What If "The Emerging Democratic Majority"

I came across this interesting read on RealClearPolitics titled, "Could Someone Like John Edwards Have Saved the Democrats?" Most of their arguments tie in with the book “The Emerging Democratic Majority” by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. The whole argument is that John Edwards or someone like Edwards could have formed a coalition of "minorities, professionals, working women and white working-class voters by championing a socially and fiscally liberal set of policies called 'progressive centrism'.” This coalition would have been made up of 75% minorities, 10% professionals, 20% working women, and around 50% white working-class. As we all know this coalition never happened.

Was this coalition even possible? If so how would US politics look today? What could have been accomplished during Edwards tenure and what would be different from Obama's? Who could have filled in for an Edwards like figure? Finally, what would be the Republican response to this new coalition, would they go down the same route of the tea party and obstruction, emphasize some form of libertarianism, or go back to "compassionate conservatism"?

Here is a link to the article: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._edwards_have_saved_the_democrats_132926.html
 

RousseauX

Donor
I came across this interesting read on RealClearPolitics titled, "Could Someone Like John Edwards Have Saved the Democrats?" Most of their arguments tie in with the book “The Emerging Democratic Majority” by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. The whole argument is that John Edwards or someone like Edwards could have formed a coalition of "minorities, professionals, working women and white working-class voters by championing a socially and fiscally liberal set of policies called 'progressive centrism'.” This coalition would have been made up of 75% minorities, 10% professionals, 20% working women, and around 50% white working-class. As we all know this coalition never happened.

Was this coalition even possible? If so how would US politics look today? What could have been accomplished during Edwards tenure and what would be different from Obama's? Who could have filled in for an Edwards like figure? Finally, what would be the Republican response to this new coalition, would they go down the same route of the tea party and obstruction, emphasize some form of libertarianism, or go back to "compassionate conservatism"?

Here is a link to the article: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._edwards_have_saved_the_democrats_132926.html
Isn't that basically Bill Clinton's coalition in 1996 or so?
 
Not with John Edwards.

Man was always a time bomb.

See: bastard child sired on staffer, bribed with federal money, while wife was dying of cancer.

See also: Built mansion next to trailer park

Also see also: $600 haircut

I could go on.
 
Yeah, cheating on your secular-saint wife as she's dying of cancer is a good way to torpedo a political career.

Frankly, most Democrats are probably happy in retrospect that Kerry lost '04 because of what an utter disaster '08 would've been if Kerry/Edwards had won.
 
Yeah, cheating on your secular-saint wife as she's dying of cancer is a good way to torpedo a political career.

Frankly, most Democrats are probably happy in retrospect that Kerry lost '04 because of what an utter disaster '08 would've been if Kerry/Edwards had won.

With everything that went wrong in OTL, and all that would have gone wrong in OTL, the GOP would have a lock on Congress and the White House for years to come.
 
Why would Edwards (even apart from scandals) have been more successful in getting working-class whites to vote Democratic than Obama was? (As hard as it is to believe today, circa 2014 people were seriously arguing that HRC would do better with white working class voters than Obama did! https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1082648122994511872 Which was actually plausible if you look at the 2008 Democratic primaries..)
 
Why would Edwards (even apart from scandals) have been more successful in getting working-class whites to vote Democratic than Obama was? (As hard as it is to believe today, circa 2014 people were seriously arguing that HRC would do better with white working class voters than Obama did! https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1082648122994511872 Which was actually plausible if you look at the 2008 Democratic primaries..)

Honestly, I believe they chose Edwards over Clinton because he could "appeal" better to the working class while not scaring liberals. While HRC had the problem that the GOP since she won her race in New York viewed her as the eventual Democratic nominee and it is easier for a white male like Edwards to appeal to white working class males than it is for a women to (Not saying it's true just that might have been their idea).
 
I doubt Edwards would appeal to blue collar types at all.

He lost his Senate seat in 2004.

He was an ambulance chasing lawyer.

He built a mansion next door to a trailer park.

HE HAD A $600 HAIRCUT.

Even Mitt Romney looks like a working class hero compared to Edwards.

You heard a lot of talk about DNC insiders about Edwards appeal, but damned little to back it up.
 
I doubt Edwards would appeal to blue collar types at all.

He lost his Senate seat in 2004.

He was an ambulance chasing lawyer.

He built a mansion next door to a trailer park.

HE HAD A $600 HAIRCUT.

Even Mitt Romney looks like a working class hero compared to Edwards.

You heard a lot of talk about DNC insiders about Edwards appeal, but damned little to back it up.

Was there any Democrats that fit the mold or was it just another fantasy of some? And thank you all for the great replies.
 
Gephardt?

