Carville took a governor from a backwater state and got him into the Whitehouse despite his opponent being one of the most popular Presidents at the time.
Carville isn’t stupid he’s just wrong in this case
As far as I can tell, his political strategy has not evolved even a little over the past 3 decades, as he continues to push unpopular ‘compromise candidates’ and continues to tell people to ‘sit down and shut up’ whenever they suggest maybe the Democrats should chase some reforms that benefit the working class rather than simply appeasing the Wall Street paymasters.
I don’t know if stubbornly sticking to the same failing strategy for 30 years makes you ‘stupid’, but it certainly doesn’t make you smart.
To add to that, even though he helped get Clinton elected, Clinton’s main accomplishment was making the Democrats more useless to the people as a result. Third way Democrats have been an abysmal failure from a progress perspective. Some of Clinton’s “main accomplishments” were helping demolish the welfare state, and increasing the incarceration rate.
Obama, in retrospect, can be viewed as a third-way Democrat as well, and the primary policy accomplishment his presidency produced is a Republican think-tanked, half-measure healthcare policy that was largely a gift to the insurance companies even at the onset and has since been left out in the field to be continually picked at by vultures.
I was wondering this morning why Democrats don’t seem to really have effective policy think-tanks like the Republicans do and then I thought maybe they just use the same ones.
You need to pay closer attention to who controlled Congress under Clinton. Most of what you list as Clinton’s accomplishments were bills introduced by a conservative run Congress.
If you are unaware of what the democratic think tanks are you should address that.
Sure, he had a congress of the opposite party for some / most of his terms. You know who else had that? Nearly every president ever elected to office.
It makes it ever the more important to use what little time you have to push your agenda through, to veto things you disagree with, and sit your court appointees.
EDIT:
I also realized I left this “point” unaddressed:
If you are unaware of what the democratic think tanks are you should address that.
Dude, I’ve been a bigger political news person for 20+ years than most people bother being. I can name organizations like “the Heritage Foundation” and the “Cato Institute” without a reference. You know why? Because these think-tanks are effective. Note my original comment. I said “effective policy think-tanks”. Would you consider democratic think tanks effective when Obama with a sweeping mandate from the people unlike anything else I’ve seen in my lifetime wound up producing a copycat plan of a Republican governor?
Sure, they may exist, but if they do they’re not what I’d term “effective” and me looking up their names isn’t going to make them that way.
37 times since 1857 means most Presidents did not have an opposing Congress. Your premise is built on an incorrect notion namely that what Clinton was facing was common when as your link shows that wasn’t the case. Furthermore Clinton is the first POTUS to confront a GOP that us unwilling to compromise in many/most situations.
Worth noting almost the totality of the increase of productivity from the late 1970s- present are tied to technological
improvements in the factory. The worker hasn’t become more productive the machines have which is why it is important for the workers to own the means of production as it avoids this payment issue.
The relevancy it has is his strategy was successful when the US was still riding on the coattails of the New Deal and Great Society and was still perceived as being relatively egalitarian. But as inequality and worker exploitation got worse and worse and worse and worse AND WORSE, electing third-way neoliberal fuckwads doesn’t work quite so well anymore!
The point is not that the problem started with Clinton (because it obviously didn’t); the point is that Clinton running on “third way” neoliberalism was still a viable strategy because the effects weren’t being widely felt yet.
Carville needs to ‘strategically retreat’ back into whatever Louisiana snake hole he slithered out of.
I thought it was the ark of the covenant.
I dont think people give early family guy enough credit for shitting on conservatives
Speaking of, If you don’t watch American Dad I’d highly recommend. Been my favorite show from MacFarlane for a while now.
I love all of Seth’s stuff honestly, I started watching The Orville recently and its fantastic. American dad is good too.
The Ollie North song lives rent free in my head.
Cajun style
Carville took a governor from a backwater state and got him into the Whitehouse despite his opponent being one of the most popular Presidents at the time.
