Time and time again we see the same narrative come out of the beltway press after major elections which is perfectly captured by Duncan Black in a post called:
It's that time again. When Democrats (likely) win office, we all get talk about how they didn't really win. It was a fluke. Or the people who didn't vote for them weren't the right kind of people, knowwhatimean?
No matter what happens this election will be a mandate for Trump voters, because every election is. When they win they get what they want, when they lose they should get what they want. The Democrats must heal this nation by appointing Paul Ryan co-president and Stephen Bannon the head of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. It's time to end racism against white people once and for all! It's the new War on Racism!
And it's already started. Beltway pundits will soon line up behind Chuck Todd's analysis of this campaign season if Hillary Clinton does win the election.
See, even though millions and millions of people would have voted for her, it's not because of her, per se, it's because Trump was so sucky.
Democrats, if they do hold the White House, can't assume a presidential victory is a pure validation of their way of governing. A win will be in no small part due to a rejection of Trump more than it is an affirmation for Clinton. The GOP may appear more fractured right now than the Democratic Party, but the ingredients are there for a similar implosion if the party isn't careful.
And what election is ever a "pure validation" of any candidate's governing style? What does that even mean?
And no, Chuck. First of all, isn't every "loser" in an election a rejection of the loser by the voters and what they stand for?
The Republican Party voted for the candidate they most wanted to represent them in the general election. And if he loses, that is called being rejected by the people.
And even though there are some anti-Hillary voters out there, the party itself is rock solid. Maybe Todd hasn't noticed, but the entire Democratic party is supporting its nominee. Not so with the GOP.
As Hillary Clinton was acquiescing to just about every single progressive ask for the party platform this summer, one smart Clinton operative admitted that she may have won the nomination but Bernie Sanders won the campaign to decide the ideological direction of the party. The Democrats have been benefitting from being "not them" with a lot of voters who are not quite as progressive as the party activists for now. Can Democrats keep these "not them" leaners in their coalition if they govern in a more progressive direction?
The political PAC I helped start, Blue America PAC was the first PAC to endorse Bernie Sanders. We (Digby and Howie) are true progressives and have supported and raised millions of dollars for the most progressive candidates in every election since we became an entity.
It takes time to shift the ideology of a major political party, but progressive values are now the guiding principles of the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders greatly aided that shift, but it's also been in the works since George W. Bush took office and the Netroots took off.
Her political comfort zone is as a more center-left Democrat. And this fault line has the potential to splinter the party. When one leaves out race, the Democratic coalition doesn't look all that different from the GOP coalition when it comes to income. And that divide has shattered the coalition on the right between blue-collar whites and the business/Wall Street elite.
Well guess what, the Democratic coalition consists of a wealthy elite and a working class group of voters, mostly of color. It's a coalition that survives as long as the other party is seen as less inclusive on ethnic and racial lines. Democrats may think the GOP will never be able to rebrand itself anytime soon when it comes to non-whites, but parties aren't static.
The remaining less progressive Dems are still with us on all the major issues including expanding Social Security, Medicare, improving Obamacare and raising the minimum wage and fair income redistribution That's called party unity.
In all the most recent polling, the shift from DLC Democrats to Progressive Democrats has been eye opening.
But we know that many of the Democrats that appear on TV are heavily weighted to the DLC types and not progressives. When Elizabeth Warren stops by, it's more of an event than a casual appearance on a Sunday talk show because liberals are so often shunned by the networks.
Now Chuck gets to Hillary Clinton and as Duncan predicted, he says:
The level of antipathy that many Trump supporters have for her is beyond anything we've previously seen. She simply can't afford to not try to at least de-escalate the anger.
She should embark on a set of town halls in Republican states with actual Trump voters starting in December and begin a conversation. She may make little actual progress, but democracy demands a real effort.
So Hillary's first move as president should be to go to Trumpland and engage his supporters who chant "lock her up" at every rally.
Remember what happened when JFK went to the hostile territory of Dallas?
If elected, I do believe Hillary will engage with the Republican party, but that's not going to be her first move, Chuck.
I know Todd is predicting a Clinton victory in his piece, but it would have been nice to see him spend some time on what Donald Trump should do if he wins.
Would Chuck suggest Donald holds town halls in Black and Hispanic communities to try and de-escalate the feelings they have for him and the white nationalist policies he and his supporters have put forward?
Either way, Republicans in Congress will not be held accountable for their incessant obstructionism or the many hearings they pledge will take place against the Clintons and all left wing organizations.
What about the saying "to the victor go the spoils?" Winning is supposed to have its advantages.
I guess not.
We are the ones that need to change.