Preliminary Note
This is something I started writing back in 2015 and had many incarnations as I kept waiting too long and the election completely changed before my eyes. This happens to be a lot. I have many half and mostly finished diaries littered across my computer that are now hopelessly outdated. In it’s current form this diary was meant to be published before November 7th and was more or less finished a month before that. I just never got around to polishing it up. Thus I have deleted all my general election observations and predictions as obsolete. Even if my section on why Trump could “still” win ended up being (unfortunately) better than expected.
And any analysis of the general election must take into account what actually happened on election day to answer the big questions of what went wrong and where we go from here. Hopefully part two will be done by the time Trump leaves office.
The Republican nomination:
A historical overview.
There are two patterns the Republican nomination often falls into when there is an open contest without an incumbent president. First where two establishment figures play a game of pantomime re-enacting the modern conservative Republican parties passion play – the 1964 nomination contest between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller. With one establishment candidate taking on the losing role of the “liberal” or “moderate” and another one taking on the winning role of the “conservative.” In 1980 Reagan playing Goldwater, Bush playing Rockefeller. In 1988 Bush got to play Goldwater and Bob Dole played Rockefeller. In 2000 George W Bush played Goldwater and John McCain played Rockefeller.
The other pattern is where a moderate candidate plays “whack a mole' usually against more conservative candidates batting them down as different candidates become hot on their way to the nomination. This usually involves the establishment candidate moving to the right to become vaguely acceptable to different wings of the party. This was how Richard Nixon became the nominee in 1968, Bob Dole became nominee in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012. Of those above only Richard Nixon became president. And only Mitt Romney garnered barely more than 47% of the popular vote. Each was hurt by concessions they had to make to the right in order to achieve their nomination. Two of them made odd choices in their Vice-Presidential picks that were a drag to their tickets in order to try to achieve conflicting goals. Richard Nixon chose a supporter of Nelson Rockefeller, Spiro Agnew, popular with conservatives to appease two divergent wings of the Republican Party. John McCain chose Sarah Palin who was popular among conservatives but had some populist inclinations (raising taxes on energy companies in Alaska) the campaign hoped would translate into appeal to moderates. Both failed to show any of their promised appeal to moderates. Though both were able to become folk heroes to some conservatives with the combative way they fought back against their liberal critics.
Coming into the 2016 race I expected a race more akin to the former with someone such as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker taking on the role of “conservative” and painting someone such as Jeb Bush as the “moderate” to narrow the race into a two man contest. With all the money Jeb raised I also saw the possibility he could intimidate the field downward resembling either his brother in 2000 or Mitt Romney in 2016.
Then Donald Trump happened. And to everyone's surprised he somehow became Richard Nixon adroitly pushing aside different candidates at different times from different directions. Though perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be Martha Coakley's races for the Massachusetts Democratic nomination for Senator in 2009 and Governor in 2014. In both races she was vulnerable but benefited from her rivals competing with each other for second rather than first. They attacked each other and left themselves diminished as she gained in stature paving the way for her to blow two different general elections.
I also want to end this section arguing against one myth I frequently hear. Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon or whomever could never win a Republican Primary today. It may be true they may not have been able to win THIS Republican primary against Donald Trump. Richard Nixon stepped aside in 1964 when he saw the Republican Party was ready to drink koolaid and commit suicide with Barry Goldwater. But many of you underestimate how flexible and how politically adroit past Republican presidential candidates were.
Richard Nixon moved himself squarely into the Republican establishment in 1960 when that was where he needed to be. In 1964 he made his peace with Goldwater and set himself up for 1968 masterfully navigating the divides that separated Republican moderates and conservatives. And in 1972 he moved to pick up George Wallace Dixiecrats who were exiting the Democratic Party.
