Establishment Democrats and the Next March of Folly
Published on
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Establishment Democrats and the Next March of Folly
On choosing the only candidate Trump could beat
by
John Atcheson
'To not run the candidate most likely to defeat Donald Trump in the general
election is a form of political malpractice,' writes Atcheson. (Photo:
Vanity Fair)
The March of Folly Defined: In 1984, Barbara W. Tuchman wrote the much
acclaimed book, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam in which she
documented four cases where governments pursued policies contrary to their
own interests, despite the availability of feasible alternatives, and
despite evidence that the chosen courses of action would have devastating
consequences.
Still Marching Toward Folly: Since 1984 we have piled up a lot more marches
of folly - the Iraqi invasion and regime change in general; the deregulation
of banking leading to the Great Recession of 2008; an anti-terrorist
strategy that generates more terrorists; an energy policy that advocated an
"all of the above energy strategy" and discounted the threat of climate
change; and a trade and tax policy that shifted wealth to the very few at
the expense of the many, to name a few. (Extra credit question - which
Democratic presidential candidate supported all of these follies)?
But governments aren't the only ones capable of marching toward folly, nor
are they the only ones whose march can invoke devastating and pervasive
consequences.
Hillary Clinton and the Next March of Folly
Exhibit A just has to be the Democratic Party's commitment to Hillary
Clinton.
OK, for starters, just about everyone outside of Duck Dynasty fans and
closet KKK types acknowledges that a Trump Presidency would be an
unmitigated disaster of epoch proportions. It would cripple us economically
and diplomatically; it would severely compromise our national security;
unleash our national id; and usher in a state of fascism. And the effects of
his policies would likely persist for decades.
Incredibly, the Establishment arm of the Democratic Party - which is to say
most of the inside-the-beltway elite, including the corporate press and
punditry, the DLC, and of course the super delegates - is aligned behind the
Democratic candidate who is most at risk of losing to Trump.
To not run the candidate most likely to defeat him in the general election
is a form of political malpractice. To run a candidate who could very well
lose to him verges on criminal. Yet such is the power of entrenched
self-interest - such is the commitment to the status quo - that this is
precisely what the Democratic the Party is intent on doing. Indeed, the
collective power of the Establishment has been gathered against Sanders in a
confederacy of dunces from the very start, doing everything they can to
assure that they nominate a status quo candidate in a year when people are
screaming for a reformist.
The Facts Reveal Clinton Is an Extremely Vulnerable Candidate
There have been many excellent analyses that clearly and incontrovertibly
show why Clinton is the weakest of the two candidates they could field
against Trump. Here's a summary:
. Sanders does better than Hillary against Trump in every poll and has
for months now. In the latest summary of polls, Hillary beats Trump by just
5.7%, barely out of the margin of error, and in a few polls she actually
loses to him.
. Sanders beats Trump by twice Clinton's slender margin. 13%. 'Nuff
said.
. Most potential voters view Hillary unfavorably. Her net
favorable/unfavorable rating has been sinking and in the latest Real Clear
Politics' data now stands at a negative 15.5%. Only 39% view her favorably,
while 54.5% hold an unfavorable view of her.
. More potential voters hold a positive view of Sanders than any other
candidate. His net favorability rating has been hovering at around a
positive 10.5%, with more than half of all potential voters expressing a
positive view of him.
. Most people don't trust Hillary. According to a rolling Reuters
poll, more than 60% of those responding disagreed with the statement that
Hillary Clinton is trustworthy, while only 22% found her trustworthy.
. Her extreme flip-flops and history of distorting the truth play into
the distrust. The fact that she's been all over the place on such defining
issues as regulating Wall Street and the big banks; climate and energy
policy; gay marriage; trade agreements; the XL pipeline; Iraq and regime
change - on and on it goes - will make it extraordinarily difficult for her
to regain trust. Then there's her record of politically expedient fantasies
such as being "fired on while landing in Bosnia" or "broke" when leaving the
White House which will be fodder for Republicans in the general campaign.
. Democrats need to win two out of the big three swing states to win
the general election: Hillary is in trouble in all three, while Sanders
wins. Since 1960, no candidate has won the Presidency without winning two
of the following three swing states: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Polling shows Clinton neck and neck with Trump in Florida, losing by a
significant margin in Ohio, and in a de facto draw in Pennsylvania. Sanders
beats Trump in all three.
