I just came across this article. As of today, Oct. 18...boy does it feel like another world. But one thing is for sure. Carville is Carville, he's colorful, he's preposterous and he's funny. And he's probably as good a liar as democrats have had since, well, since every democrat out there, I guess. I mean, come on, calling Jamie Raskin smart, calling "Delegate Plaskett" smart while not even being able to remember her name, saying no democrats ever burned a book (Excuse me, they banned To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn in my progressive town because of the N-word, and you can't find Silence of the Lambs because supposedly it's hateful towards trans people even if it is fiction. Fiction, people). And yet as the lead-in says, he hasn't changed one bit in thirty years. If only we could all continue to live off that one victory we had...Carville had Clinton against Bush 41 and someone to film, other people had high school football. At least he married a Republican who's stuck with him. Must be the gumbo..
If Carvilles commentary were given with the affect of a Yale professor it would be more apt and less palatable. He wasn’t giving an interview, he was demagoguing & campaigning.
Republican authoritarianism? I don't remember republicans being the people who shut down my businesses, made my children stay home from school, used governmental agencies like OSHA to try and inact unpopular policies without voter input, or try to suppress my opinions on social media. Nor have I heard any republican say that democrats need to go through re-education. Carville has gotten past crazy and is now just be-clowning himself.
What great Democrat party “talent” is this crazy old coot referring to??? When Bari asked him to name one, he said “any Democrat.” Carville admits ‘wokeism’ is bad but all major Democrat politicians still subscribe to that philosophy.
Carville talks like an old man who’s been away from the game for far too long but nobody wants to get the hook to pull him offstage. Like John Madden in his last few years of broadcasting football games.
Bari - Carville is not "telling it straight". Most of that was fan-dancing, and you let him slide. Like the first question. Carville never answered whether he agreed or not. He said some stuff that is so pablum you can't tell where the bowl ends and the oatmeal begins. Does he agree? Does he not? Come on. You can interview tougher than that.
Not one answer there that wasn't mainstream Democratic pablum. I do agree that the Republicans running the impeachment aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. But the contention there is no evidence, on the basis of.... What exactly.
I am historically mostly Democratic voter. If you read what I say here, I'm not off in saint Donald land. Nor am I in saint Obama land.
I had always thought he was a bright man and admired his successful marriage to Matalin. I am right of center- more so economically than socially. I had not heard him speak for a long time. I have to say this was one of the worst interviews you have ever done. He is the most Un insightful, unaware, out of touch with what and why our country is where it is at not to mention his self important individual. He has Malignant TDS that does not allow him to honestly evaluate our country. It was very difficult to listen to such closed minded and obnoxious individual. I finished it and now know his opinion is not as informative as it used to be. The one thing I did agree with was the need for the younger generation to step up and take charge. Carville , Trump and Biden and the rest of the old folks need to get out of the way and enjoy the ride!
Not your best interview Bari - too little pushback to his milquetoast defense of the Democrat Party. He's a hack who believes in party over country. No different from Stalin or Mao (or Joe McCarthy or Mitch McConnell...).
"Why do Democrats pay such a price for 10 percent of the eccentric people in our party and the Republicans don’t pay a price to the 65 percent of people in their party that are just out and out nuts?"
The fact that he's asking this question when he's supposed to be some kind of political mastermind shows that he needs to go too.
He should know the answers to this question.
I like Josh Shapiro, Sherrod Brown and Chris Sununu.
I was very disappointed that there was no pushback from Bari about Biden taking classified documents and storing them in his garage with his mustang. Trump, Pence and many others have taken classified documents. Carville did not have one positive comment about a Republican and heaped praise on every Democrat. My son could only take 5 minutes, my wife 10 minutes and I tried to stick it out but finally turned it off. I thought it would have some balance but it was one sided which I can get on cnn or any of the mainstream media. Seriously considering unsubscribing.
Excellent discussion. Carville is certainly a character and deserves some praise. But don’t fall for the “mandate” trap that he likes to claim - that “war room” from 1992 didn’t deliver Bill Clinton 60%, or 55%, or 52%, or 51.5% of the vote. That war room eked by with 43% of a split electorate. The rest of the popular vote was split: 37% going to GHWB and s surprising 20% to Ross Perot. Today, many prognosticators treat populism as a sudden phenomenon, which came out of political obscurity from the 1920s to shape the 2016 and 2020 elections. But a cursory review of national election numbers since 1960 points to a different inflection point...1992 and Ross Perot.
