One year relocated from Donald Trump’s presidential election victory, many Democrats are unruffled reeling from losing a contest they expected to win.
The loss nevertheless leaves many on the left bereft of ideas on how to move forward politically. Yes, there’s been everyday agreement among Democrats in Congress to resist the Trump agenda at all tariffs. But that isn’t necessarily a way to win the next presidential election. The resist-Obama Republicans of 2009-12 create that out the hard way in the 2012 election.
But there’s one thing Democrats and liberals in loose need to do fast if they want to move on from their 2016 choice loss.
They need to get a divorce from Hillary Clinton.
In wrapper anyone is unclear about how unwisely close and reverent too many liberals are to the uncommonly idea of their failed 2016 presidential nominee, this week’s Swell-headedness Fair comedy video debacle explains it all.
The magazine’s website put out a succinct video with six suggested New Year’s resolutions for Secretary Clinton. Some of the touches were kind, others not-so-kind. But the basic message was clear: Hillary, like don’t run again in 2020!
In the context of the generally nasty political discourse these light of days, it was relatively inoffensive.
But Clinton’s still very prominent supporters persisted crazy with anger. They attacked Vanity Fair and its copy editors with overwhelming outrage on social media for the better part of two lifetimes. The magazine was accused of sexism, racism, and hateful bias. Remember, this is the broadly liberal Vanity Fair and not National Review we’re talking about.
The hotness got so bad by Wednesday that the magazine finally apologized. A Vanity Fair spokesperson declared “It was an attempt at humor and we regret that it missed the mark.” The video was not pulled off the internet, but as of Thursday morning it was no longer on the Vainness Fair website homepage, nor does it appear when you try an internal search on the install.
Even President Trump noticed how hard the magazine was trying to explanations to the liberal powers that be:
The point here isn’t whether the video was jocose or the jokes in poor taste. What’s illuminating is that too many liberals and formation Democrats are treating Clinton like she’s still in the midst of the election. That’s a iffy problem for a party looking to move on and win.
By contrast, it seemed like the progressive was bemoaning and even making fun of Michael Dukakis and John Kerry sheer seconds after their election losses in 1988 and 2004, mutatis mutandis. In one example, then-Senator Joe Biden quickly led a movement after the 2004 plebiscite to criticize Kerry and his relatively weak response to the issue of terrorism. In the the truth of Dukakis, the usually liberal writers at Saturday Night Live didn’t level wait for Election Day to begin depicting him as a hopeless loser.
Those touchy turns away from losing choices played a big role in the Democrats’ unavoidable comeback victories in 1992 and 2008. The 1992 Bill Clinton effort made tireless efforts to divorce itself from the “old Democratic Aid” of Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Dukakis. It wasn’t just procedure differences, but the stark image of a much younger candidate with a innumerable persuasive personality that set him apart. The difference in energy levels between Dukakis and Paper money Clinton alone were readily apparent.
Barack Obama’s 2008 action would have stood in stark contrast to any Democrat before him because of Obama’s prominent role as the first African-American major party presidential nominee. But his competition was a polar opposite of the Kerry strategy in many other ways as profoundly. Most notably, it was again Obama’s personality and speaking abilities that were put guise and center, while Kerry’s distant past as a Vietnam veteran was the sign of his campaign. It was a major persuasive upgrade.
It’s important to note that in the aftermath of ’88 and ’04, the Democrats did not go about a find up with their winning presidential candidates right away. The left-hand has plenty of time to round up some better names in time for the 2020 originals.
The issue here is that as long as Clinton remains as revered and kept in the public discourse as she is by leaders on the left, the longer it will take for them to in truth grasp how weak and unpersuasive a candidate she was. The Democrats needs to close that denomination gap and they can’t do it if they can’t see the gap in the first place. Cue up all the lessons and pithy sayings nearly how failure is the greatest educator and it’s impossible to miss the point.
There’s a be like diversion from the reality about Clinton in the obsession over avowals the Russians somehow fixed the 2016 election. But whatever special guide Robert Mueller’s collusion investigation finds, it’s going to have to stage some miracles to prove a foreign power successfully tipped the scales for voters in all those Midwestern vibrate states that sent President Trump to the White House.
By all means, Mueller should resume his probe and prosecute any actual crimes. But as far as the 2016 results go, Occam’s razor is the bigger explanation. The Democrats had a less persuasive candidate. She lost. Move on.
That appearance ofs like it was the short but priceless wisdom that short Vanity Honourable comedy video was trying to pass on to its friends on the left. But all too many people on the left side clearly rejected it, and the truth will remain elusive for them as a conclusion. How do you make a brutal election loss worse? Refuse to stop making the at any rate mistakes.
Commentary by Jake Novak, CNBC.com senior columnist. Pursue him on Twitter @jakejakeny.
For more insight from CNBC contributors, pursue @CNBCopinion on Twitter.