This is one of the unsung aspects of the 2016 election.
The media loves it's false equivalence due to it's preoccupation of balance. The fly in the ointment is when the media gives equal time between the truth and a lie. Simon Wren-Lewis documents how this is what the British media has done on Brexit.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/brexit-donald-trump-of-england.html
The media has christened 2016 as the year of the outsider.
Which is understandable with the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. What the media hasn't really processed is that this has been asymmetric.
Very simply: Trump was successful. Bernie wasn't.
Whatever else the implications of 2016 turn out to be, one major implication is that the Dems are a much more healthy party than the GOP.
Dems are incredibly unified-shown by the level of support Hillary got from the super delegates.
Krugman talked about this yesterday. As he said, this is really a Tale of Two Parties:
"Do you remember what happened when the Berlin Wall fell? Until that moment, nobody realized just how decadent Communism had become. It had tanks, guns, and nukes, but nobody really believed in its ideology anymore; its officials and enforcers were mere careerists, who folded at the first shock."
"It seems to me that you need to think about what happened to the G.O.P. this election cycle the same way."
"The Republican establishment was easily overthrown because it was already hollow at the core. Donald Trump’s taunts about “low-energy” Jeb Bush and “little Marco” Rubio worked because they contained a large element of truth. When Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio dutifully repeated the usual conservative clichés, you could see that there was no sense of conviction behind their recitations. All it took was the huffing and puffing of a loud-mouthed showman to blow their houses down."
"But as Mr. Trump is finding out, the Democratic establishment is different."
"As some political scientists are now acknowledging, America’s two major parties are not at all symmetric. The G.O.P. is, or was until Mr. Trump arrived, a top-down hierarchical structure enforcing a strict, ideologically pure party line. The Democrats, by contrast, are a “coalition of social groups,” from teachers’ unions to Planned Parenthood, seeking specific benefits from government action."
"This diversity of interests sometimes reduces Democrats’ effectiveness: the old Will Rogers joke, “I am not a member of any organized political party — I’m a Democrat” still rings true. But it also means that the Democratic establishment, such as it is, is resilient against Trump-style coups."
"But wait: Didn’t Hillary Clinton face her own insurgency in the person of Bernie Sanders, which she barely turned back? Actually, no."
"For one thing, it wasn’t all that close. Mrs. Clinton won pledged delegates by almost four times Barack Obama’s margin in 2008; she won the popular vote by double digits."
"Nor did she win by burying her rival in cash. In fact, Mr. Sanders outspent her all the way, spending twice on much as she did on ads in New York, which she won by 16 percentage points."
"Also, Mrs. Clinton faced immense, bizarre hostility from the news media. Last week Harvard’s Shorenstein Center released a report on media treatment of the candidates during 2015, showing that Mrs. Clinton received by far the most unfavorable coverage. Even when reports focused on issues rather than alleged scandals, 84 percent of her coverage was negative — twice as high as for Mr. Trump. As the report notes, “Clinton’s negative coverage can be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the receiving end.”
"And yet she won, fairly easily, because she had the solid support of key elements of the Democratic coalition, especially nonwhite voters."
"But will this resilience persist in the general election? Early indications are that it will. Mr. Trump briefly pulled close in the polls after he clinched the Republican nomination, but he has been plunging ever since. And that’s despite the refusal of Mr. Sanders to concede or endorse the presumptive nominee, with at least some Bernie or Busters still telling pollsters that they won’t back her."
"Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is flailing. He’s tried all the tactics that worked for him in the Republican contest — insults, derisive nicknames, boasts — but none of it is sticking. Conventional wisdom said that he would be helped by a terrorist attack, but the atrocity in Orlando seems to havehurt him instead: Mrs. Clinton’s response looked presidential, his didn’t."
"Worse yet from his point of view, there’s a concerted effort by Democrats — Mrs. Clinton herself, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, and more — to make the great ridiculer look ridiculous (which he is). And it seems to be working."