In 1992, a fractured GOP struggling with the realities of a New World Order, emerging globalism, and foundational changes to cultural alignments, rolls into that ‘92 election fractured. Ross Perot, the Texas Billionaire, and historically/ostensibly a republican, broke off and ran as an independent. He captured 20M votes (nearly 20% of the popular vote). Four years later, he again runs for President, drops out, then re-enters the race...still managing to capture 9.5M votes (10% of the vote).
What happened to those voters and issues has never been fully accounted for. Did they fall back into the DNC as part of the union vote (remember that giant sucking sound from NAFTA)? Or did they form the outline of the Tea Party with their laser like focus on the fiscal sanity? Did they form the grass-roots activism to “drain the swamp” in 2016?
The reality is they probably fell into all those categories. In 1992 there was 20% of the electorate that was willing to go all in on someone outside the norms. Why then is it so surprising to think that same 20 can want to go all in on a different candidate inside the GOP or the DNC?
The other interesting facet is how the electorate has swelled or contracted since 1960. In the 16 Presidential elections since 1960 there have been only three (3) presidential cycles that had smaller participation since the previous cycle: 1988 Dukakis v Bush had a 1.1% decline from 1984; 1996 Clinton v Dole had a 7.8% decline from 1992; and 2012’s Obama v Romney saw a 1.7% decline from 2008. Likewise, there were only three (3) cycles where growth was double digits: 1992 Clinton v Bush had a 14% increase from 1988; 2004 Kerry v Bush had a 16% increase from 2000; and 2020’s Biden v Trump saw at 15.6% increase from 2016.
So what does 2024 hold in store? Does participation continue to grow at double digit percentages or recede out of electoral exhaustion? In both cases, the DNC as a 2 in 3 chance of winning (historically speaking).
I just came across this article. As of today, Oct. 18...boy does it feel like another world. But one thing is for sure. Carville is Carville, he's colorful, he's preposterous and he's funny. And he's probably as good a liar as democrats have had since, well, since every democrat out there, I guess. I mean, come on, calling Jamie Raskin smart, calling "Delegate Plaskett" smart while not even being able to remember her name, saying no democrats ever burned a book (Excuse me, they banned To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn in my progressive town because of the N-word, and you can't find Silence of the Lambs because supposedly it's hateful towards trans people even if it is fiction. Fiction, people). And yet as the lead-in says, he hasn't changed one bit in thirty years. If only we could all continue to live off that one victory we had...Carville had Clinton against Bush 41 and someone to film, other people had high school football. At least he married a Republican who's stuck with him. Must be the gumbo..
If Carvilles commentary were given with the affect of a Yale professor it would be more apt and less palatable. He wasn’t giving an interview, he was demagoguing & campaigning.
Why was Bari in the middle of a bunch of Maddow die hards? 🤔
Republican authoritarianism? I don't remember republicans being the people who shut down my businesses, made my children stay home from school, used governmental agencies like OSHA to try and inact unpopular policies without voter input, or try to suppress my opinions on social media. Nor have I heard any republican say that democrats need to go through re-education. Carville has gotten past crazy and is now just be-clowning himself.
Senility setting in coupled with a dash of Trump derangement syndrome. A sad end, but well deserved.
Dissapointing to hear Bari use her identity as a way to say she couldn't possibly hold a media influenced opinion. Womp womp
What great Democrat party “talent” is this crazy old coot referring to??? When Bari asked him to name one, he said “any Democrat.” Carville admits ‘wokeism’ is bad but all major Democrat politicians still subscribe to that philosophy.
Carville talks like an old man who’s been away from the game for far too long but nobody wants to get the hook to pull him offstage. Like John Madden in his last few years of broadcasting football games.
Bari - Carville is not "telling it straight". Most of that was fan-dancing, and you let him slide. Like the first question. Carville never answered whether he agreed or not. He said some stuff that is so pablum you can't tell where the bowl ends and the oatmeal begins. Does he agree? Does he not? Come on. You can interview tougher than that.
Not one answer there that wasn't mainstream Democratic pablum. I do agree that the Republicans running the impeachment aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. But the contention there is no evidence, on the basis of.... What exactly.
I am historically mostly Democratic voter. If you read what I say here, I'm not off in saint Donald land. Nor am I in saint Obama land.