Carville isn’t stupid he’s just wrong in this case
You’re, right he did. In 1992.
As far as I can tell, his political strategy has not evolved even a little over the past 3 decades, as he continues to push unpopular ‘compromise candidates’ and continues to tell people to ‘sit down and shut up’ whenever they suggest maybe the Democrats should chase some reforms that benefit the working class rather than simply appeasing the Wall Street paymasters.
I don’t know if stubbornly sticking to the same failing strategy for 30 years makes you ‘stupid’, but it certainly doesn’t make you smart.
To add to that, even though he helped get Clinton elected, Clinton’s main accomplishment was making the Democrats more useless to the people as a result. Third way Democrats have been an abysmal failure from a progress perspective. Some of Clinton’s “main accomplishments” were helping demolish the welfare state, and increasing the incarceration rate.
Obama, in retrospect, can be viewed as a third-way Democrat as well, and the primary policy accomplishment his presidency produced is a Republican think-tanked, half-measure healthcare policy that was largely a gift to the insurance companies even at the onset and has since been left out in the field to be continually picked at by vultures.
I was wondering this morning why Democrats don’t seem to really have effective policy think-tanks like the Republicans do and then I thought maybe they just use the same ones.
Policy think-tanks cost money. Since the owner class has all the money, all the think-tanks serve the owner class.
Are you being serious? There are absolutely democrat leaning think tanks.
This:
and this:
aren’t the contradiction that you think they are.
You need to pay closer attention to who controlled Congress under Clinton. Most of what you list as Clinton’s accomplishments were bills introduced by a conservative run Congress.
If you are unaware of what the democratic think tanks are you should address that.
Sure, he had a congress of the opposite party for some / most of his terms. You know who else had that? Nearly every president ever elected to office.
It makes it ever the more important to use what little time you have to push your agenda through, to veto things you disagree with, and sit your court appointees.
EDIT:
I also realized I left this “point” unaddressed:
Dude, I’ve been a bigger political news person for 20+ years than most people bother being. I can name organizations like “the Heritage Foundation” and the “Cato Institute” without a reference. You know why? Because these think-tanks are effective. Note my original comment. I said “effective policy think-tanks”. Would you consider democratic think tanks effective when Obama with a sweeping mandate from the people unlike anything else I’ve seen in my lifetime wound up producing a copycat plan of a Republican governor?
Sure, they may exist, but if they do they’re not what I’d term “effective” and me looking up their names isn’t going to make them that way.
That isn’t true? Post WW-II to 1992 it was controlled by the democrats.
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/
Divided government is very common in the US.
37 times since 1857 means most Presidents did not have an opposing Congress. Your premise is built on an incorrect notion namely that what Clinton was facing was common when as your link shows that wasn’t the case. Furthermore Clinton is the first POTUS to confront a GOP that us unwilling to compromise in many/most situations.
Think about where Clinton getting elected for the first time falls on that chart, vs. where we are now.
What relevance does this have to James Carville?
Worth noting almost the totality of the increase of productivity from the late 1970s- present are tied to technological improvements in the factory. The worker hasn’t become more productive the machines have which is why it is important for the workers to own the means of production as it avoids this payment issue.
The relevancy it has is his strategy was successful when the US was still riding on the coattails of the New Deal and Great Society and was still perceived as being relatively egalitarian. But as inequality and worker exploitation got worse and worse and worse and worse AND WORSE, electing third-way neoliberal fuckwads doesn’t work quite so well anymore!
That’s a massive stretch given these things happened 14 years before Carville was running Clinton’s campaign.
The point is not that the problem started with Clinton (because it obviously didn’t); the point is that Clinton running on “third way” neoliberalism was still a viable strategy because the effects weren’t being widely felt yet.
Which is also not true and doesn’t align with the economic history of the late 1970-early 1980s in the USA.
Why do you keep misusing the term “third way”? Are you under the impression that neoliberalism and fascist economics are intertwined?