We've been seeing a lot of diaries calling Hillary "too conservative," a DLC/Third Way Democrat in a disparaging way, etc. Yes, it is true that the Third Way is partially obsolete today, but it wasn't always that way. Ditto the DLC. Using the ascendancy of a more liberal stances on certain issues doesn't negate why the Third Way holds an important and positive legacy in the Party, and thus the country. Dishonoring what they achieved is a perfect example of amnesia. Weirdly enough, its amnesia that unites both the Republican right and the far-left (which sometimes sounds like it belongs on the Nader 2000 campaign).
Let's look at history:
The Electoral College: The Path to Victory
----------------
Take a look at this map, guys:
this is too easy to forget
Color Code (how the colored states voted from 1968-1988):
Deep Red: 6 out of 6 contests
Lighter Red: 5 out of 6 contests
Orange: 4 out of 6 contests
States weird colored in red? I thought so. Thats because every single damn one of them (except New Hampshire and New Mexico) have voted Democrat 6 out of the last 6 elections from 1992 onward. Even New Hampshire and New Mexico have voted 5 out of 6 times Democratic!! That's right; ultra Democratic electoral college strongholds like California, New Jersey, Vermont (!! home state of Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders), and Illinois, home state of President Obama used to be perfectly Republican voting states in the two decades before the Clintons came along.
By today's electoral college count, the states mentioned above add up to 161 electoral college votes. Had George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney had those electoral votes in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012, they'd have won.
You have the few states Dukakis won in 1988:
To Dukakis' credit, he did greatly close the gap Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and McGovern gave to the GOP. All the states he won except Iowa and West Virginia have gone Dem 7 for 7 of the last elections, with Iowa 6 for 7 and WV 3 for 7. But Dukakis lost and lost because of stances which turned off the suburban voters that the GOP had no clue would be lost forever a few short years later...
Anyway, take the booty Dukakis did get to the first map in the diary, add them together, and ladies and gentlemen, I give you the beautiful electoral college Blue Wall:
The Bill and Hillary Clinton Blue Wall
Color Code (How the states have voted from 1992-present)
Deep Blue: 6 out of 6 contests
Turquoise: 5 out of 6 contests
Light Blue: West Virginia (not part of the wall but could be with Hillary having the right running mate)
THERE is the reason the GOP hates Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton! All those states (except WV) together already add up to 257 electoral votes. Add a few swing states, and voila! The GOP has a much steeper hill to climb than 13 electoral votes.
Compare the GOP's record in the last 6 elections:
Color Code:
Dark Red: 6 out of 6 contests
Orange: 5 out of 6 contests
(note: nearly all of the dark red states have a much longer GOP history but we're talking about 1992-onward)
Now that is a fall from grace! Thats 158 electoral votes in all the states they've won at least 5 times in the last 6 cycles. Back in 1988, they thought they had an electoral college "lock." From the look of the first map and the last map, added together, yea I could see why. But the first map is their lost Reaganite glory.
How We Got There: Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the DLC/Third Way:
------------------------------
Once upon a time, the big issues in American politics were welfare and toughness on crime. Remember Willie Horton, anyone? That attack on Dukakis wasn't a personal, swift-boat attack: it was a policy attack on an issue the Party was weak on in terms of public opinion. Dems were seen as weak with welfare and crime. Why did the above with regard to the maps happen? Clinton also did for our party in 1992 what Nixon did for his in 1968. In 1968, Nixon got working class whites to vote against their economic interests in the name of social issues, and brought the south to the GOP permanently. In 1992, Bill Clinton got wealthy suburbanites to vote against their economic interests in the name of being against the far-right social platform Pat Buchanan and Dan Quayle were pushing and got the northeast and west coast to vote Dem permanently. Nonetheless, Nixon worked within the New Deal paradigm and got America ready for the true believer, Reagan. Clinton worked within the Reagan Revolution paradigm and got America ready for Obama. Both 1968 and 1992 races had third party candidates who got accused of "spoiling."
"But Perot...."
---------------------
Of course, the GOP/Far-Left axis will deny the 1992 election and importance by using the Perot-myth. If it were true, then yes, it would be a strong negation. But we're Democrats, and we're not supposed to be like Republicans, who value myth above data. Here's the truth about the 1992 pivotal, revolutionary presidential election.
1. Exit polls from election night 1992, a better method than just saying what one wants to believe, show that Clinton would have won over 50% of the vote absent Perot, and thus in more than 9 in 10 trials, the election.
