{"id":5479,"date":"2015-06-15T14:18:05","date_gmt":"2015-06-15T19:18:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=5479"},"modified":"2015-06-15T19:03:34","modified_gmt":"2015-06-16T00:03:34","slug":"hrc-2016-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=5479","title":{"rendered":"HRC 2016: Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’n not a big fan of the mildly conservative NY Times pundit David Brooks, although every now and then “good old Brooksie” shines a lightbeam thru the word-fog. I think that Brooksie caught some lightening once again in his recent column<\/a> about Hillary’s “mobilization error”. I could try to sum up what Brooks says, but he says it himself so brilliantly that I’m going to do a fair usage quote here, to wit:<\/p>\n

Every serious presidential candidate has to answer a fundamental strategic question: Do I think I can win by expanding my party\u2019s reach, or do I think I can win by mobilizing my party\u2019s base . . . Two of the leading Republicans have staked out opposing sides on this issue. Scott Walker is trying to mobilize existing conservative voters. Jeb Bush is trying to expand his party\u2019s reach . . . The Democratic Party has no debate on this issue. Hillary Clinton has apparently decided to run as the Democratic Scott Walker. As The Times\u2019s Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman reported this week, Clinton strategists have decided that, even in the general election, firing up certain Democratic supporters is easier than persuading moderates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

SO, it looks like Hillary is starting out by doing exactly the opposite of what her husband did in the early 1990s; i.e., Bill Clinton’s famous “triangulation” and move towards the center, which allowed the Democrats to revitalize themselves being critically weakened by the “Reagan Revolution”. The first thing that I thought after reading Brooks’ column is that Bill must be rolling in his grave — and he’s not even dead!!! Is the Democratic Left really that strong today? Would Hillary really face a credible challenge from Elizabeth Warren if she (Hillary) retained the centrist position that she adopted in 2007-8? I realize that Bernie Sanders is making some waves, but you know that he will ultimately remain on the fringes. <\/p>\n

Perhaps the Clinton campaign people want to make life easy and avoid any conflicts with the Democratic Left during the primaries. Regarding the danger that Clinton would then appear to the public as a neo-leftie and thus trigger the historic distrust amidst American voters (the people who really go out and vote) against both extreme right and left positions, the strategists assume that the Obama voter-turnout effect and the demographic trends of growing minority populations will carry the day. And anyway, once the primaries are underway in 2016 and its too late for Elizabeth Warren to organize a last minute challenge, Hillary can then tack-back a bit towards the center in preparation for November, and thus not endanger the key states that a Democratic candidate has to take, i.e. Ohio and Florida; Iowa is also a tipping-point state. Sure, she will be called a flip-flopper, but the GOP guys are already getting pretty good at doing the same kind of thing.<\/p>\n

If the GOP goes the same “mobilization of the base” route, which basically equals nominating Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, then the November election will become a largely left-versus-right affair, and its outcome will depend on which side does better with turnout and exploitation of demographic factors. In a political war like that, Hillary probably has the advantage. But if somehow the GOP can overcome its own right-wing craziness and put forth a more “expansive” candidate, then a leftie-Hillary could be vulnerable. The two obvious GOP “expansives” are Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Both of them could weaken the Democratic’s traditional hold on Hispanic voters, assuming their own campaign managers are at the top of their game. <\/p>\n

Under that scenario, Hillary is NOT destiny. But if she and her campaign managers are smart, then perhaps they will bring Bill and his triangulation back into the fold, such that Hillary could attract enough centrist and white non-professional voters to keep a Bush or Rubio at bay. <\/p>\n

Brooks makes one more point. If both the GOP and Democrats stick with the “mobilization” tactic, then whoever wins the White House will probably not get a lot done as President. The polarization that is presently locking up the American political system and keeping it from addressing big problems (such as immigration, education and tax reform) will only get worse; even if Hillary wins an ideological race against a Scott Walker, she could not get much done with the GOP dominated Senate and House. It will just be an ongoing war of vetos versus over-ride votes. <\/p>\n

If a Clinton versus Bush or Rubio race came down to who seemed to be more reasonable in terms of co-opting the best of the other party’s positions, and showing willingness to compromise and get things done, then the next four or eight years might go a little bit better in terms of cooperation between the executive and legislative branches.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, it appears that Hillary and her campaign are starting out on the wrong foot. The GOP has not yet decided which foot to use (although those mobilizers are coming on strong thus far). Our nation is facing some huge challenges on all fronts, domestic and international, and another 8 years of political bickering and polarization would not be good. American really could lost its world superpower role and go the way of Great Britain, with corresponding long-term declines of wealth and living standards. Even worse scenarios, akin to “the fall of the Roman Empire”, are feasible although not as likely. If over the next 18 months our national politics become a mobilization versus mobilization spectacle, then we are really setting ourselves up for a generation of American decline. It all seems so irrational; and yet, in politics and history, sometimes irrationality prevails. How else do great nations and empires fail? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I’n not a big fan of the mildly conservative NY Times pundit David Brooks, although every now and then “good old Brooksie” shines a lightbeam thru the word-fog. I think that Brooksie caught some lightening once again in his recent column about Hillary’s “mobilization error”. I could try to sum up what Brooks says, but […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,7],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5479"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5479"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5479\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5486,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5479\/revisions\/5486"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}