In 1976 Ronald Reagan saw the potential of the “moral majority” and these Dixiecrats and moved himself even further to the right than he had been before. While he was always terrible on civil rights his dog whistle “welfare queen” attack was something previously out of character for him. He changed his position on abortion when conservative protestants began joining conservative Catholics in opposition to it. In 1980 when he wanted to be more of an establishment candidates he pivoted more towards the center and then a bit more to the right when he wanted to properly frame his race against George HW Bush in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Gerald Ford was never afraid to demagogue to the right (like when he called for removing Justice Brennan for no good reason). And without hesitation like Ronald Reagan he too chucked his support for abortion rights when seeking re-election in 1976.
These folks rose to their position by knowing where the power centers of the Republican Party were, gravitating to them, and assiduously courting who they had to. No matter if it's someone as noxious as Bob Jones.
They may have all if they were alive today and elder statesmen have expressed their disdain for where the Republican Party has gone. But as ambitious politicians climbing the political ladder you are mistaken if you think any of them would not have embraced the tea party as tightly as they could.
Process issues and potential Republican responses.
The Republican Party has not had a contested convention since 1976. And even then you had an incumbent President who won on the first ballot and was able to use the power of his office to drive the process in his direction. The Republican Party has also never had an experience quite like 1968 where demands for reform forced the process wide open. So while like the Democratic Party the “smoked filled rooms” became extinct it also had as of 2016 a process that was not exactly designed with the goal of the convention delegates necessarily reflecting the will of the candidates who ran. It only just happened to go that way by happenstance and the acquiescence of the party.
Unlike the Democratic Party most delegates are selected by the State Republican Parties through various mechanism and not the candidates themselves. This was not for any nefarious purpose. As no one really expected a contested convention anytime soon. It was just in some cases Republican bigwigs wanted an opportunity to go to the convention as delegates. And in some cases the grassroots wanted a more “open” system that allowed a caucus to select who got to go to these fun events where they are wined and dined. And where they can influence the party platform for their various pet causes.
This of course created the large iceberg that could have sunk Donald Trump. Even though he was winning most of the delegates, most of his own delegates were folks he never selected who didn't care for him. And in many cases were supporters of his most popular rival, Ted Cruz. If Ted Cruz had not backed out and continued trying to game the next part of the process, the selection of members to the rules committee, the convention would have been thrown wide open. And those selecting the nominee would have little in common with those who cast ballots at the polls for Donald Trump.
The system as constructed in 2016 was a direct response to what the party saw as it's problems in 2012. And as usual caused unintended consequences. In 2012 the party saw states trying to jump ahead of each other nearly pushing the election into 2011. They also saw Mitt Romney having problems sewing down the nomination and the contest dragging. In 2016 they made it so any state having contests before March was “proportional” thus reducing their impact on the Republican contest. With winner-take-all contests afterward that would deliver a “knock out” punch to whoever had the momentum.
There were two problems. First the age of big money whether it is through the internet or various PACs and Super PACs has made it easier for candidates to stay in longer than they normally would. In the past with public financing usually underdogs would spend most of what they could raise early on and had nothing left to go on for the remaining big contests. And without media attention from big wins they were finished.
Second things did drag out as Kasich and Cruz tried to draw things out trying to force a deadlocked convention that would not be able to nominate Trump on a first ballot.
The Republican Party is now searching for solutions to avoid the problems of the primary this year. And we will see if it's the wrong ones. A popular proposal is to implement a form of super delegates to make it easier to achieve a deadlocked convention to block a nominee. But they need to be careful what they ask for, because they may just get it. Not knowing who your nominee is after the beginning of summer and having it possibly be someone most of those who voted didn't want is not a recipe for success in the modern age.
Money
In the past you could often predict a winner or at least who the contenders were by the amount they raised and the amount they had. The manner in which money was raised changed as times changed. Direct fundraising to get the maximum amount of federal matching funds, PACs that could raise money from the outside, money raised from “mega bundlers” who could raise large amounts of money through widening the scope of who they raised money from to meet federal limits, and of course Super PACs created in the carnage that was the Citizens United decision.
This year the amount raised did not necessarily correspond to how well a candidate did. Which is not a surprise in individual cases in that sometimes you have high moneyed flame outs like Rudy Guiliani in 2008 and Phil Gramm in 1996. But in part due to the Donald Trump juggernaut who won despite spending very little money in the primary.