I had always thought he was a bright man and admired his successful marriage to Matalin. I am right of center- more so economically than socially. I had not heard him speak for a long time. I have to say this was one of the worst interviews you have ever done. He is the most Un insightful, unaware, out of touch with what and why our country is where it is at not to mention his self important individual. He has Malignant TDS that does not allow him to honestly evaluate our country. It was very difficult to listen to such closed minded and obnoxious individual. I finished it and now know his opinion is not as informative as it used to be. The one thing I did agree with was the need for the younger generation to step up and take charge. Carville , Trump and Biden and the rest of the old folks need to get out of the way and enjoy the ride!
He is my favorite person to disagree with. LOL
He is SMART and he is funny and he is down to earth and practical.
Not a big fan of his politics, but he is someone that I would love to sit down with over some beer and bourbon and just listen to.
Not your best interview Bari - too little pushback to his milquetoast defense of the Democrat Party. He's a hack who believes in party over country. No different from Stalin or Mao (or Joe McCarthy or Mitch McConnell...).
"Why do Democrats pay such a price for 10 percent of the eccentric people in our party and the Republicans don’t pay a price to the 65 percent of people in their party that are just out and out nuts?"
The fact that he's asking this question when he's supposed to be some kind of political mastermind shows that he needs to go too.
He should know the answers to this question.
I like Josh Shapiro, Sherrod Brown and Chris Sununu.
Biden will definitely lose to T.
Wokeness is not over. It's one of the basic tenets of the DNC. Firmly embedded into the foreseeable future. Carville is just wishing it away.
Kicked Carlson's dog? That's an irresponsible accusation. Even the linked source doesn't say, merely speculates, at this.
I was very disappointed that there was no pushback from Bari about Biden taking classified documents and storing them in his garage with his mustang. Trump, Pence and many others have taken classified documents. Carville did not have one positive comment about a Republican and heaped praise on every Democrat. My son could only take 5 minutes, my wife 10 minutes and I tried to stick it out but finally turned it off. I thought it would have some balance but it was one sided which I can get on cnn or any of the mainstream media. Seriously considering unsubscribing.
Excellent discussion. Carville is certainly a character and deserves some praise. But don’t fall for the “mandate” trap that he likes to claim - that “war room” from 1992 didn’t deliver Bill Clinton 60%, or 55%, or 52%, or 51.5% of the vote. That war room eked by with 43% of a split electorate. The rest of the popular vote was split: 37% going to GHWB and s surprising 20% to Ross Perot. Today, many prognosticators treat populism as a sudden phenomenon, which came out of political obscurity from the 1920s to shape the 2016 and 2020 elections. But a cursory review of national election numbers since 1960 points to a different inflection point...1992 and Ross Perot.
In 1992, a fractured GOP struggling with the realities of a New World Order, emerging globalism, and foundational changes to cultural alignments, rolls into that ‘92 election fractured. Ross Perot, the Texas Billionaire, and historically/ostensibly a republican, broke off and ran as an independent. He captured 20M votes (nearly 20% of the popular vote). Four years later, he again runs for President, drops out, then re-enters the race...still managing to capture 9.5M votes (10% of the vote).
What happened to those voters and issues has never been fully accounted for. Did they fall back into the DNC as part of the union vote (remember that giant sucking sound from NAFTA)? Or did they form the outline of the Tea Party with their laser like focus on the fiscal sanity? Did they form the grass-roots activism to “drain the swamp” in 2016?
The reality is they probably fell into all those categories. In 1992 there was 20% of the electorate that was willing to go all in on someone outside the norms. Why then is it so surprising to think that same 20 can want to go all in on a different candidate inside the GOP or the DNC?
The other interesting facet is how the electorate has swelled or contracted since 1960. In the 16 Presidential elections since 1960 there have been only three (3) presidential cycles that had smaller participation since the previous cycle: 1988 Dukakis v Bush had a 1.1% decline from 1984; 1996 Clinton v Dole had a 7.8% decline from 1992; and 2012’s Obama v Romney saw a 1.7% decline from 2008. Likewise, there were only three (3) cycles where growth was double digits: 1992 Clinton v Bush had a 14% increase from 1988; 2004 Kerry v Bush had a 16% increase from 2000; and 2020’s Biden v Trump saw at 15.6% increase from 2016.
So what does 2024 hold in store? Does participation continue to grow at double digit percentages or recede out of electoral exhaustion? In both cases, the DNC as a 2 in 3 chance of winning (historically speaking).
Data source: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, uselectionatlas.org
Useful comments, thanks. My first general election vote was for Perot in 1996.