The Civil War continues: No DLC

If Bill Clinton had never sought the Presidency or hadn't become Gov of Arkansas, would the New Dealers have regained control of the Democratic Party? He brought their ideology back to the center, some would say centre-right, ending the post '68 funk of ultra-liberals, New Dealers, and a horrible SoDem. If the ultras win, the GOP will be in power for even longer... :)
 
Well, Clinton was willing to sell out before 1994. It didn't help him or his party.
Who knows? Perhaps we could see President Dean or President Kucinich... or even President McKinney...
 
New Dealers in '92?

Hell, I got into trouble here for daring to suggest that Paul Tsongas was a liberal in that race (based on my reading of an article in which the DLC compared Obama unfavourably to the late MA politician--that organisation called both of them 'wine track' Dems, as opposed to those salt of the earth 'beer track' Dems like... HRC). Who exactly is the flaming old fashioned liberal in '92?

Harkin? That minor favourite son candidate?

What exactly is your definition of a 'New Dealer' in such a recent era as the nineties?

And was this 'civil war' you speak of really between old New Deal coalition types and Blue Dogs?
 
The Democratic Party went through a war between the Old Guard, led by Daley, against the ultraliberals led by McGovern. In 1971 the Commission overpowered the Old Guard, and in 1972, the Apocalypse, led by President Nixon, came. You could say the RFK-LBJ war was part One. In My Life, Clinton acknowledges RFK as the first "New Dem". Part of the reason Daley used the J-word was that I believe he feared an "Indira", where the charismatic challenger to the Old Guard/Syndicate turns the rank-and-file voter against them, mounts an internal coup which destroys their power, and assumes complete command. Not as much as Maurice Duplessis, Rene Levesque or Ferdinand Marcos for their self-created parties, but still very significant. What holds true is that today, the Dems hold the "Minority Coalition" (my moniker), we the Silent Majority, and suburbanites as the swing voters. This occurred in 2004 and has been the case in all my 1968 scenarios. The reason for "RFK '76", besides being the most realistic outcome IMO, is because in 1968, he has zero appeal to suburbs. Nixon can easily outflank him there. Those polarization numbers rivalled the Secretary of State's for a long time.
 
Last edited:
The Democratic Party went through a war between the Old Guard, led by Daley, against the ultraliberals led by McGovern. In 1971 the Commission overpowered the Old Guard, and in 1972, the Apocalypse, led by President Nixon, came. You could say the RFK-LBJ war was part One. In My Life, Clinton acknowledges RFK as the first "New Dem". Part of the reason Daley used the J-word was that I believe he feared an "Indira", where the charismatic challenger to the Old Guard/Syndicate turns the rank-and-file voter against them, mounts an internal coup which destroys their power, and assumes complete command. Not as much as Maurice Duplessis, Rene Levesque or Ferdinand Marcos for their self-created parties, but still very significant. What holds true is that today, the Dems hold the "Minority Coalition" (my moniker), we the Silent Majority, and suburbanites as the swing voters. This occurred in 2004 and has been the case in all my 1968 scenarios. The reason for "RFK '76", besides being the most realistic outcome IMO, is because in 1968, he has zero appeal to suburbs. Nixon can easily outflank him there. Those polarization numbers rivalled the Secretary of State's for a long time.

Toryanna68, your reading of the modern history of the US Democratic Party doesn't encapsulate the eighties, does it?

All of the above facts are interesting (excepting your use of counterfactuals), but what exactly do they have to do with the events which came to a head after Mondale and Dukakis? Gary Hart was a distant memory in primary politics by '92--RFK, Daley, they're both long dead by the time the likes of B.Clinton, Kerrey and Tsongas are duking it out for the nomination.

Where does Jackson's 'Rainbow Coalition' fit into the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate era party, f'rinstance?

Can you explain where Jerry Brown had travelled from, and was headed to, ideologically, in 1992?
 
Jesse Jackson had appeal to liberals and minorities. But I don't think he had broad appeal. Brown, from what I know (Gov Moonbeam) was more of the Pelosi/RFK Jr. ideological mold. Opposed to free trade, campaign finance reform, etc. Not my favorite to say the least. Dukakis was a "regular" Mass liberal. Obama and Hillary are also "regular" though not Mass. liberals.
 
Jesse Jackson had appeal to liberals and minorities. But I don't think he had broad appeal. Brown, from what I know (Gov Moonbeam) was more of the Pelosi/RFK Jr. ideological mold. Opposed to free trade, campaign finance reform, etc. Not my favorite to say the least. Dukakis was a "regular" Mass liberal. Obama and Hillary are also "regular" though not Mass. liberals.

