Comeback in '90s Offers Democrats a Bit of Hope. But Not Much.
The year was 1984. Eight years later, Bill Clinton — a moderate governor from Arkansas who presented himself as a 'New Democrat' — was elected to the White House, unseating a Republican president, George H.W. Bush. Mr. Clinton's victory was the culmination of a campaign by a renegade organization of moderate Democrats, most from the South and the West, to move the party to the center, recruit new candidates and win back the working-class Americans who had abandoned it.
For Democrats distraught about the state of their party nine months after President Trump recaptured the presidency — who are mired in infighting over why they lost, how the party should change to become competitive again and who might lead them back to power — that long-ago chapter in the party's history offers a glimmer of hope.
But it also stands as another reminder of how deep a rut the party finds itself in today, and how different the current electorate is from the electorate Democrats managed to win over as they emerged from the wilderness in the 1990s.
The party, prodded by this maverick organization, the Democratic Leadership Council, rebuilt itself by promoting moderate candidates, pushing aside liberal leaders like the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson and abandoning long-held Democratic positions. 'We thought the party was moving too far to the left,' Richard A. Gephardt, a former House Democratic majority leader from Missouri, recalled.
Mr. Clinton ran for president in 1992 promising to 'end welfare as we know it' and promoting some of the very trade policies that Mr. Trump has sought to dismantle today.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
These Voters Were Overlooked. Then They Helped Mamdani Win.
Nor does having a South Asian candidate guarantee support from South Asian voters. Some Indian American groups in the greater New York region opposed Mamdani, running ads on trucks and airplane banners claiming the mayoral candidate had an 'extremist agenda and history of hateful rhetoric' — a reflection of rising Hindu nationalism in India. And, as the writer Yashica Dutta reported before the primary, some South Asians did not seem to be on board with, or even know, the Uganda-born Mamdani, the son of a Muslim father and a Hindu mother. Even so, in June, as primary voting maps show, those same South Asian areas in Queens and Brooklyn that had lost Democratic support and shifted towards Trump in 2024 went decisively for Mamdani. According to an internal analysis of voting data shared with POLITICO Magazine by a political strategist who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the media, South Asian turnout increased by 12 percent between the 2021 mayoral primary and this year's race in 13 assembly districts with a significant share of South Asians. This increase was driven primarily by Bangladeshis and to a lesser extent, Pakistanis — mainly in Queens and Brooklyn. First-time voters over 45 years old increased by over 6 percent across these 13 districts. The lion's share of this increased South Asian vote went to Mamdani, despite the gross imbalance in campaign funding between him and Cuomo and the latter's dynastic bona fides. A November 2024 video Mamdani posted on social media contains clues about how Mamdani went from polling at 1 percent shortly after launching his campaign to comfortably winning the primary. In it, Mamdani did interviews with Trump voters, many of whom appeared to be working-class South Asians, asking them why they voted for Trump and what it would take for them to switch back to the Democratic Party. Then he told them about his campaign. The video captures the mix of tactics that may have led to Mamdani's ultimate success: He went directly to these voters, asked them what they needed, and told them he could deliver it. He then made what he heard — in particular, concerns about affordability — the heart of his campaign, amplifying it consistently through savvy social media videos in South Asian languages and an aggressive field campaign staffed with South Asian faces. Conventional wisdom has dictated that targeting 'triple prime voters'— those who have voted in at least three previous primaries — is the winning electoral strategy. But Mamdani's campaign decided to target 'low propensity' voters — those who have been disconnected from electoral politics. 'He went after them full throttle and it paid off rather handsomely,' said Lange.
Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
U.S. And EU Reach Trade Deal—Setting Tariffs at 15%
The U.S. has agreed to a trade deal with the European Union, President Donald Trump announced Sunday afternoon, agreeing to a 15% tariff rate on most exports, including European cars, from EU countries—just days before the Aug. 1 deadline set for Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs. US President Donald Trump meets with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland ... More on Sunday. AFP via Getty Images This is a breaking story and will be updated.
CBS News
24 minutes ago
- CBS News
Vought won't rule out more rescissions funding cuts before September
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said his office is considering more options to claw back funding approved by Congress and isn't ruling out sending more bills to lawmakers with further cuts before September. Vought confirmed on CBS News' "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday that "we are looking to do [a] rescissions package" to take back some funding from the Education Department. A rescissions bill is the president's request to rescind funding already appropriated by Congress. Last week, President Trump signed a bill clawing back foreign aid, NPR and PBS funding, becoming the first president in decades to receive approval for such a measure. "We're thrilled that we had the first rescissions package in decades, and we've got the process moving again," Vought said of the $10 billion clawback. Asked to confirm there'd be no rescissions package before September, as Congress attempts to fund the government and head off a shutdown, Vought responded, "Not here to say that. We're looking at all of our options, we will look at it and assess where the Hill is, what are the particular funding opportunities that we have?" Asked about National Institutes of Health funding for research into heart disease and cancer that has yet to be released, Vought replied, "We're going through the same process with the NIH that we did with the education." He alleged NIH had wasted funds, claiming "$2 million for injecting dogs with cocaine that the NIH spent money on, $75,000 for Harvard to study blowing lizards off of trees with leaf blowers." He vowed to go "line by line to make sure the NIH is funded properly" and said funding would be released "when we are done with that review." Vought's use of rescissions measures to amend government spending is seen by Democrats and some Republicans as a backdoor method of infringing on Congress' constitutional power of the purse. "Rescissions is just a Washington name for double cross," Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, also on "Face the Nation," said after Vought's interview on the program. "They support one thing one day — the president even signs off — and then they come back and say they change their mind." But the OMB director argued, "We have the ability and the executive tools to fund less than what Congress appropriated" under the Impoundment Control Act, which enables the president to delay spending funds appropriated by Congress, and he didn't rule out a legal battle over the executive branch's authority to revise lawmakers' spending downward, if it "could find waste" by an agency. Vought has also caused GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune some headaches with a comment he made Thursday suggesting the appropriations process must be "less bipartisan." But this put Thune in a bind as he oversees negotiations to avoid a government shutdown in October, since Republicans hold a slim majority of 53 - 47 in the Senate, and most legislation must reach a 60-vote threshold. "It's going to take 60 to fund the government," Thune said in response to Vought's remark, and he added, "we plan to move [appropriations] bills that will have cooperation from the Democrats." Van Hollen said it was ironic that Vought is "calling for these deep cuts to education, NIH, when he has asked for an increase for his OMB budget." And referring to reduction-in-force — or RIF — staff cuts the administration wants across the government, Van Hollen added, "He asked for a 13% increase for his OMB budget. He's asked for more people to join the OMB staff while he's talking about RIF-ing people at other departments." The Maryland senator said that Democratic senators, as they negotiate funding government operations, are "asking for four Republican senators just to publicly declare that when they say they're gonna fund the Veterans Affairs Department, that they actually mean it."
