Morning Jay: Can Dingell Lose, Send In Clinton, and What About Missouri?
6:30 AM, Oct 11, 2010 • By JAY COST
Liberals have been shunning Bill Clinton for a decade. Ralph Nader won 3% of the vote, exclusively among the liberals, by arguing that Al Gore, Clinton’s Vice-President, and George W. Bush, the son of the president Clinton defeated, were “Tweedledee and Tweedledum.” Barack Obama won huge hauls among liberals by lumping the Clinton administration in with the last 20 years of Republican rule.
And who do they send out there to save their majority?
Irony aside, this is smart politics. The Democratic majority depends in large part among Southern and Border State Democrats in precisely the kinds of places that Obama did very poorly in. Yet Bill Clinton won the border states in 1996 and split the South with Bob Dole. He’s the guy to send.
Of course, over time this is not going to work. With the northern, urban liberals – as represented by Barack Obama – firmly in charge of the Democratic party, it will be harder and harder for Democrats in such areas to remain viable. The postwar urbanization of the Democratic party has delivered much of the Mountain West, the South, and now the Border States into the hands of Republican presidential candidates, and left congressional Democrats from these regions perpetually worried that their fellow partisans from the big cities will damage their prospects. Expect dozens of them to lose this cycle, just as Northeastern Republicans were the biggest losers between 2006 and 2008.
3. Latest Sign of the Dempocalypse. Not that the latest sign is much of a surprise, but still:
Due in no small part to the fact that Missouri is in the middle of the nation -- and thus affected by many different migration patterns -- the Show Me State has historically been a bellwether. In fact, 2008 was the first time in 52 years that it supported a losing presidential candidate, and even then it gave John McCain the slightest of victories.
And the DSCC is bailing.
Recent Blog Posts