Jack Ross:
The decisive factor in Hillary Clinton’s victory over Bernie Sanders was her rock-solid support from upscale liberals voting primarily on culture-war issues. White Democrats, in other words, largely voted along class lines.
This was most starkly illustrated when the New York Times published a map of how every precinct in the five boroughs voted in April, with Hillary completely sweeping Brownstone Brooklyn and all of Manhattan save a few lonely precincts on the Lower East Side. It was first seen as early as March 1 in Massachusetts, when Cambridge and its bedroom satellite Lexington put Clinton over the top by a fraction of a percent. And it ensured her consolidating victories throughout the Northeast and finally in California.
The urgent wake-up call that these facts should present to the Democratic leadership is this: While Hillary won the upscale white liberals and minorities who “look like the Democratic Party”—indeed, she lost among registered Democrats only in Vermont and New Hampshire—she still won only 54 percent of the primary vote, and she lost young voters by nearly three-to-one.
The turbulence of this election is best understood as the end of the era that began with the election of 1968, defined by the numerous domestic consequences of the Vietnam War. Published the following year, The Emerging Republican Majority by Kevin Phillips remains the indispensable chronicle of the historical forces that led up to that election, as well as the most breathtakingly accurate forecast of its long-term aftermath. Phillips bluntly described the diminished Democratic Party that would face the Nixon/Reagan supermajority as “the party of the Establishmentarian Northeast and Negro South.” The generation of progressives shaped by this tumult reached its apotheosis in Hillary Clinton’s present campaign.
The presidential contender who set the tone of American liberalism for the epoch that began in 1968 was not a high-minded representative of Cold War liberalism’s better half such as Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern, but Bobby Kennedy, whose campaign represented an odd alliance of the Democratic establishment with such New Left ideologues as Tom Hayden. The politics of Vietnam have obscured the early history of the New Left, which was deeply invested in the idealism of the Great Society—an idealism that Kennedy most effectively channeled.
In his widely praised book The Agony of the American Left, Christopher Lasch diagnosed the fatally limited imagination of this species of leftism. In discussing the lionization of such early-20th-century anarchists as “Big Bill” Haywood and the IWW, Lasch explained that “Haywood’s militancy, his advocacy of violence and sabotage … and his view of radicalism as a movement based on marginal people, all correspond to the anti-intellectual proclivities of the contemporary student left.” Oddly enough, this proved a comfortable fit for Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, which was directed at such marginal populations as Appalachian coal miners and the black urban poor, as opposed to the more nationally unifying, and thus naturally more popular, programs of the New Deal.
Whatever one’s opinion of Bernie Sanders’s proposals for single-payer health care, tuition-free public college, and a massive reinvestment in infrastructure, they have reemphasized why the New Deal was popular and the Great Society was not. This is a fundamental break from the pattern of missionary progressivism by what in the 1970s was called “the new class” of affluent professionals, typified by the Great Society and over the following decades increasingly conflated with culture-war priorities.
This is the source of the biggest misunderstanding of the Sanders phenomenon by the generation of liberals formed by 1968 and its aftermath. Even older Sanders supporters, hailing from that milieu themselves, have typically assumed that the campaign is merely the latest in a predictable cycle of generational struggle between youthful “egalitarians” and wizened “politicians” (to borrow from the title of the suspiciously timed new book by Sean Wilentz, who is perfectly representative of this conceit as both an ardent Clintonite and nostalgic son of postwar Greenwich Village).
But Phillips provides a clearer insight into what presently roils American liberalism. Perhaps nothing is more striking to the retrospective reader of The Emerging Republican Majority than how completely marginal, if not irrelevant, was the drama of the New Left to the causes of the realignment that led to the Nixon/Reagan supermajority. Phillips recognized what was lost on the political and media elite of the 1960s and ’70s—that the emergence of this supermajority, not the campaigns of Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy, was the real story of 1968.
Hillary the Hag and her E-Mails what dirty secrets is she keeping from the public just like her husband
Hillary is losing many Democrats because the Left has shrunk the Overton Window to the point where their own once-Dems see that they are actually on the outs, they leave.
Justin Timberlake, is one of those affluent liberals accused of ”cultural appropriation.”
What should he vote with the bloc that seeks to paint him into such an un-artistic corner?
Gays watched as a Muslim murdered 49 and wounded 50 for allah, but Liberals accused them of the crime.
Afterall, they should have had more exits, more security, been nicer to the guy when he visited.
The rainbow gun T-shirt with the words ”We Shoot” underneath is trending.