. Democrats need to win independents to gain the Presidency. According
to a recent GWU poll, Hillary runs 5 points behind Trump with Independents,
while Sanders beats him. With Independents making up 42% of voters,
Democrats 29% and Republicans around 26%, this will be the key battleground
and it will determine who wins.
Facts be Damned - Denial and the Establishment Democrats' March Toward Folly
One of the key characteristics of a March of Folly is denial. The DLC
Democrats, the corporate press, the punditry, and other keepers of the
status quo have been ignoring, denigrating, or otherwise dissing Sanders
since he announced his candidacy. Despite a primary season that has been
essentially a stacked deck against him, Sanders remains within striking
distance.
Now, faced with reality, the Establishment has constructed a rationalization
which will allow them to continue their march into disaster. From the New
York Times to Time magazine they are suggesting that the polls don't mean
much at this point. Sanders, they contend, would whither under the assault
of a general campaign, while Hillary - the seasoned candidate - will get
stronger.
This, of course, is the exact opposite of what we can expect. There's no
real line of attack on Sanders; he's trusted, admired and liked; and he's
generally gotten more popular the longer he's run.
Clinton, on the other hand, is vulnerable in a number of areas; she's not
well liked, nor trusted; and - most importantly, the longer she runs, the
higher her unfavorability ratings get. And this isn't just a function of
the years long hate campaign run by what Ms. Clinton calls the vast right
wing conspiracy. Check out FiveThirtyEight's chart of her favorability
ratings over two years -- it shows they began to plummet in April of 2015 -
exactly when she announced her candidacy. This isn't the profile of a
candidate who will prosper in a general election.
Her chances are further hampered by the fact that a Trump/Clinton race
almost guarantees a low voter turnout - something that has proven deadly to
Democrats running at all levels.
Yet the Establishment arm of the Party marches on, pushing a weak, status
quo candidate at a time when they know large parts of the country are
demanding fundamental change and risking a Trump victory in the process.
If we end up with a President Trump, this will go down as one of the greater
Marches of Folly in our time.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
John Atcheson
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Election 2016
. Break Free 2016
. Bernie Sanders
. Hillary Clinton
. Donald Trump
. Panama Papers
Establishment Democrats and the Next March of Folly
Published on
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
by
Common Dreams
Establishment Democrats and the Next March of Folly
On choosing the only candidate Trump could beat
by
John Atcheson
. 44 Comments
.
. 'To not run the candidate most likely to defeat Donald Trump in the
general election is a form of political malpractice,' writes Atcheson.
(Photo: Vanity Fair)
. The March of Folly Defined: In 1984, Barbara W. Tuchman wrote the
much acclaimed book, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam in which she
documented four cases where governments pursued policies contrary to their
own interests, despite the availability of feasible alternatives, and
despite evidence that the chosen courses of action would have devastating
consequences.
. Still Marching Toward Folly: Since 1984 we have piled up a lot more
marches of folly - the Iraqi invasion and regime change in general; the
deregulation of banking leading to the Great Recession of 2008; an
anti-terrorist strategy that generates more terrorists; an energy policy
that advocated an "all of the above energy strategy" and discounted the
threat of climate change; and a trade and tax policy that shifted wealth to
the very few at the expense of the many, to name a few. (Extra credit
question - which Democratic presidential candidate supported all of these
follies)?
. But governments aren't the only ones capable of marching toward
folly, nor are they the only ones whose march can invoke devastating and
pervasive consequences.
. Hillary Clinton and the Next March of Folly
Exhibit A just has to be the Democratic Party's commitment to Hillary
Clinton.
OK, for starters, just about everyone outside of Duck Dynasty fans and
closet KKK types acknowledges that a Trump Presidency would be an
unmitigated disaster of epoch proportions. It would cripple us economically
and diplomatically; it would severely compromise our national security;
unleash our national id; and usher in a state of fascism. And the effects of
his policies would likely persist for decades.
Incredibly, the Establishment arm of the Democratic Party - which is to say
most of the inside-the-beltway elite, including the corporate press and
punditry, the DLC, and of course the super delegates - is aligned behind the
Democratic candidate who is most at risk of losing to Trump.
