 #26
I think that that is over simplifying Bucky Apr 2016 #33
Both neocon Robert Kagan & Dick Cheney are on record saying she would be good pres. Her mentor peacebird Apr 2016 #46
It feels more like 2000 to me. ContinentalOp Apr 2016 #7
+1 mike_c Apr 2016 #12
Yes, that could happen. yardwork Apr 2016 #14
those are interesting parallels, but... Bucky Apr 2016 #34
Big Difference rbrnmw Apr 2016 #15
She tanks her own chances by her disastrous decisions. peacebird Apr 2016 #27
Agreed. Hillary only inspires mistrust. Zira Apr 2016 #18
I think I could successfully argue against numerous points you have made. NCTraveler Apr 2016 #20
thanks. I was only being a little bit intentionally provocative Bucky Apr 2016 #35
That Willie Horton attack ad didn't do Dukakis any good (in fact, it worked bjo59 Apr 2016 #29
or kerry. i want a landslide. GO BERNIE! pansypoo53219 Apr 2016 #30
Have you noticed Warren taking on the GOP candidates recently. Barack_America Apr 2016 #31
God bless that woman Bucky Apr 2016 #36
She may not have to. Barack_America Apr 2016 #38
Try 1964 DavidDvorkin Apr 2016 #32
... Bucky Apr 2016 #37
Do I remember? It was my first volunteer campaign. Bonobo Apr 2016 #40
All I've heard from her is "no we can't" about everyhing I care about. Cobalt Violet Apr 2016 #42
All that is missing a really good visual gaffe. nt silvershadow Apr 2016 #43
How stupid can the DNC be to try to push such a flawed candidate as the Democratic Party's nominee? AZ Progressive Apr 2016 #44
"Clinton needs to approach us, give us concessions, bargain with us, Hortensis Apr 2016 #45
Your concern is noted. itsrobert Jul 2016 #47

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
3. That is part 2 as to why this makes no sense. But he wasnt a whimp, although that is how he was
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 07:40 PM
Apr 2016

portrayed or shown.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
4. he was a technocrat trying to make it as a national leader
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 07:43 PM
Apr 2016

just not ready for that level of competition

Clinton's already faced the rightwing noise machine that targeted Dukakis, and here she is.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
9. it's how I remember him.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 07:48 PM
Apr 2016

I grew up in a red state, and my dad had a Dukakis sticker on his bumpersticker. Act of defiance when surrounded by Republicans.

After witnessing his lack of response to the attacks, my dad took the bumper sticker off before the election, out of disgust. It was like going into battle and then watching the general ride his horse in the opposite direction.

Trenzalore

(2,331 posts)
16. I wouldn't say Dukakis was a wimp
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:27 PM
Apr 2016

He let his principles get in the way when facing a candidate with less scruples than he had. Dukakis could have run a much harder edged campaign and beat Bush. He decided to take the high road way to often while Bush and Atwater were punching him in the balls.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
17. Dukakis was a terrible candidate.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:30 PM
Apr 2016

Way too mealy-mouthed. Also, the country had not yet come off it's Reagan-induced haze. We're still fighting it.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
21. Well, he hadn't been attacked by the national GOP for 25 years.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:36 PM
Apr 2016

And he wasn't then identified as a little to the right of Gen. Franco by members of his own party.

Too many folks have CDS.

jfern

(5,204 posts)
22. He still had better favorables even on election day than Hillary has now
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:39 PM
Apr 2016

People don't like Hillary because of Hillary not because of attacks. Bernie has been attacked plenty by Hillary, and he still has good favorables.

quaker bill

(8,224 posts)
24. Yeah, right.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:56 PM
Apr 2016

you know we have seen her in action, right?

My family kicked in 60 hours a week of volunteer time to "Mr. Electability" himself (John Kerry).

As far as Mr. Dukakis was concerned, "Willie Horton" will seem like polite parlor conversation compared to what Trump will be doing come October.

Ms. Clinton will have to be a lot more than "not a dull, lifeless wimp" if she wants back into 1600 Penn Ave (other than with a Visitor Pass).

yardwork

(61,599 posts)
13. It really does.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:23 PM
Apr 2016

Of all the elections this reminds me of, 1988 is probably one of the last I'd mention.

It reminds me some of 1968, and that's not good.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
26. exactly. She is a corporatist neocon, if she is our nom we all lose. Even if we "win", we lose.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 09:22 PM
Apr 2016

She will do exactly what her corporate owner/donors want done.

Bucky

(54,003 posts)
33. I think that that is over simplifying
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:13 PM
Apr 2016

Correction: I know that that is over simplifying. Hillary Clinton might be corporate-friendly, but if you call her a neocon I don't think you know what that word means.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
46. Both neocon Robert Kagan & Dick Cheney are on record saying she would be good pres. Her mentor
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 02:31 PM
Apr 2016

Is Henry Kissinger.