The Rainbow Gadsen Flag is, too.
Gun sales among gays are high, as are gun classes.
The gays learned, in a hard way, that their Lefties do NOT have their backs.
They are not the victims.
The Muslims are the victims.
Naturally they are changing party affiliation.
Proportionately more Hispanics, more women and more blacks are going to vote Republican than in many previous elections.
What has the Dem party done for them?
Not a thing.
It uses them as useful idiots,it counts on their support then it ignores their needs.
Many of them have seen this truth.
Just today Democrats celebrated that Texas women can bleed to death after an abortion.
Hip hip hooray……not.
@Nanny G: You are dreaming—Gays will vote 90+ for Dems–log cabin Repubs.a joke
African Americans will vote 90%+ Dem
Hispanics will vote 80%+ Dem
Women will vote 65%+ Dem
These are all close to historically high %%’s
Why? 2 words Donald Trump
DT will increase his share of the angry white male vote to 75%
Nationally Clinton is up 7 points E.C. is closer-Repub. convention must find unity—Dems have found it as Bernie and Warren get onboard.
I’ll be watching to see what Webb does.
@Richard Wheeler: You’re looking at previous voting.
What Donald Trump is doing is pulling in previous NON-voters, Richard.
There are many previous non-voting blacks, women, Hispanics and gays.
If Twitter didn’t keep banning such groups I could link you to a very popular (once trending in top 10 on Twitter) of women for Trump, gays for Trump even blacks for Trump.
In place of that, I’ll link to this Q&A to Josh Earnest about censorship and free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyvf3yUn5w4
@Nanny G: There are no polls to confirm your assertions.
Repub.”I’m a proud queer” Milo seems to have different color hair at press conference and College Repub. gathering–BTW didn’t see a single person of color at that campus get together.
Best hope is shoot for over 80% of angry white male vote.
@Rich Wheeler #3:
Nanny G must have been sitting on Romney’s lap there in the hotel room back in 2012 as he waited patiently for his inevitable victory. They evidently get their poll numbers from the same source.
Gay people understand that the “news” that liberals are pinning the blame for the Orlando killing spree on THEM is nonsense manufactured by the GOP to attract gay votes away from the Democrats, and WE know better than to fall for such transparent trickery.
What has the Democratic Party DONE for ANY of its constituencies? Just about every last benefit and equal right those constituencies enjoy were fought for by Democrats and were WON by Democratic majorities. Those constituencies remember the history, know what they gained and who won it for them. No gay person believes that his or her rights WEREN’T fought against tooth and nail by Republicans, no Hispanic believes that Republicans want there HERE (they vote overwhelmingly Democrat, after all) and no Woman in her right mind believes that Trump keeps picking late-model wife-replacements because they each, in turn, are better conversationalists that the last.
You MIGHT want to ask yourselves why TRUMP has lost so many Republicans, too.
It is each party’s fantasy that the OTHER party’s candidate is so astonishingly flawed that there is no chance of that candidate winning an election, and they BOTH offer up a smorgasbord of reasons why that is so.
It’s all nonsense.
It is still 5 months out from the election, and already most Americans are sick and tired of hearing about Hillary’s emails just as they got sick of hearing about Benghazi. And considering how much of a financial advantage Hillary has with which to beat up Trump, we’re likely to get sick of hearing about HIS tax returns, HIS shipping jobs overseas, HIS lack of political fitness and HIS lack of leadership temperament.
By November, we’ll ALL need drugs!
@George Wells:
http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/1/511/648/USA-ELECTION-TRUMP.jpg
How many is that?
Well,
Year Percentage of Voter Non-participation
1960 37.30%
1964 38.08%
1968 39.16%
1972 44.79%
1976 46.45%
1980 47.44%
1984 46.73%
1988 49.85%
1992 44.76%
1996 51.00%
2000 48.79%
2004 43.30%
2008 41.77%
2012 45.13%
So, if 1/4 of those millions vote for Donald Trump instead of staying home, he wins.
Plain and simple.
@Nanny G: Again a foolish dream Nan-Those #’ haven’t fluctuated more than a few points up or down over the last 45 years==do you think a guy with 65+% negatives will change that?
Best thing he’s got going is his opponent—Her negatives within 10 points of his—new voters will split there vote as they always do.
This election will be decided in the rust belt–Ohio, Pa. Michigan–win 2 and you’re Prez.