He was more in the mold of the traditional New Deal Democrat - pro worker, from flyover country, not a culture warrior.

Had the charisma of a fencepost, but his background and policy positions might have fit what we're aiming for in this thread.
 

Deleted member 1487

Had Obama actually followed through with a real economically liberal agenda and punished bankers among other things it would have happened; the reason it didn't is because the Dems tacked to the center and beyond on economic issues and lost the white working class on healthcare policy/messaging plus of course letting off his donors, the bankers. Edwards would really have done nothing in the department and would be a liability in time per the above comments. Really it comes down to the Democratic party under Obama shitting the bed on policy, messaging, and handling the grass roots/party apparatus. It was very possible we could have had a FDR style Dem majority for a long time had the Dems actually gone full New Deal from 2009 and on; instead they tried to play the Centrism game and negotiate with the guy who gave a speech that his only goal was to make Obama a 1 term president. They killed the Democratic majority and opened it up to the GOP to play culture war games.
 
From what I gathered pretty much. But what I'm wondering is how would it play out differently than Obama's? Would the massacre that happened to the Democrats from 2010 and beyond still happen?

No, but only because without a candidate like Obama running the sort of campaign platform that triggered the 08' spike in voting from those identiterian groups who's level of political participation is normally on the low end (and who rather quickly fell back into their usual rate of turnout) you woulden't have seen some many Dem's coming in on highly inflated numbers created by the Presidental coattails.
 
I agree Democrats had an opportunity after the 2008 election to recreate something like the New Deal Coalition but failed spectacularly. But to focus on Gephardt I know he was a founding member of the DLC but steadily went further and further away from their ideas, but wouldn't he be too old by 2008 to make a run (Maybe have the Democrats take the House in the early 2000s and have him become Speaker?)
 
Had Obama actually followed through with a real economically liberal agenda and punished bankers among other things it would have happened; . . .
I agree Democrats had an opportunity after the 2008 election to recreate something like the New Deal Coalition but failed spectacularly. . .
Pres. Obama and the Democratic Congress kept the bridge from collapsing! , for crying out loud!!! :cool:

Yes, I personally would have loved to have seen Sherman Anti-Trust or similar used to break up Chase, Bank of America, and the other big boy banks. But it would have caused a short-term hit to a recovering economy. And more important, it would have not affected insurance company AIG and other key non-bank financial institutions.
 
Pres. Obama and the Democratic Congress kept the bridge from collapsing! , for crying out loud!!! :cool:

Yes, I personally would have loved to have seen Sherman Anti-Trust or similar used to break up Chase, Bank of America, and the other big boy banks. But it would have caused a short-term hit to a recovering economy. And more important, it would have not affected insurance company AIG and other key non-bank financial institutions.
My apologies I am not trying to sound like Obama was a bad president or anything just discussion on how different it could have been if different voters were targeted or a different focus when it came to running the country.
 
I doubt Edwards would appeal to blue collar types at all.

He lost his Senate seat in 2004.

He was an ambulance chasing lawyer.

He built a mansion next door to a trailer park.

HE HAD A $600 HAIRCUT.

Even Mitt Romney looks like a working class hero compared to Edwards.

You heard a lot of talk about DNC insiders about Edwards appeal, but damned little to back it up.
He appealed a lot to DNC insiders. This is a problem with both parties and has been for a while, what the party insiders want isn't who the people want.

(I could go into specifics but we all know the names anyway and that would be current politics)
 

Deleted member 1487

Pres. Obama and the Democratic Congress kept the bridge from collapsing! , for crying out loud!!! :cool:

Yes, I personally would have loved to have seen Sherman Anti-Trust or similar used to break up Chase, Bank of America, and the other big boy banks. But it would have caused a short-term hit to a recovering economy. And more important, it would have not affected insurance company AIG and other key non-bank financial institutions.
You know how sometimes you have to break a malformed bone to get it to heal correctly? Long term for things to actually be fixed in the financial sector they would have to be reformed to make them less susceptible to the problems that created 2008. Beyond that AIG was a victim of the problems within banking rather than a specific cause of what ended up happening; they bought up investments the ratings agencies rated as AAA and got screwed like everyone else. The problem with that lay in the rating agencies themselves and of course the fraudulent banks that set them up in the first place, knowing they were a ticking time bomb.

He appealed a lot to DNC insiders. This is a problem with both parties and has been for a while, what the party insiders want isn't who the people want.

(I could go into specifics but we all know the names anyway and that would be current politics)
More accurately put it is the donors who want different people/policies, which causes the party elite to dance to their tune and stamp out anyone who seems like they won't toe the line and actually focus on what the voters want.
https://democraticautopsy.org/corporate-power-and-the-party-one-year-later/
 
Top