Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This doesn't sound very plausible to me as the electorate in NC was a lot different in 1992 than in 2008, plus everything you cite regarding Clinton was after the fact. I could see it if NC broke for Clinton in '92 then went red in '96 like Georgia, but it didn't go for Clinton either time.
NC is more conservative in reality than its reputation would make it seem.
NC's reputation is pretty conservative though, thanks to the last four years. Unless a democrat mobilizes the monster youth vote like Obama did in 2008 or Clinton did in 1992 (who came within 1% of winning NC), it will go red in national elections. The difference in young voter turnout between 2008 and other years is massive and because of the polarization by age in this state, it's the difference between being a competitive swing state vs being a dark red one like 2010.
Bear in mind, two states that went for Obama both times, Ohio and Iowa, went to Trump by much larger margins than NC. Anything within 5% on either side is a swing state. It can be easy to write off a state as safe for one side (Pennsylvania) because one party wins it by close margins every time.
Bill Clinton supported NAFTA which shipped jobs out of the state. He deregulated the financial industry which led to the 2008 collapse. He had a secret deal to privatize social security. He was basically a Republican with softer views on social issues.
NC's democratic coalition relies on young voters more than any other state, and young voters only vote for progressive democrats. So any center-right democratic candidate will lose NC. Obama ran on a progressive platform in 2008 and won NC. He then walked back on most of his platform and became a third term of Bush, and the young voters in NC dumped him in 2012.
Pretty obvious really.
Trump isn't a real republican. Young voters absolutely hate him but would rather he win than a real republican who actually knows what they're doing and who would work with Congress to dismantle public services and turn the country into a feudal state. Trump actually outflanked Clinton on the left on some issues like trade... and Hillary Clinton was a republican in all but name. She voted for the Patriot Act, the War in Iraq, she's in the pocket of Goldman Sachs and the private prison system... So of course young voters didn't turn out to save her. If Sanders had been the nominee, he would've gotten the monster 2008 youth turnout and put up a real fight in the state.
If democrats come back with someone like Elizabeth Warren or Rocky Anderson in 2020 they have good chances to win NC.
Pretty much all wrong in my opinion, no offense. Opinions vary!
Obama barely won in NC in 2008 which was a change election across the country.....Obama even took Indiana. Obama pretty much was speaking for "hope and change" and many people bought in to it. I think he carried out his agenda and this is the reason he lost in NC in 2012......I mean Romney wasn't exactly an exciting candidate, a good guy but no enthusiasm and he still won.
Nationally for NC, Democrats have lost across the board here, 2014 Senate and 2016 Senate and President. What about Deborah Ross? She was pretty far left but her campaign presented her as more moderate than she really was, and she lost decisively.
NC just is not a liberal state, and is a "center right" state. People who look for NC to be some liberal state are looking at the wrong place. Certainly you can find liberal areas such as cities or some counties but you can find conservative areas in California too.
The most competitive Democrat to win NC would be a Jim Webb or a '1992 Bill Clinton'.....not Warren. If you think the message voters sent after this election was "go far left" then by all means run Warren. I consider myself politically aware, but honestly who is Rocky Anderson?
NC's democratic coalition relies on young voters more than any other state, and young voters only vote for progressive democrats. So any center-right democratic candidate will lose NC. Obama ran on a progressive platform in 2008 and won NC. He then walked back on most of his platform and became a third term of Bush, and the young voters in NC dumped him in 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina_native
The most competitive Democrat to win NC would be a Jim Webb or a '1992 Bill Clinton'.....not Warren. If you think the message voters sent after this election was "go far left" then by all means run Warren.
I kind of agree with both of you. Obama is the only Democrat since Jimmy Carter to take NC. Bill Clinton didn't win NC in either of his races. However, I think the reason Roy won over Pat was because he was a conservative enough candidate to appeal to some of the Trump voters.
Pretty much all wrong in my opinion, no offense. Opinions vary!
Obama barely won in NC in 2008 which was a change election across the country.....Obama even took Indiana. Obama pretty much was speaking for "hope and change" and many people bought in to it. I think he carried out his agenda and this is the reason he lost in NC in 2012......I mean Romney wasn't exactly an exciting candidate, a good guy but no enthusiasm and he still won.
If you venture out of your bubble and speak to anyone on the left, they'll tell you they were massively disappointed with Obama after he got elected. What do you think he accomplished? A few feel-good social issues? Well whoopdy-do.