I fid it difficult to believe that people accept the lsm’s polls. Have you read the methodology of these stupid push polls? They contact, online or by phone, 1000-1200 people out of about 318 million and tell us what the country thinks. Yeah…
One other note, considering the actions of this administration, Trump supporters either don’t answer or mislead.
@Nanny G #7:
What nonsense!
EQUALLY, at the very least, if ¼ of those millions vote for Hillary instead of staying home, SHE wins by a landslide.
What does that speculation prove?
Because it DOESN’T prove that miracles happen, and a miracle is what Trump needs.
It is nice that you are looking for ways to make yourself BELIEVE that Trump has a chance, and yes, he actually DOES. But since Trump has done just about every last thing that he could possibly do to NOT win the election, Hillary would have to trip herself up awfully bad to muck this no-contest contest, AND YOU KNOW IT!
Yeah, keep that Romney misplaced optimism alive and well in your heart. It will sustain you over the next five months, but be prepared for a rude awakening in November, because on Election Day the fantasy evaporates. Like Retire05’s myopic delusion that Kennedy was going to nix same-sex marriage because he had previously spoken fondly of states’ rights, your Trumpeteering logic is clouded by YOUR own wishful thinking, and you are grasping at straws to validate your delusion.
I DO wonder at your willingness to excuse Trump’s thick portfolio of gaffs, crude insults, misstatements, disclosure refusals, back-tracks, flip-flops, racism AND ON AND ON, major faults that, in the person of Hillary Clinton, would have Republicans clamoring for her execution.
Trump ADMITTEDLY can’t govern, but promises to pick subordinates who CAN. Why wouldn’t WE pick THEM instead of an incompetent leader? And HIS only formula for picking good employees is to contest a room full of them over the course of a television season, giving them “tests” to determine their fitness. He might be good at telling them “you’re fired!”, but he can’t govern a nation on that model of decision making.
Why do you give him a mile when you refuse Clinton an inch?
George, ask yourself: which candidate drove voter turnout DOWN?
Hillary.
Now, which candidate drove voter turnout UP?
Trump.
Here is a YouTube video made by a user who calls himself “The Sleeping Giant,” and identifies himself as “a disaffected former liberal who just so happens to be gay.” In the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub terrorist attack by an Islamic radical, the man’s emotional appeal to the gay community to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton went viral.
The man has followed up on that video with a new release delving further into his feelings about Clinton, and spelling out a strategy for common people to bypass Clinton’s control of the mainstream media and try to win the presidential election on social media instead.
“Hillary Clinton, we’ve had enough,” the man says in the new clip. “I’ve had enough. We’re sick of seeing our guy plastered on the front of every mainstream media source, just attack after attack after attack. While you — who are covered up to your flabby neck in scandal — you don’t hear a peep. And that’s going to stop. Because you may have mainstream media in your pocket. But not social media. And I think that’s going to be the bane of your campaign because you cannot silence the voices of everyday Americans.”
“The people, they don’t like you,” he adds. “It’s not because you’re a woman. It’s because of your actions…We’re going to expose you to an entire generation of young people who are not old enough to know you in the Nineties. The minorities that you claim to champion, you’ve thrown under the bus countless times when it’s politically expedient for you to do so…”
Here are 50 disastrous facts about Hillary
with links for each one.
She’s hardly inspiring the troops to come out in support of her.
@Nanny G: Nan You aiming to be FA’S #1 Trumpeteer? Gays, Hispanics and African Americans voting for him?
You’re operating in an alternative universe.
@Nanny #11:
I think that when someone parrots his or her respective party’s partisan spin to the extent that you’ve embraced, people on FA call them “trolls.”
Your “example” of a “gay-for-Trump” person is no more relevant than the miniscule number of gays who are bought and paid for by the Right to “witness” their own conversion to heterosexuality via “reparative therapy.” While it IS possible that both anomalies exist in vanishingly small numbers, they certainly won’t be the factor you hope them to be in the next election.
No Democrat has “thrown gays under the bus” as you’d have everyone believe, and ALMOST no Republicans have stepped forward to champion anti-gay-discrimination legislation initiatives… HAVE THEY? Where is the Republican who has spoken in support of transgendered children?
Look at how FEW Republicans ever voiced support for bipartisan immigration support, and look at how harshly the rest of the GOP attacked them for it when they did.
Neither does the fact that Trump has disparaged women candidates for what? For NOT being PRETTY?! Or disparaged a female reporter for having blood shooting out of, well, YOU KNOW WHERE? Or for making a career out of trading in aging wives for newer models?
You think Trump’s blatant sexism escapes the attention of women voters?
THINK AGAIN!