2. George H.W. Bush's approval ratings in 1992 rivaled Jimmy Carter's in 1980. Both in their election years were not only lower than Reagan 84 and Clinton 96, but lower than Bush 04 and Obama 12. You don't win with under 40% and below approvals. 40% is where LBJ was in 1968 when HHH (his VP and stand-in) lost to Nixon.
3. The GOP (and the anti-Clinton fringe left) also leave out that when Perot was not in the race, which was from July to the start of October 1992, Bush Sr. still polled near the 37% that approved of his performance and that he won in the end. Nate Silver, a data and stats expert, also disagrees with the idea that Perot cost Bush tho he does believe he hurt Clinton.
The Reality of 1992
4. Ross Perot was not a conservative like Nader was a liberal or Trump is running as a conservative. Perot was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and against supply-side economics.
5. With regard to the electoral college, Bush would have needed to win nearly every state he lost by less than 5% to win 270. Entirely implausible given his lagging poll numbers that year. If you just change WI (a Dukakis '88 state) on that map, or NJ (blue since '92), Clinton STILL wins. Also, 1992 was clearly the start of a 2 decade trend in which NJ, CT, ME, NH, MI, CA, DE, MD, VT, and IL showed themselves to be entirely willing to vote Dem.
6. For Bush to have won 50% of the popular vote (and thus probably the election), assuming ALL Perot voters still would have voted in his absense, he would have needed to win 66.367% of Perot vote (12.55 out of 18.91%). Do the math. If the >24% of Perot who told the exit polls they'd have stayed home indeed had abstained in his absence, then he needs 71.5% of the remaining Perot voters to get to 50%. Doesn't happen with sub-40% approvals.
7. When the data becomes too much for conservatives (and the far-left) to handle, they say "Perot greatly weakened Bush" as if Perot was a cause of Bush's problem. That goes against history; by February, before Perot announced on the 22nd of that month in 1992, Bush had fallen hard and fast in approvals (cited above) to barely 40%. Other elections which featured an incumbent that unpopular, 1968 and 1980, also had 3rd party candidates with strong showings. Neither Wallace or Anderson changed the outcome of their elections, even tho the losing sides of those elections tried to argue they did (Carter still believes Anderson was a major cause of his 1980 loss). A strong 3rd party candidate is a symptom of looming defeat, as are =< 40% approvals.
Rachel Maddow had this to say about the Perot myth in a segment from a few months ago:
I understand why Republicans want to tell each other this story. It delegitimizes the whole Clinton presidency in the same way they tried for years to delegitimize the Obama presidency saying he wasn`t really the president. He swooped in from Kenya somehow to steal it. They don`t like to think they`ve been beaten fair and square
If people would HR the Born-In-Kenya tripe, they must HR the Perot-myth, always. Whenever I see it, I copy and paste the data points in reply.
Why this Matters
--------------------------
We need pragmatic leaders who lead in the times, and know when and when NOT to try to go against public opinion. An example of historical denialism we've seen lately is regarding DOMA and gay marriage. Even four years after Clinton's pivotal election,
the country was still in the fog of the Reagan years. Why did Clinton sign DOMA and welfare reform? It's called not wanting to lose, which would've prevented the first part of the diary, and given us Bob Dole, Dan Quayle, whoever. 19 years ago, a period in which some people have had several children, grown up and reached voting age, a generation ago, gay marriage was unpopular, and welfare reform was very popular. Even today's Democrats have no desire to undo welfare reform. Hell, Obama couldn't even overturn DOMA, and needed the SCOTUS to do so. Notice how Obama is doing things today that had he tried to have done in 2012, he could have lost (hence why he didn't do)? Even Obama isn't blanketly against the death penalty, nor is HRC.
It's also important to honour our party heroes and not do what the GOP did: think its OK to lurch to the extreme simply because the moderate voices aren't as loud as they used to be. I'm also fucking tired of seeing GOP talking points like the Perot myth on Daily Kos. This is a Democratic blog, not a Green Party or Republican Party blog. Hillary is to the left of her husband on certain things, but yes she evolved. And had damn good reason to evolve, as has the country. The moderate/DLC voters (which I'm not one of but I'll defend) are still voters who could elect Hillary, stay home, or vote Trump. Because she doesn't think its OK to throw them under the bus, as Sanders (or his supporters) seems to, thats why she ought to be the nominee. Winning KY, WV, MO, and AR will only help build the party. We must not shut them out, especially as Democrats seek a third White House term.
8:26 AM PT: On Obama, notice how he never has advocated repealing Welfare Reform, and STILL doesn't advocate for abolition of the death penalty (he only advocates looking at it more carefully, applying it more justly). Also, how about him on TPP, like Clinton on NAFTA?