Should we dismiss this as an aberration due to a strange election and a celebrity with universal name recognition somehow catching fire? Yes and no.
This race was unique and there is no reason to believe big money won't help in the future. We have seen ads and high priced ad buys work before and there is no reason why they won't work again. And all things being equal the high spending candidate will be at an advantage over the low spending one.
But there is also the issue of the quality of the money raised and the money spent. Super PACs were proven not to be the cure all many candidates though it would be. You had campaigns with a lot of Super PAC money who could not raise money for the main campaign. That limited travel. That forced them to rely on a body who was technically unaccountable to them to set their message and even set their strategy. Money for tv commercials is also a lot cheaper for normal campaign committees. In short Super PAC fundraising became an inferior substitute for normal fund raising and without adequate normal funding campaigns sputtered and predictably flamed out.
Second is how money is spent which again goes to quality of spending. If candidates fight for who is in second place you are never go to beat the person in first place. Jeb Bush who raised the most funds unloaded on virtually all his rivals besides Donald Trump. Marco Rubio also spent most of his money attacking his non-Trump rivals. One of the reasons Chris Christie backed Donald Trump over Marco Rubio is Marco Rubio spent a lot of money trashing Chris Christie in New Hampshire. Marco Rubio earned 10% of the vote in that contest. Chris Christie earn 7%. Donald Trump earned 35%. That was not money well spent by Marco Rubio.
Notable issues
Immigration Part 1: One of the amazing things about the Republican debate on immigration is how little it actually dealt with the issue of who is crossing the border and why. For all the attacks on Mexicans there is a net negative migration of Mexicans to the United States. More Mexicans are leaving than coming
Most migrants now come from Central America due to the drug war pushing nations such as Honduras and Guatemala into virtual anarchy. A rational discussion of the issue has to include how we can help Mexico secure it's own southern border. Particularly since it's a smaller “choke point” than our much larger border with Mexico.
It also has to include how we can best work to stabilize Central American nations that we abandoned at the end of the Cold War.
Which shows Donald Trump was never serious about immigration.
Immigration Part 2: Again on Trump ignorance over the issue of immigration. One of most amusing and disturbing attacks by Trump was on the issue of “anchor babies” and the desire to eliminate birthright citizenship. As I believe Jeb Bush pointed out most cases of birth right citizenship are actually wealthy Chinese wishing for their children to be born in the United States so they have the option of moving to the United States. Trump still expressed support though quickly dropped the issue when he realized he couldn't use it to bash Mexicans. But these “anchor babies” work to our benefit. An aging nation to potentially have well off well educated foreign nationals wanting to live and work here? That's a good thing. And rather than being nefarious it shows despite doomsayers saying we're doomed to fall to China that a lot of their citizens have more faith in our future than perhaps many of us do.
Immigration Part 3: Republican criticism of Trump's “border wall” was perhaps the weirdest thing I have seen. In past election cycles including in 2012 Republicans have run on the issue of a “border fence” criticizing Democrats for it's alleged incompleteness or absence. Trump just took their language and replaced barbed wire with bricks and all of a sudden mainstream Republicans are shocked. A tunnel will go under a wall just as easily as a fence. Ask Israel. They had to send troops into Gaza to deal with tunnels built under their own wall around their border.
Immigration 4: Immigration policy and how to deal with migrants both documented and undocumented has long been a driving force on the right. It helped power Patrick Buchanan back in 1992. And was a wedge Mitt Romney used to call Rick Perry's conservative credential's into question in 2012. It is an issue that won't soon be going away.
Whether or not Republicans can move beyond “bash Mexicans” is an open question. Now perhaps they could just bash Muslims. And that unfortunately is in the American tradition. Nothing brought Irish and earlier groups together more than hating Italians and Jews. But you can't hate EVERYONE all the time and expect to win. It is tough to find enough white voters left to get away with that in a presidential year to win with them alone.