To not run the candidate most likely to defeat him in the general election
is a form of political malpractice. To run a candidate who could very well
lose to him verges on criminal. Yet such is the power of entrenched
self-interest - such is the commitment to the status quo - that this is
precisely what the Democratic the Party is intent on doing. Indeed, the
collective power of the Establishment has been gathered against Sanders in a
confederacy of dunces from the very start, doing everything they can to
assure that they nominate a status quo candidate in a year when people are
screaming for a reformist.
The Facts Reveal Clinton Is an Extremely Vulnerable Candidate
There have been many excellent analyses that clearly and incontrovertibly
show why Clinton is the weakest of the two candidates they could field
against Trump. Here's a summary:
. Sanders does better than Hillary against Trump in every poll and has
for months now. In the latest summary of polls, Hillary beats Trump by just
5.7%, barely out of the margin of error, and in a few polls she actually
loses to him.
. Sanders beats Trump by twice Clinton's slender margin. 13%. 'Nuff
said.
. Most potential voters view Hillary unfavorably. Her net
favorable/unfavorable rating has been sinking and in the latest Real Clear
Politics' data now stands at a negative 15.5%. Only 39% view her favorably,
while 54.5% hold an unfavorable view of her.
. More potential voters hold a positive view of Sanders than any other
candidate. His net favorability rating has been hovering at around a
positive 10.5%, with more than half of all potential voters expressing a
positive view of him.
. Most people don't trust Hillary. According to a rolling Reuters
poll, more than 60% of those responding disagreed with the statement that
Hillary Clinton is trustworthy, while only 22% found her trustworthy.
. Her extreme flip-flops and history of distorting the truth play into
the distrust. The fact that she's been all over the place on such defining
issues as regulating Wall Street and the big banks; climate and energy
policy; gay marriage; trade agreements; the XL pipeline; Iraq and regime
change - on and on it goes - will make it extraordinarily difficult for her
to regain trust. Then there's her record of politically expedient fantasies
such as being "fired on while landing in Bosnia" or "broke" when leaving the
White House which will be fodder for Republicans in the general campaign.
. Democrats need to win two out of the big three swing states to win
the general election: Hillary is in trouble in all three, while Sanders
wins. Since 1960, no candidate has won the Presidency without winning two of
the following three swing states: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Polling
shows Clinton neck and neck with Trump in Florida, losing by a significant
margin in Ohio, and in a de facto draw in Pennsylvania. Sanders beats Trump
in all three.
. Democrats need to win independents to gain the Presidency. According
to a recent GWU poll, Hillary runs 5 points behind Trump with Independents,
while Sanders beats him. With Independents making up 42% of voters,
Democrats 29% and Republicans around 26%, this will be the key battleground
and it will determine who wins.
Facts be Damned - Denial and the Establishment Democrats' March Toward Folly
One of the key characteristics of a March of Folly is denial. The DLC
Democrats, the corporate press, the punditry, and other keepers of the
status quo have been ignoring, denigrating, or otherwise dissing Sanders
since he announced his candidacy. Despite a primary season that has been
essentially a stacked deck against him, Sanders remains within striking
distance.
Now, faced with reality, the Establishment has constructed a rationalization
which will allow them to continue their march into disaster. From the New
York Times to Time magazine they are suggesting that the polls don't mean
much at this point. Sanders, they contend, would whither under the assault
of a general campaign, while Hillary - the seasoned candidate - will get
stronger.
This, of course, is the exact opposite of what we can expect. There's no
real line of attack on Sanders; he's trusted, admired and liked; and he's
generally gotten more popular the longer he's run.
Clinton, on the other hand, is vulnerable in a number of areas; she's not
well liked, nor trusted; and - most importantly, the longer she runs, the
higher her unfavorability ratings get. And this isn't just a function of the
years long hate campaign run by what Ms. Clinton calls the vast right wing
conspiracy. Check out FiveThirtyEight's chart of her favorability ratings
over two years -- it shows they began to plummet in April of 2015 - exactly
when she announced her candidacy. This isn't the profile of a candidate who
will prosper in a general election.
Her chances are further hampered by the fact that a Trump/Clinton race
almost guarantees a low voter turnout - something that has proven deadly to
Democrats running at all levels.
Yet the Establishment arm of the Party marches on, pushing a weak, status
quo candidate at a time when they know large parts of the country are
demanding fundamental change and risking a Trump victory in the process.
If we end up with a President Trump, this will go down as one of the greater
Marches of Folly in our time.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
