The party elders misreading their party

[gg_sl]

Trump and Sanders. I have talked to enough country-club Republican types to see that they pretty clearly didn't understand the rank-and-file Republicans very well. They, like the "establishment" seem, or seemed, genuinely surprised at the support for Trump. Somehow, they just didn't seem to understand their own party.

And it isn't just the Republicans. The Democratic party leaders, somehow, thought that Democratic primary voters would just fall in line for Hillary Clinton. It isn't a perfect comparison with the Republicans. Hillary Clinton isn't unpopular with the rank-and-file but she obviously isn't adored by many.

Part of these guys' jobs is to understand their parties. How did they miss it so badly?

[Alan]

Part of these guys' jobs is to understand their parties. How did they miss it so badly?
I believe roughly one quarter of the populace identifies with Republicans and another quarter with Democrats. That leaves half the population in the Independent, Green, Socialist, Libertarian or Communist mindset. For the first time in my memory, those folks are lining up behind outsiders who have claimed the mantle of one of the big two parties.

I don't think anyone has misread their party, I think their party is being taken over by outsiders.

[Zoe Girl]

Hmm, I did register as a Democrat for the first time just so I could have a say about the candidate. So that may count as having a typical outsider come in.

[LDAHL]

I believe roughly one quarter of the populace identifies with Republicans and another quarter with Democrats. That leaves half the population in the Independent, Green, Socialist, Libertarian or Communist mindset. For the first time in my memory, those folks are lining up behind outsiders who have claimed the mantle of one of the big two parties.

I don't think anyone has misread their party, I think their party is being taken over by outsiders.

I'm inclined to agree with you. We have some walk-ons doing well so far this year.

Sanders didn't call himself a Democrat before entering the Democratic primaries. Clearly it's just a flag of convenience for him.

"Country Club Republicans"? Is it 1963?

Trump has supported Democratic candidates and causes in the past, and his platform (such as it can be discerned) includes some traditional Democratic planks like single-payer health care and trade protectionism.

Cruz' more-conservative-than-thou approach has alienated much of the Republican mainstream.

Mrs. Clinton seems to be one of those sui generis uber-hacks that crop up from time to time who clearly will discard or adopt any philosophy needed in the pursuit of power.

[Rogar]

T
Part of these guys' jobs is to understand their parties. How did they miss it so badly?

It seems to point out how out of touch the elites are with the people. It's still possible, when it comes down to it, that the voters will take the security of the establishment over the unknowns of the wild cards.

[iris lilies]

I think its easy for party leaders to look at the erupting movments of outsiders such as Tea Party and The Donald and say to themselves "the electorate doesnt know what they want, they want CHANGE but what is that, they are unhappy and unfocused" and then ignore what seems to be happening.

The Donald hasnt preached much (any?) about shrinking government, he doesnt seem to me to share many or even any values with Tea Party rebels.

At the end of the day, I dont know who Id vote for if the election were held today. So if I am confused, why shouldn't party leaders be confused about what I want? :)

[LDAHL]

I think its easy for party leaders to look at the erupting movments of outsiders such as Tea Party and The Donald and say to themselves "the electorate doesnt know what they want, they want CHANGE but what is that, they are unhappy and unfocused" and then ignore what seems to be happening.

The Donald hasnt preached much (any?) about shrinking government, he doesnt seem to me to share many or even any values with Tea Party rebels.

At the end of the day, I dont know who Id vote for if the election were held today. So if I am confused, why shouldn't party leaders be confused about what I want? :)

I think you make a good point. We voters like blaming politicians for confusion and inconsistency, when in fact they are striving to give us exactly what we say we want. The problem is that most terms of office are longer than the the time it takes for public opinion to change. The President had one public position on gay marriage in 2008, but needed to "evolve" in 2012. Wars start out with great public support, only to have that support dwindle when the butcher's bill comes due.

I agree with what Mencken said:

"Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

[creaker]

Big money runs the parties - and as more and more money is concentrated into fewer people, I would think the aims of the parties would increasingly diverge from the wants of the people. And I think that's what we're seeing right now.

[Rogar]

I agree with what Mencken said:

"Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

I suspect there is truth to that. But I also think the establishment politicians pick a platform that matches their party role and then sets out to market it to the public and hope to convince them of it's wisdom. They give the people what they want, but use slick tactics to create that need.

Sometimes I wonder how people chose presidents before radio, TV, and the internet, with just newspapers and back of the traincar speeches.

[LDAHL]

It seems to point out how out of touch the elites are with the people. It's still possible, when it comes down to it, that the voters will take the security of the establishment over the unknowns of the wild cards.

I don't believe there's any such thing as "the people". There's only people. With much variation thereof. To really be "in touch" with them would be indicative of schizophrenia. There are only messy working majorities to cobble together.

I believe people claiming to speak for "the people" should be treated with the same caution as people claiming to speak for God.

[ToomuchStuff]

From memory, when I turned 18 and could vote, they wanted to know Republican or Democrat. There was no other option. You choose your vote for a candidate in that party, not the other. (although in later elections, I have heard talk of people going to the other party, to vote for who they believed they would win against)
They didn't give you the option of voting for who on x side, you would want and who on y side. They also don't allow in many states (don't know all), about what I have said before (None of the above AKA Brewster's Millions), which in my view is a proper vote of no confidence in any of the candidates.
Then there is the view above, that it is "THEIR" party, it isn't. They may get voted to be an official representative, but it doesn't belong to them as a singular owner. (although at times they seem to forget that)
Some days, I wish we had a bit of the old system, where the one that lost the election, became VP, and the one that won, became the P.

[ToomuchStuff]

Sometimes I wonder how people chose presidents before radio, TV, and the internet, with just newspapers and back of the traincar speeches.

Are you sure they did?

This was a big hubub a few years back when it came to light:
"There is no Constitutional provision (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#provisions) or Federal law (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#law) that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote."

from: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

Money could have just as easily affected past decisions.