The Muslim Ban: I won't get into whether it's “right” or “wrong.” Given where I am posting there really isn't much debate is there? But if we were to assume for the sakes of argument it was good policy to ban those of a faith that has shown itself hostile towards the United States and that faith is the one that ISIS and al-Qaeda subscribe to it still is a dumb policy due to it's utter lack of specificity.
First it ignores the fundamental divides between Muslims. Let us take Shiites. One of the largest Shiite sects is the Nizari Ismailis, 25 million strong, who recognize the Aga Khan as their leader. The Aga Khan has spoken forcefully in favor of women's rights and democracy. And is about the antithesis of what we see as radical Islam. If we look at Shiite Islam as a whole you would be hard pressed to find an example of a Shiite who attacked a civilian target outside the Middle East. There is only one. And it is admittedly a big one. The bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association. No one has ever taken responsibility but there is considerable evidence of Iranian or Syrian involvement. Most evidence points to this being done with the knowledge and planning of state actors and not by any “freelancers.”
One could give plenty of examples of Sunni migrants who became angry and radicalized and joined terrorist groups attacking their fellow citizens. There is little to no evidence of a Shiite migrants joining or forming terrorist groups in Western nations. Now Hezbollah acting as an Iranian proxy in Europe does conduct clandestine activity. But that is state sponsored espionage. Not radicalized citizens taking action against their fellow citizens. And even with that is Hezbollah responsible for terrorist attacks against Israel from Lebanon? Yes. But never in Europe.
In saying all this I am of course not implying Sunni Muslims should be painted with a broad brush. For example I don't think anyone could give a single example of a Sunni Muslim Romany (gypsy) committing a terrorist act for religious reasons. One of these days I'll complete a diary on Said Nursi, the most important Muslim none of you know the name of. But if you are going to try to unfairly paint an entire religious group with a broad brush at least try to paint the right group!
Gay rights: Could you imagine a Republican convention filled with evangelicals cheering an openly gay man proclaiming it before the convention? Contrast this with the jeering past gay Republicans have gotten. This does mean the Republicans have been struck by lighting on the road to Damascus. But is symbolic of the cultural sea change that has affected our nation and our country. Gay marriage really was not a driving issue. Trump gave a lukewarm endorsement of a ban and extremist like Ted Cruz tried to demagogue on LGBT issues and fell flat on their face because the urgency of the issue for most has just simply evaporated. And even for a lot of religious right voters no longer a top priority.
What is going on was best summed up by John Kasich talking about attending a gay marriage and how he would proudly attend one for any of his kids if they came out. They may oppose it but their opposition is dulling as they realize friends and relations of theirs are enjoying it's benefits. The next step is acquiescence and accepting.
I am under no illusion their opposition to gay marriage will change in the next election cycle. Or that they will stop pursing anti-gay policies. But it will soon be down there buried with their opposition to pornography rather than being front and center. The nation and even their own voters are just changing too fast.
The Democratic nomination.
A historic overview.
The Democrats have been living in the shadow of 1972 and 1984 for decades. Which is certainly not irrational. Between 1968 and 1988 the Democratic Party won only once in 1976 and even then just barely. Between 1972 and 1988 the Republicans in all but one election won more than 400 electoral votes. Between 1968 and 1988 Republicans won more than 300 electoral votes. 1972 and 1984 saw the Democratic nominee lose all but one state. In 1984 Democrats came within less than a percentage point of losing all states.
Going back even further in the entire 20th century besides FDR and LBJ no Democrat won more than 51% of the popular vote. Until Barack Obama it had been been 44 years since any Democrat broke 51% of the vote.
We just simply have not had the huge landslides Republicans have had and thus it is no surprise the electability and perceived moderation has been a far greater issue in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. John F Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon on military and even economic issues. Jimmy Carter was and ran as a Southern Democrat in 1976 and drew a liberal challenger for his renomination in 1980. Mike Dukakis ran as a technocrat and avoided the “liberal” label so strenuously that it became an insult and was replaced by the word “progressive.” And Bill Clinton ran as a southern Democrat who went out of his way to antagonize liberals early on to prove his bona fides as a moderate. John Kerry who rose to prominence in the anti-war movement ran on his military credentials. Even Barack Obama ran as a moderate almost non-partisan figure pledging to unite everyone.
