The democrats support for/association with the social movements of the 60s and the challenging of foundational social hierarchies (race/gender/environmental) was deeply unpopular in many circles. Much of the loss of support at the national level is usually connected to that, rather than the health care expansion. The health care changes might be better understood as an extension/expansion of the liberalism of the 1930s, which focused on class oriented programs appealing to a white majority, as opposed to the identity politics fostered in by the 60s.

much of the success the right had in rolling back the 1930s style liberalism of the 60s (see war on poverty, for instance) was due to the ability to convince the public that these programs were primarily helping black people (welfare was not racially coded prior to that). That shift, while the left was tearing itself apart over the vietnam war and finally making space for identity issues, left it ill equipped to push back at a national level.

I agree with everything you said, and I didn't mean to imply that Medicare/Medicaid itself was a losing strategy. (Well, Medicaid might be.) I'm simply claiming it may not be the best answer to GH's question because it's difficult to determine definitively whether it allowed Democrats to "...elect and elect." Even as these new programs were passed the New Deal coalition was dying a swift death when it came to presidential elections. It could probably be argued that Southerners kept voting for their incumbent Democratic representatives and Senators in part due to their support for liberal economic programs, which would then include Medicare/Medicaid, so in that way perhaps those programs helped Democrats hang on to Congressional control longer than they would have, and surely that is no insignificant development.

this isn't just a democratic strategy, mind you. Any established program creates a client base that fights to keep that program. Farm subsidies, lower tax rates on capital gains, etc. Likewise, fighting to prevent programs that would cause concrete harms to your group (think lobbying to prevent a financial transaction tax) will motivate people. But usually these programs exist in response to the pressure provided by existing groups already organized and politically effective. The New Deal's response to this was to try and create programs for groups not currently organized, or whose participation in politics is tenuous, to try and create a client group out of them that will support your party. Obamacare is unusual in that it is a massive government program that, at least in theory, is reaching out to people who cannot otherwise be counted on to be a part of the political process.

you're right, of course, in that it is hard to tell definitely what role this played, but given how broadly unpopular the gender/race/environmental stuff was with large swaths of the electorate, as well as the political difficulty in altering these programs, I think it is reasonable to argue that it was the democrats role as champions of these programs that kept them relevant.

I didn't find much to disagree with either of you there. In fact, it seemed to reinforce my earlier question. The last presidential nominee I can think of that made tax and spend the prominent part of the campaign was Walter Mondale--and he got crushed. Whether or not it's a good thing, there are far more dimensions to politics than just this one.

I guess I'll go back and ask another question on something else stip said: "What we haven't really seen is a major NEW spending effort targeted at disenfranchised voters". What new spending effort do you think could become a political winner? I'm drawing a blank other than perhaps a real general stimulus package.

The next frontier could be some sort of real policy regards to immigration and or assimilation of new immigrants.

yeah, that seemed like the only thing that came to mind for me too.

Come to think of it, what I think is the real "tried and true" political strategy is to pander to certain arbitrary groups at the expense of marginalizing other arbitrary groups.

Yeah. African Americans don't need jobs anyway.

stop light plays its part, so i would say, you've got a part

Pander to arbitrary groups, then come up with the most watered down versions of attempts at policies to appease said groups while actually trying to be palatable to middle 30% of voters who don't really know or care about politics but insist on voting anyway can be pulled from one side to the other from one election to the next.

Sounds a lot like whose Lobbiests generate the right amount of clout, capital and influence get to make the rules and then political marketing machines get to sell the message to the potential voters.

And then it leads you to enjoy the following clips:

Student loan forgiveness/reduction is a potentially realigning issue. There is nothing about that which will not be political gold.

that's always been the case. that's what politics is.

Isn't that kind of disheartening?

in a word, yes

it depends on your expectations, I guess. Politics IS about groups, people, individuals, and interests organizing to bring force to bear to get what they want. It's easy to want or expect more, but it is what it is, from the very beginning. That we can do it without killing each other (for the most part) and in a way that makes it at least possible for a wider array of voices to theoretically be heard (or bought off) is encouraging. That's why organizing is so important and why the decline of unions, for all their faults, was such a disaster in this country. There was no other vehicle for aggregating the interests of working class people.

Rather than get disheartened about the way things are (and honestly probably have to be) we're better off accepting that this is the way things are and trying to work with it, rather than against it.

There is a lot I don't like about the American founders, but this is something they understood. Lincoln understood it. FDR understood it. And when you embrace it and try to steer the current by swimming with it, instead of swimming against it, you can make a bit of progress.

Well, and we have come a long way in governance really.

As disheartening as it is and as much as it appears that we are a nation of sociopaths sometimes, we do turn over power peacefully to a different president every 4 to 8 years, and it is possible to change the makeup of the persons that are holding office in the Senate and the House every now and then, even if voters do vote incumbants back into power far to often to avoid corruption.

things have also been worse in American history--even more dysfunctional than this. And in some of those periods the dysfunction was far more deeply rooted than much of what we have today--where so much of it is manufactured and fabricated.