Pelosi and Brown are incomparable. Brown was at least somewhat fiscally restraint. Pelosi is a defiant Liberal. Pelosi called for Tax increases, Brown for Tax Cuts. Brown actually criticized the CARTER adminstration for spending too much.Brown is very much to the right of Pelosi.
 
My mistake... :eek: But Brown would be a protectionist, and most conservative Dems are pro-NAFTA/CAFTA, which was very close to defeat at ratification time. So really a mix of protectionism, fiscal conservatism, and social liberalism. Blue Dog in all but trade matters. My bad.
 
Toryanna68 said:
Jesse Jackson had appeal to liberals and minorities. But I don't think he had broad appeal. Brown, from what I know (Gov Moonbeam) was more of the Pelosi/RFK Jr. ideological mold. Opposed to free trade, campaign finance reform, etc. Not my favorite to say the least. Dukakis was a "regular" Mass liberal. Obama and Hillary are also "regular" though not Mass. liberals.

Why compare Hilary and Obama to 'Massachusetts liberals'? That's a very narrow frame of reference, even for someone who can't not write a paragraph without invoking the permanent and immutable electoral math invented by Nixon and the Kennedys back in the good old days.

Pelosi and Brown are incomparable. Brown was at least somewhat fiscally restraint. Pelosi is a defiant Liberal. Pelosi called for Tax increases, Brown for Tax Cuts. Brown actually criticized the CARTER adminstration for spending too much.Brown is very much to the right of Pelosi.

Brown back then, yes--but Brown today has his tenure as a New Leftish Mayor of Oakland under his belt, and as the incumbent Californian AG doesn't have a huge say on matters economic. That will change if he runs for governor next year.

He may actually be broadly to the Left of Pelosi now.

Toryanna68 said:
But Brown would be a protectionist, and most conservative Dems are pro-NAFTA/CAFTA, which was very close to defeat at ratification time. So really a mix of protectionism, fiscal conservatism, and social liberalism. Blue Dog in all but trade matters.

Back then? In the seventies, the first two times he ran for prez? Before 'Blue Dogs' or NAFTA were even thought of?

So, basically, you now believe Jerry Brown was a Blue Dog... And I assume he somehow didn't run as a Leftleaning insurgent against Clinton during the '92 primary?
 
Well, the Political map looks like the following as of 2008. The GOP cannot win without winning either Pennsylvania or Ohio, as we saw in '04. The Dems still have most of labor, 90+% of minorities, the liberals, and a good deal of the farm vote. The GOP has the South, the Midwest and parts of the West, with suburbanites being the swing voters in a close election. What am I missing? Sorry about Brown, I spoke too soon. :eek: As evidenced by the map below, unless you swing OH, PA, or CO into either column it's a genuine toss-up in a close election. Brown is all over the map, going from port to starboard, then back again. Perhaps I use the old names too much, but that's where the new alignment started. And for my critics- I specialize in certain things. I won't write a "WI Julia Child hadn't been born" because I don't know that world and would look like a complete donkey if I tried.

genusmap.php
 
Last edited:
Well, the Political map looks like the following as of 2008. The GOP cannot win without winning either Pennsylvania or Ohio, as we saw in '04. The Dems still have most of labor, 90+% of minorities, the liberals, and a good deal of the farm vote. The GOP has the South, the Midwest and parts of the West, with suburbanites being the swing voters in a close election. What am I missing? Sorry about Brown, I spoke too soon. :eek: As evidenced by the map below, unless you swing OH, PA, or CO into either column it's a genuine toss-up in a close election. Brown is all over the map, going from port to starboard, then back again.

Where does that map come from? Because that's not any recent election that I recognize?
 
That is not an election map, but rather giving all the solid and probable states to the Dems and GOP gets you the following: 271-267 Democratic. OH+CO for GOP gets you OTL 2004.
 
Well, the Political map looks like the following as of 2008. The GOP cannot win without winning either Pennsylvania or Ohio, as we saw in '04. The Dems still have most of labor, 90+% of minorities, the liberals, and a good deal of the farm vote. The GOP has the South, the Midwest and parts of the West, with suburbanites being the swing voters in a close election. What am I missing?

(a.) How has Perot influenced this election? This is '92 without Clinton, right?

(b.) Who is the Democrat? Tsongas?

(c.) What on earth does an electoral map have to do with your original post in this thread, a thread entitled 'The Civil War continues: No DLC'. What exactly happened to you addressing the question of No DLC, save for the assumption that they were somehow opposed to an extant New Deal liberalism, and anyway apparently they must have only ever existed in the person of William Jefferson Clinton?

Electoral maps are useful tools, but they shouldn't lead you to overdetermining the link between electoral and ideological coalitions and actual elections.
 
Top