He dropped the Public Option without a fight. He made the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act permanent. He got involved in a new war in Libya that everyone on the left would've hated if Bush had done it (instead of only the observant among us), he made the Bush tax cuts permanent. He cut Medicare and Social Security. The banks are even bigger now than they were when he got into office. Democrats had both houses and the presidency and there were no consequences for the people who caused the 2008 crash. We didn't get Glass-Steagall back. And the stimulus? Not much different from Bush's. Half of it was tax breaks to the very corporations that caused the mess. Obama has also been continuing Bush's legacy of expanding executive power into terrifying realms. He repealed habeus corpus.... are you kidding me? You think this guy's a lefty? He talks like one, sure, but in reality he's a kinder gentler neoconservative, with cushy feel-good positions on social issues.
Not to mention the TPP... something Clinton called the "gold standard" before she had to adopt a fake opposition to it to try to win an election. I don't think anyone was fooled by that. You could see the anguish on her face when she said she opposed it. The lack of sincerity was palpable.
Hey what's our progressive hero Obama doing about the DAPL? Oh... absolutely nothing.
And so Obama lost some support in 2012 because we saw this stuff. Clinton would've been a continuation of this. I'm sorry, but your analysis of national trends is simply off. The left has largely been sitting back and letting the democrats die because they're rotten to the core. They're as bad as Republicans much of the time. Many of the losses in 2010 and 2014 were blue dogs by the way. Kay Hagan and Bev Perdue for instance... being moderates didn't save them. In fact that's what got them killed. Perdue threw teachers under the bus the moment she got elected, and sealed her fate as a one-termer right there (it's highly unlikely such a weak candidate could win in an off-year, she was simply pulled up by the Obama wave).
We need to dispense with the notion that there's this huge pool of moderates that agree with the average opinion in Congress that Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan should be running the economy, rather than people without a conflict of interest. Since when was privatizing profits and subsidizing losses a moderate position? The actual voters in both parties have been polarizing over time because that 'moderate' position is actually quite unpalatable. And we're in the middle of a realignment.
A large part of winning elections comes from motivating base turnout, and while democratic voters have been moving left for 30 years, the party hasn't changed. Republicans had some time in the wilderness to reorganize and regroup to accomodate their base. Now you're gonna see the same thing happen for the Democrats.
For the people saying Obamacare won NC because the blacks voted in droves for him. Couldn't the same be said about Trump? Trump flipped WI, MI, PA and won Ohio by a good margin because of angry white people.
If we were solidly red, McCrory would've won our state easily with the conservative policies he accomplished with a GOP super majority.
We will have to wait until 2020 to see if NC and midwestern States tô draw better conclusions. Other southern states have large black populations, they weren't as close elections as we are. And you can't dismiss 2008 because black enthusiasm without dismissing 2016 for the same exact reason: White enthusiasm
For the people saying Obamacare won NC because the blacks voted in droves for him. Couldn't the same be said about Trump? Trump flipped WI, MI, PA and won Ohio by a good margin because of angry white people.
If we were solidly red, McCrory would've won our state easily with the conservative policies he accomplished with a GOP super majority.
We will have to wait until 2020 to see if NC and midwestern States tô draw better conclusions. Other southern states have large black populations, they weren't as close elections as we are. And you can't dismiss 2008 because black enthusiasm without dismissing 2016 for the same exact reason: White enthusiasm
I kind of agree, but white enthusiasm is usually more split in North Carolina. That one time in 2008 was when black enthusiasm coupled with enough of the rest of the typical Democrat base was able to throw it. There's no way Hillary or Bernie would have won NC back in 2008. It was Obama specific
It's relevant that no one in either party could expect enough "white enthusiasm" to get a landslide in that demographic. There's only one candidate ever that got 96% of a single racial group to vote for them
I wish Latinos would have come out for Marco Rubio in the primary
And before I get called racist for mentioning race, keep in mind that I'm not saying blacks only vote black. If so, Ben Carson would have had their support. I'm just saying that the combination of his policies and his racial identity mobilized blacks in a huge way
In a similar way, I know a lot of women that wanted Hillary to win because she was a woman and it got them out to vote even more than if she was just another Democratic dude. Even then, she got nowhere near 96%. Trump was so nasty to women, that if Hillary wasn't supportive of late term and partial birth abortion I think she would have taken a lot more of the female vote in NC. I know several that would have gone that way but couldn't support those policies
For the people saying Obamacare won NC because the blacks voted in droves for him. Couldn't the same be said about Trump? Trump flipped WI, MI, PA and won Ohio by a good margin because of angry white people.