Contrast that with the Republican Party who in the past has used “wedge” issues to win elections. Taking a strongly conservative position and trying to frame it in a way they can get a majority to support their stand.
Still Obama won in 2008 running to Hillary Clinton's left. Albeit every so slightly with the two of them showing very little difference between their stated positions. Both willing to say they were the “progressive” candidate but still both running as candidates able to appeal to the center.
2008 along with the brief Howard Dean boomlet in 2004 showed that the left flank of the Democratic Party was starting to show it's teeth again.
That Hillary Clinton would have to fight her way for the nomination was no secret even if the media portrayed it early on as a coronation. The challenge to her in 2008 was too strong. Issues which gave liberal angst about her never went away. And her polling was artificially inflated by her many flaws being out of the limelight and her Secretary of State role casting her temporarily in a more non-partisan role. The question of course was who? The newly elected Elizabeth Warren perhaps wisely decided to stay where she was and establish herself. Joe Biden took so long pondering (and so little doing any planning in case he did actually run) that by the time he sat down to finally decide it was too late for him to run anyway. And most other prominent Democrats passed as well.
Into this void stepped four long shot candidates. Lincoln Chafee who though respected by many on the left for standing up to the Bush administration was seen as a lightweight. Jim Webb who divorced from his political staff seemed to meander in senseless directions. As a writer he has tried to both shape how Southern Appalachian Scots Irish are perceived and how they perceive themselves in a more positive direction. But as a potential Democratic nominee arguing about the confederate flag is a rabbit hole not worth jumping into. No one really could tell why he changed his mind on the Affordable Care Act. And he never really stated what he wanted instead.
Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley thought he would have Hillary's left flank to himself. But never raised much money or built much of an organization. And into this void a fourth improbable candidate emerged. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. A socialist independent who caucused with the Democratic Party. O'Malley positioned himself to the left of Sanders on a number of issues but the sheer chutzpah of Sanders self-identifying as a socialist made that a fools errand. Most importantly unlike O'Malley Sanders organized and raised money.
What was notable about the contest was electability while it was an issue was never the issue it was in the past. And both candidates framed themselves far more firmly on the left than any top contender has in years.
Sanders also had the benefit of the election schedule. Liberal activists are a strong component of Iowa caucus goers. And Sanders was well known in New Hampshire from being a Senator in a neighboring state.
Sanders narrowly lost Iowa in what was essentially a tie. A showing that would have given him more of a bounce if his campaign had managed expectations better. But gained momentum after winning a wide victory in New Hampshire.
The race after this was defined by two things. One that placed the election out of Sander's reach and one that kept him in the race until the end.
First was the power of the group that has been the kingmaker in the last two open Democratic presidential contests. Southern African-Americans. In 2008 they went overwhelmingly for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton never recovered. And in 2016 they went to Hillary Clinton.
Why this mattered will bring me to why Sanders would be in the race right to the end. For better or worse the Democratic Party has a system that is highly proportional in a way where to win substantially more delegates than your opponent you have to really win almost impossibly huge victories. And Hillary Clinton did with Southern African-Americans winning a large number of delegates from the southern “black belt.” After that she had an almost permanent elected delegate advantage over Sanders.
Due to the remaining states being highly proportional and just how difficult it is to win the necessary percentages to win THAT many more delegates than your rival made it almost impossible for him to overtake Hillary Clinton in elected delegates. But the flip side is due to proportional representation it made it difficult for Hillary Clinton to dramatically increase the distance she had in elected delegates over Bernie Sanders. So right to the end, like Hillary in 2008 he was always close. Painfully close due to how difficult it was to ever close the elected delegate gap.
Process issues and potential Democratic responses.
Like the Republicans the Democratic Party process was shaped by past contests. But also by a desire to give everyone in the party a say. Some would argue at the expense of giving voters a “proper” say.
The most controversial aspect has been that members of Congress as well as others selected by state parties are given a say as super delegates.