"Why is Mrs. Clinton holding up so well against Mr. Trump, when establishment Republicans were so hapless? Partly it’s because America as a whole, unlike the Republican base, isn’t dominated by angry white men; partly it’s because, as anyone watching the Benghazi hearing realized, Mrs. Clinton herself is a lot tougher than anyone on the other side."
"But a big factor, I’d argue, is that the Democratic establishment in general is fairly robust. I’m not saying that its members are angels, which they aren’t. Some, no doubt, are personally corrupt. But the various groups making up the party’s coalition really care about and believe in their positions — they’re not just saying what the Koch brothers pay them to say."
"So pay no attention to anyone claiming that Trumpism reflects either the magical powers of the candidate or some broad, bipartisan upsurge of rage against the establishment. What worked in the primary won’t work in the general election, because only one party’s establishment was already dead inside."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/opinion/a-tale-of-two-parties.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
One big tell that this is not a year of anger at the Establishment is President Obama's approval rating. If people were this angry, you'd expect his numbers to be in the toilet, like LBJ's were in 1968.
Many of the Berners are talking about doing another 1968.
But 2016 is totally different. And why is there so much pride of 1968? The riots didn't end the Vietnam, they just helped derail the election of Hubert Humphrey-who, according to Daniel Ellsberg, would have wound down the war.
Ironically, Vietnam went on for 7 more years.
One big difference between 2016 and 1968. A large reason that the Dems are so unified now and were so at each other's throats then is the contrast between the RFK and LBJ feud, and the alliance between President Obama and Hilary Clinton.
LBJ and RFK could never make it work. Personally, I dissent from the common view and place a lot of the blame for this on RFK himself, who always some LBJ as not good enough for the Kennedys.
Obama, on the other hand, made an inspired move in his idea of having a team of rivals. In this way, they want from being rivals to becoming friends and allies.
It has served him well and even more importantly, it's served the party well.
The media loves it's false equivalence due to it's preoccupation of balance. The fly in the ointment is when the media gives equal time between the truth and a lie. Simon Wren-Lewis documents how this is what the British media has done on Brexit.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/brexit-donald-trump-of-england.html
The media has christened 2016 as the year of the outsider.
Which is understandable with the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. What the media hasn't really processed is that this has been asymmetric.
Very simply: Trump was successful. Bernie wasn't.
Whatever else the implications of 2016 turn out to be, one major implication is that the Dems are a much more healthy party than the GOP.
Dems are incredibly unified-shown by the level of support Hillary got from the super delegates.
Krugman talked about this yesterday. As he said, this is really a Tale of Two Parties:
"Do you remember what happened when the Berlin Wall fell? Until that moment, nobody realized just how decadent Communism had become. It had tanks, guns, and nukes, but nobody really believed in its ideology anymore; its officials and enforcers were mere careerists, who folded at the first shock."
"It seems to me that you need to think about what happened to the G.O.P. this election cycle the same way."
"The Republican establishment was easily overthrown because it was already hollow at the core. Donald Trump’s taunts about “low-energy” Jeb Bush and “little Marco” Rubio worked because they contained a large element of truth. When Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio dutifully repeated the usual conservative clichés, you could see that there was no sense of conviction behind their recitations. All it took was the huffing and puffing of a loud-mouthed showman to blow their houses down."
"But as Mr. Trump is finding out, the Democratic establishment is different."
"As some political scientists are now acknowledging, America’s two major parties are not at all symmetric. The G.O.P. is, or was until Mr. Trump arrived, a top-down hierarchical structure enforcing a strict, ideologically pure party line. The Democrats, by contrast, are a “coalition of social groups,” from teachers’ unions to Planned Parenthood, seeking specific benefits from government action."
"This diversity of interests sometimes reduces Democrats’ effectiveness: the old Will Rogers joke, “I am not a member of any organized political party — I’m a Democrat” still rings true. But it also means that the Democratic establishment, such as it is, is resilient against Trump-style coups."
"But wait: Didn’t Hillary Clinton face her own insurgency in the person of Bernie Sanders, which she barely turned back? Actually, no."
"For one thing, it wasn’t all that close. Mrs. Clinton won pledged delegates by almost four times Barack Obama’s margin in 2008; she won the popular vote by double digits."