If we were solidly red, McCrory would've won our state easily with the conservative policies he accomplished with a GOP super majority.
We will have to wait until 2020 to see if NC and midwestern States tô draw better conclusions. Other southern states have large black populations, they weren't as close elections as we are. And you can't dismiss 2008 because black enthusiasm without dismissing 2016 for the same exact reason: White enthusiasm
I don't think NC will be as much on the Democrat radar in 2020 as some think. NC going once for a Democrat in 2008 I don't know if it will be worth it to put much money and time here. Think about all the celebrities, the Obama's themselves, all campaigning straight to election day itself in 2016 and made no difference. What about 2012 when Obama was on the ballot and the DNC was in Charlotte?
The polls were so off in the rust belt states that Democrats will be very paranoid in 2020 and I don't see them pouring money into a state that has been such a disappointment in the past few elections when they need to nail down Ohio, P.A. M.I. W.I., etc.
I don't think NC will be as much on the Democrat radar in 2020 as some think. NC going once for a Democrat in 2008 I don't know if it will be worth it to put much money and time here. Think about all the celebrities, the Obama's themselves, all campaigning straight to election day itself in 2016 and made no difference. What about 2012 when Obama was on the ballot and the DNC was in Charlotte?
The polls were so off in the rust belt states that Democrats will be very paranoid in 2020 and I don't see them pouring money into a state that has been such a disappointment in the past few elections when they need to nail down Ohio, P.A. M.I. W.I., etc.
As NC continues the grow, the demographic shift is trending towards purple. No need to panic, the winds of politics can shift quickly, however, the numbers game will continue to trend less GOP. Clinton was extremely vulnerable due to years of public service and an easy mark for all kinds of "conspiracies", especially being a non-traditional 1st Lady that was actively and visibly engaged in the DC policy spectrum. I think NC will be closer to purple than ever in 2020, it'll depend on the candidate as to which way it will go.
If you venture out of your bubble and speak to anyone on the left, they'll tell you they were massively disappointed with Obama after he got elected.
The vast majority, regardless of their amount of formal education, are completely clueless about the issues you have posted about here.
The banks are even bigger now than they were when he got into office. Democrats had both houses and the presidency and there were no consequences for the people who caused the 2008 crash.
Sure, one of his major political backers was Goldman Sachs.
We didn't get Glass-Steagall back.
HRC's husband Billy was the one who signed the GLB of 2000 that ended it in the first place so this should not have been surprising.
And the stimulus? Not much different from Bush's. Half of it was tax breaks to the very corporations that caused the mess. Obama has also been continuing Bush's legacy of expanding executive power into terrifying realms. He repealed habeus corpus.... are you kidding me? You think this guy's a lefty? He talks like one, sure, but in reality he's a kinder gentler neoconservative, with cushy feel-good positions on social issues.
Not to mention the TPP... something Clinton called the "gold standard" before she had to adopt a fake opposition to it to try to win an election. I don't think anyone was fooled by that. You could see the anguish on her face when she said she opposed it. The lack of sincerity was palpable.
Hey what's our progressive hero Obama doing about the DAPL? Oh... absolutely nothing.
And so Obama lost some support in 2012 because we saw this stuff. Clinton would've been a continuation of this.
Worse. Corruption is dirt. Dirt is leverage for every special interest group in DC.
We need to dispense with the notion that there's this huge pool of moderates that agree with the average opinion in Congress that Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan should be running the economy, rather than people without a conflict of interest. Since when was privatizing profits and subsidizing losses a moderate position?
Subsidizing losses was a consequence of the way the deregulation was structured. It was the biggest robbery in history.
The actual voters in both parties have been polarizing over time because that 'moderate' position is actually quite unpalatable. And we're in the middle of a realignment.
The voters have been polarized by intense media programming. The same media owned by people like say, Rupert Murdoch. The "polarization" of Washington is a smokescreen - to blame gridlock for the reason Congress takes no action against the very institutions that fund their campaigns.
A large part of winning elections comes from motivating base turnout, and while democratic voters have been moving left for 30 years, the party hasn't changed. Republicans had some time in the wilderness to reorganize and regroup to accomodate their base. Now you're gonna see the same thing happen for the Democrats.
Motivating voter base had nothing to do with it. The voters expect action on promises made, not just words this time. The game is different now..
The only way you will see a change is if someone who has financial independence and the right skill set runs and wins political office. That is what happened on November 8th.
Young people are getting smarter and are not being brainwashed at their liberal institutions. We can thank the internet for that
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