Candidates for the most part are given a say on who their delegates are. This differs state by state. In some states they select who they want. In others they are given the right to veto anyone interested in running.
Various rules are in place to make sure members of underrepresented group are given a voice in different parts of the process.
State results are proportional with the cutoffs not being as tight as it is with the Republicans. And delegate allocation being pretty much even if a large victory is not obtained.
In certain contests like caucuses you often have geographical proportionality. Where high turnout in one part of the state will not overwhelm the “say” another part of the state has. This was an issue Bernie Sanders had. He won huge victories in some caucus states but didn't get quite the haul he would otherwise have had because the margins were not as high in other parts of the state. Creating a weird dynamic where the lower more activist oriented turnout of caucuses gave him “big” victories but not necessarily the “wide” victories he needed to run the tables on delegate allocation.
Going into the next election reducing the number of “super delegates” due to their poor optics are the area that Democrats have been looking to change. This could potentially have unintended consequences.
Due to proportionality super delegates have been necessary to push winning candidates over the top and prevent a potential deadlocked convention.
The most famous example where this was the case was in 1984 where Walter Mondale had the most delegates but Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson could potentially come out ahead by combining forces. Neither Hart nor Jackson nor Mondale were interested in any scenario where they were not on top of the ticket. And the convention would have been thrown wide open if not for the super delegates pushing the person with the most votes, Walter Mondale, over the top.
Now given how the 1984 election turned out you can argue perhaps the Democratic Party could not have done any worse than Mondale.
But imagine a scenario where Martin O'Malley does better at mostly Bernie Sanders expense and amasses enough delegates to block either Clinton or Sanders from getting a majority.
Then you get to see scenarios where one prevails with a “back room deal” with O'Malley or perhaps all three of them get passed over as the delegates start improvising on their own.
This year the result would have been devastating. And it perhaps goes down to another change we need to make. Reforming proportional representation and even bringing “winner take all” back to the table. If a race is going to go all the way to California anyway why not make winning California actually matter in a meaningful way?
While achieving a fair result is an important consideration it is just as and perhaps even more important to achieve a definitive result. Even if the process is technically fair nobody particularly feels that way when the results are mishmash and the decision has to be made by a plan b. Whether it is a convention of delegates or a smoke filled room. A properly constructed popular vote should achieve a result.
This is the problem with parliamentary systems. People can vote for precisely the party and policies they want. But if a coalition is always required the real decision is in the backroom. And you, the voter, only ended up influencing the degree of influence certain people have in the backrooms rather than actually select a government.
Money:
In the modern election era up until 2008 federal matching funds have helped define and narrow the Democratic field. Frontrunners would build national organizations and insurgents would bet everything on Iowa and New Hampshire.
In 1976 Jimmy Carter won Iowa and the momentum propelled him to the White House. He was helped as other candidates received less free media coverage and spending limits choked off the potential to make up the ground in paid media.
In 1984 Gary Hart got momentum from a better than expected showing in Iowa and won in New Hampshire. That momentum helped him win 25 states. But ultimately the establishment candidate with the better organization prevailed. But it was still a much better than expected showing for him. And if he was able to cut a deal with Jesse Jackson he may have even been the nominee.
In 1988 Michael Dukakis won New Hampshire and that momentum cleared out all but two candidates. Al Gore who focused on the white South rather than New Hampshire and Jesse Jackson. After a derisive New York state primary win Al Gore was essentially out. Like in 1984 Jesse Jackson ran a campaign with a good grassroots organization of unpaid workers that let him survive on less money than other candidate did. Though still one that left him little more than a gadfly. But one that kept Mike Dukakis from achieving a delegate win longer than he would have liked.
2008 changed everything with two high powered fundraisers able to raise enough funds to completely skip the federal matching fund system. The harbinger of this sea change was 2004 where Howard Dean was able to raise impressive funds via internet fund raising. What this meant is unlike past years money was “unlimited” and as long as you could raise more you could spend more. So no candidate was forced to drop out simply by spending too much on earlier states. This extended the campaign even after Hillary Clinton's window for victory had closed months before she dropped out.