"Nor did she win by burying her rival in cash. In fact, Mr. Sanders outspent her all the way, spending twice on much as she did on ads in New York, which she won by 16 percentage points."
"Also, Mrs. Clinton faced immense, bizarre hostility from the news media. Last week Harvard’s Shorenstein Center released a report on media treatment of the candidates during 2015, showing that Mrs. Clinton received by far the most unfavorable coverage. Even when reports focused on issues rather than alleged scandals, 84 percent of her coverage was negative — twice as high as for Mr. Trump. As the report notes, “Clinton’s negative coverage can be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the receiving end.”
"And yet she won, fairly easily, because she had the solid support of key elements of the Democratic coalition, especially nonwhite voters."
"But will this resilience persist in the general election? Early indications are that it will. Mr. Trump briefly pulled close in the polls after he clinched the Republican nomination, but he has been plunging ever since. And that’s despite the refusal of Mr. Sanders to concede or endorse the presumptive nominee, with at least some Bernie or Busters still telling pollsters that they won’t back her."
"Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is flailing. He’s tried all the tactics that worked for him in the Republican contest — insults, derisive nicknames, boasts — but none of it is sticking. Conventional wisdom said that he would be helped by a terrorist attack, but the atrocity in Orlando seems to havehurt him instead: Mrs. Clinton’s response looked presidential, his didn’t."
"Worse yet from his point of view, there’s a concerted effort by Democrats — Mrs. Clinton herself, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, and more — to make the great ridiculer look ridiculous (which he is). And it seems to be working."
"Why is Mrs. Clinton holding up so well against Mr. Trump, when establishment Republicans were so hapless? Partly it’s because America as a whole, unlike the Republican base, isn’t dominated by angry white men; partly it’s because, as anyone watching the Benghazi hearing realized, Mrs. Clinton herself is a lot tougher than anyone on the other side."
"But a big factor, I’d argue, is that the Democratic establishment in general is fairly robust. I’m not saying that its members are angels, which they aren’t. Some, no doubt, are personally corrupt. But the various groups making up the party’s coalition really care about and believe in their positions — they’re not just saying what the Koch brothers pay them to say."
"So pay no attention to anyone claiming that Trumpism reflects either the magical powers of the candidate or some broad, bipartisan upsurge of rage against the establishment. What worked in the primary won’t work in the general election, because only one party’s establishment was already dead inside."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/opinion/a-tale-of-two-parties.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
One big tell that this is not a year of anger at the Establishment is President Obama's approval rating. If people were this angry, you'd expect his numbers to be in the toilet, like LBJ's were in 1968.
Many of the Berners are talking about doing another 1968.
But 2016 is totally different. And why is there so much pride of 1968? The riots didn't end the Vietnam, they just helped derail the election of Hubert Humphrey-who, according to Daniel Ellsberg, would have wound down the war.
Ironically, Vietnam went on for 7 more years.
One big difference between 2016 and 1968. A large reason that the Dems are so unified now and were so at each other's throats then is the contrast between the RFK and LBJ feud, and the alliance between President Obama and Hilary Clinton.
LBJ and RFK could never make it work. Personally, I dissent from the common view and place a lot of the blame for this on RFK himself, who always some LBJ as not good enough for the Kennedys.
Obama, on the other hand, made an inspired move in his idea of having a team of rivals. In this way, they want from being rivals to becoming friends and allies.
It has served him well and even more importantly, it's served the party well.
Great post Mike. Thanks for the link and quotes from Krugman.
ReplyDeleteLeon Wolf has a good one today. I liked this quote of his in which he paraphrases Erickson:
"People got mad at Erick for saying the Trump campaign was a vehicle for people who have failed in life to feel like they are winners."
I liked this bit too:
"Disaster is looming over the horizon for this campaign. Anyone who donates to Trump will have their name listed on his donor registry forever and ever, and by now no one wants that on their permanent record."
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/21/bad-trumps-fundraising-operation-almost-finished-fourth-may/
Indeed. No one wants that.
ReplyDeleteIt's like being a David Duke donor