She advocated for (and got implemented ) our disastrous policies in Hondouras, Libya & Syria. She has called for a more muscular approach to Iran.

She IS a neocon.

ContinentalOp

(5,356 posts)
7. It feels more like 2000 to me.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 07:45 PM
Apr 2016

A somewhat uninspiring establishment Dem from the incumbent administration gets torn down by a challenger from the left who successfully stokes disillusionment among young voters by convincing them there's no difference between the two parties. Meanwhile nobody takes the dumb, crazy Republican candidate seriously because clearly they're just a joke, right?

Bucky

(54,003 posts)
34. those are interesting parallels, but...
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:18 PM
Apr 2016

What I was thinking about was the Democratic nominee's precipitous fall in the opinion polls. It happened in 1988 & I fear it could happen in 2016 as well.

I am marginally encouraged by Clinton's willingness to do anything to get elected. I just hope that she has the same skill-set to get that done among the general voting population as she did among Democratic party members

 

Zira

(1,054 posts)
18. Agreed. Hillary only inspires mistrust.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:31 PM
Apr 2016

Bernie actually inspires people's hope for change. They will come out for Bernie to beat the Republicans.

It's hard to see them doing that for Hillary when so many consider her one.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
20. I think I could successfully argue against numerous points you have made.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:36 PM
Apr 2016

But I fully agree with many of the general concepts throughout. Thanks for sharing.

Bucky

(54,003 posts)
35. thanks. I was only being a little bit intentionally provocative
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:20 PM
Apr 2016

I would like to see us have a conversation about how to support our nominee. I'm sad it won't be the more electable candidate but I'm always willing to support the liberal, even if she isn't pro-reform.

bjo59

(1,166 posts)
29. That Willie Horton attack ad didn't do Dukakis any good (in fact, it worked
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 09:36 PM
Apr 2016

like a charm). Neither did that video footage the Bush campaign ran showing Dukakis riding around in a tank. That's what people remember about the Dukakis run. I'm a "Berner" who can't be won over by appeals. I vote on people's records and policy positions. (By the way, I wouldn't trust any concessions offered by anyone who has a long and substantiated record of obfuscation and even outright lying as Clinton most certainly does - something that has been reported for years and years by the very media that supports her now.)

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
40. Do I remember? It was my first volunteer campaign.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:27 PM
Apr 2016

I will NEVER forget it. Trump won't have to do ANYTHING to repair relations with the conservative base. Hillary will do that for him simply by being there.

OTOH, I am not sure at all that Progressives will be there for Hillary.

Cobalt Violet

(9,905 posts)
42. All I've heard from her is "no we can't" about everyhing I care about.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:37 PM
Apr 2016

And she wants my vote now? Well NO I CAN'T!

I believe Bernie hasn't lost until she has won and she has not yet won. But if she does she will have to do better than "no we can't" to get my vote.

AZ Progressive

(3,411 posts)
44. How stupid can the DNC be to try to push such a flawed candidate as the Democratic Party's nominee?
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 03:02 AM
Apr 2016

This was incredible stupidity, like the Clintons own the Democratic Party?

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
45. "Clinton needs to approach us, give us concessions, bargain with us,
Thu Apr 21, 2016, 03:16 AM
Apr 2016

pitch her cause to us in terms we understand and will believe."

If you want to be won over, the ball's really in your court, you know. She's pitched her cause to you many times. Please start considering.

Her statements on issues: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
A part of her record: http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
A comparison of Bernie and Hillary: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35666347
http://ichef- For example:

Bernie Sanders promises he will reduce income inequality through changes to US through tax policy. He has called for a 10% tax surcharge on billionaires, raising the top three tax brackets and creating a new top rate, boosting capital gains and estate taxes, extending Social Security taxes, going after income made abroad by US corporations, and creating a new 0.2% tax on all earners to fund a paid family leave programme.

Hillary Clinton's tax plan is basically Sanders-lite. She wants a 4% surtax on income over $5 million, an increase in capital gains taxes, the closing of "tax loopholes" for the wealthy, taxing hedge fund managers' "carried interest" income at higher rates and increasing the estate tax rate.



As for "concessions" and "bargaining" with you, I don't think Sanders' followers really want that. Sanders promises "revolutionary" change that will sweep away corruption and income inequality. Quickly too. All we need to do is vote for him and it will happen. This drew big, and its buyers want more.

Nevertheless, more than 3/4 of Bernie's voters already considered Hillary long ago and decided she made a good, or at least quite acceptable, second choice. So they're taken care of.

Which leaves the ones spoken of here. Imo, those who have refused to consider Hillary before but are, in a low moment, imagining they might accept "concessions" in return for voting for her should instead keep their dreams. I hear some guys over on the GOP side are selling, and they should check them out carefully. I like to think that'll scare them right back for their first real, eyes-open look at our moderate progressive Democratic candidate as a more modest but achievable way to pursue their dreams. But who knows.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»My big fear: This is 1988...