It also meant as mentioned above if you ever had three popular candidates with this level of fundraising a deadlocked convention was all but guaranteed without a backroom deal between two of them.
The election in 2016 did have one twist. Bernie Sanders built a bigger (and better than expected) fundraising apparatus appealing to small donors. Hillary Clinton was better at more traditional fundraisers with larger base donors. However that was dented by Bernie Sanders (and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump) trying to shame her for her fundraising events. Which cut down on her fundraising as each event became a public relations problem.
It will be interesting going into next campaign whether this dynamic will hurt future campaigns that are either not savvy in internet fundraising or rely too much on “event” fundraising rather than more discreet forms that draw less adverse attention.
Notable issues.
Gay marriage: It is easy to lose sight of just how far we have come so fast. In 1988 our Democratic nominee was considered pretty progressive on gay rights issues despite opposing gay adoption. In 2016 all our candidates supported gay marriage including Jim Webb. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed it when they ran in 2008.
Trade: Democratic candidates for President tend to oppose trade agreements that have already been passed or are being proposed. Whether it is NAFTA in 2008 or TPP in 2016. But the reason they should oppose these agreements and why they'll support their own similar ones when President are intertwined.
These agreements go so far beyond trade and simple issues of tariffs into all types of different areas often hiding legislation that nations party to the agreement would have a difficult time selling besides the rubrik of “trade.”
I can't argue against talking about the potential for lost jobs (or the potential to create new jobs). But the debate over the TPP has ignored big white elephants such as unpopular legislation like SOPA being hidden in the text. “Trade” is no longer just about “trade.” Yet you might not even notice when looking at the public discourse.
Health Care: The dirty little secret is Obamacare was oversold by both the left and the right. It did help reign in some costs and did expand coverage. And of course eliminating denials for pre-existing conditions was huge. Not to say there are not negative aspects to it which I could also list. On net it helped stabilize a system that had many deep flaws. But the forces moving costs higher and higher did not stop. And for the most part the system is at it was before.
More change is needed. And some changes should be reversed. But the question is how you sell those changes without endangering the reforms that are already there.
The devil of course is in the details. There are different iterations of “medicare for all” plans you can look at whether or not you liked Bernie Sanders iteration of it. Or various forms of single payer. Or plans involving a public option. There are a host of possibilities. Including free market solutions with a robust regulatory regime to keep prices at bay. There are many ways to skin a cat.
After all the heat Barack took would Democrats be willing to take the heat again? It's easy to brainstorm and propose. Having the courage to enact actual policy is a different matter entirely. Particularly since selling a bipartisan solution hasn't gotten any easier and it's still the age of the filibuster.
Closing Remarks.
There is much I am leaving out due to the amount of unity there is an issue. Or that an issue was broader general election. That would be the case with Bernie Sander’s campaign message that the “system was rigged.” Donald Trump adopted it in the general election (after taking it for a spin in the Republican Primary as well) though of course saw it “rigged” in different ways. Whether you believe it is “corporate money” or “special interests” this “system” based argument helps drive every election. That there is something “wrong” and a “change” can remedy it and bring the forces making “the system” unfair or non-functional. Notice the quotes. That is because “the system” is both undefined and nebulous.
The devilish thing about “the system” as an issue is that nobody wants to be identified with it. But if like Hillary you attach yourself to the hip of the incumbent president and have held a senior position in the last administration and served in the United States in the incumbent Party it is tough to escape being linked to it in the primary and in general.
That is not to dismiss specific allegations that were made (though few if any non-political junkies can identify any of them precisely). But that is the difficulty incumbent parties face in “change elections.” And that is the dilemma they face in an open primary and in a general election. In 2000 that shaped how Al Gore looked at both the primary and the general when he tried to tiptoe around Bill Clinton embracing the good and deflecting the bad. For better or worse Hillary Clinton had to do the same. Would Bernie Sanders or Bill Bradley after long careers in the Senate been able to credibly strike a better balance? That we will never know. And it’s one of the issues that will be addressed in part 2.