About the "Dems need to move further left" theory.

[DanTex]

Is there any evidence whatsoever that this would actually help win elections? I get that Dems are at their weakest point in many decades, so yes, something has been going wrong. But I see no evidence that "not left enough" has anything to do with it.

First, the Dems have already been moving left. The trajectory from the 90s to today is one of gradually becoming more progressive. There's not much overall correlation between "leftness" and electoral success, and if anything the correlation goes the other way.

Second, the last time the Dems won control of congress (2006), it was not a strategy of running to the left that did it. It was a strategy of running centrists in swing districts, and it worked.

Third, progressive candidates in moderate districts or states don't have a very good track record, including in 2016 (e.g. Feingold, Teachout).



Look, I would love it if the solution to the Dems' electoral problems was simply to surge left, because my views are left of the median Democrat. But I just don't see the logic. And I don't see any evidence. For the most part, I see the argument coming from ardent progressives who make the mistake of overestimating the appeal of their own views -- basically assuming that other people see the world like they do. But this is unfortunately not reality.

And, sure, having a majority that includes centrists does make it trickier to get progressive legislation passed. But it sure beats the crap out of not having a majority at all.

[flor-de-jasmim]

1. The idea of moving left is not to pick up previous moderates, but to attract previous non-voters.

[DanTex]

2. I know that. Is there any evidence that it actually works?

The downside, of course, is that you lose moderates by moving left. It's the same tradeoff that it's always been -- energize the base versus moving swing voters into the D column. Is there anything to suggest that we would pick up more non-voters than we would lose moderates?

[Demsrule86]

5. It won't happen. We have no time to waste on this nonsense.

[DanTex]

8. I'm open to the idea that it's possible, if it were accompanied by evidence.

But I don't see much evidence behind the argument that we can mobilize enough non-voters to make up for the centrists we would lose.

[Chasstev365]

3. "Move to the left" is the wrong term.

"Defend the New Deal" is what many people want! Reject ideas like "entitlement reform."

[DanTex]

4. Sure but now we're talking marketing rather than substance.

And I agree, if the Dems do move left, I think "we're moving left" is a very bad way of selling it. But however it's marketed, the real question is whether it will actually help win election.

[Demsrule86]

6. the 'new deal' is 80 years old...and will disappear if the alt-left (green riffraff)

doesn't stop spoiling elections...every time our candidates have to fight left and right, we lose. How long before these people get it.?

[Chasstev365]

9. By that logic the Constitution is 200 + years old.

Does that mean it's not worth defending?

[Barack_America]

7. Obamacare.

Most "left" thing Dems have done in a generation, most popular thing Dems have done in a generation. Most damaging thing Dems have done to the GOP in a generation.

[Hekate]

17. Hm. I remember the continuous screeching here that Obama was "spelunking" (caving in)...

...that he was throwing (pick a constituency) "under the bus," that he "promised" single payer (he did not) and reneged, and on and on ad nauseum. The perfidy of the man knew no bounds, apparently. Those of us who understood his patient strategy and defended it were driven into the BOG for the duration of his presidency. I mean, really, eight damn years.

See, I don't forget these things.

Worse, because Obama was never one to toot his own horn excessively (or even very much at all) his name got attached to the stereotypes about the plan by low-information voters and every bump in the road was magnified to a gaping chasm and attributed to him as a failure. Leftish voters who should have known better participated in this game, too.

The few red state governors who adopted the ACA and helped it succeed attached their state's name to it (KYnect, for instance) which was fine, but allowed the vilification of that "damn Obamacare" to proceed apace. Other red state governors went out of their way to be unhelpful.

When Barack Obama left office he was asked about the future of his landmark legislation, given how much the GOP wanted to destroy it. He opined that it was not going to be easy to get rid of, now that people actually had something so essential. And he was right about that. It's possible, because the GOP has devolved into something malicious. But it is not going to be easy.

[GaryCnf]

10. There are aspects of your argument

that you treat as fact but are at very least debatable. Given that pejorative statements such as accusing people who disagree with you of denying reality may overstate the strength of your position.

First, it is questionable whether we as a party have been moving left beginning in the 90s. The 90s themselves were the farthest right point for the Party since Truman.

Using the national elections as a guide, it would be difficult to argue that Al Gore, a southern politician who chose a soon to be Republican Joe Lieberman as his running mate moved the Party significantly to the left. In 2004, John Kerry, again keeping a southerner on the ticket, ran as a war hero instead as an anti-war activist when he could have done either. In fact, it was not until Obama's 2008 campaign that we saw a Democrat run as an unabashed liberal.

If we look at the Party platform as a guide, it remained essentially unchanged from 1992 until 2016. Yes, the 2016 platform is undeniably liberal, but it seems a bit of a stretch to say it is the result of a slow progression starting in the 90s.

Second, to attribute the results of the 2006 congressional elections to welcoming Blue Dog candidates into the Party seems a bit of a stretch as well. Conservative Democrats were far from excluded prior to 2006 and in fact ran unsuccessfully in the South prior to 2006. I am not sure we can say without further evidence that it was their moderate positions which garnered victory in 2006. This suggestion also overlooks the fact that in 2006 liberal and sometimes very liberal Democrats also stripped away Republican seats. Finally, it ignores the fact that in 2008 where the entire election was framed by our transformational presidential candidate running a decidedly liberal campaign, we continued to gain seats.

Third liberal candidates both won and lost in 2016 and have both won and lost in subsequent special elections as have moderate candidates supposedly more tailored to their districts.

I can't sit here and claim "moving left" is the answer any more than I can accept your argument that there is no evidence that it is not. What I can say is that we have great platform that is not just supported by an overwhelming majority of our party, but if strongly and openly supported by all of our candidates would be supported by a majority of the American people all across this country.

[Greybnk48]

12. THIS! 90's Dems had moved to the right of Nixon.

We are almost, but not quite, back to our liberal roots.

[Blue_true]

11. Democrats are at their weakest point in decades.

Because they had the audacity to lead. The failed experiments in Kansas, Oklahoma and before they elected a Democrat governor, Louisiana have shown a lot of voters the risks of extremism.

When it comes to elective office, we should support local democratic organizations, those people know what is possible in their areas. BUT, we should work from a common page on some principles - no sexism, everyone gets their human and economic rights protected, no racism, no hatred of immigrants that are law abiding.

My sense is that any person that is a democrat buys into our core values.

[tblue37]

13. Above all Dems need to deal with voter suppression and obviously hackable

voting machines. Oh, and we also need for our own wealthy supporters to help us counter the pervasive right wing media/propaganda machine!

[pirateshipdude]

15. I really believe with the Sanders elimate, that is creating the Democrats have a problem is the

problem and that "suppression and obviously hackable
voting machines" is the issue.

While we are looking all around how to pretzel ourselves to be loved, this is the reality and taking the eye off the real issue. I do not think the Democratic Party has a problem and is wasting time trying to figure it out when all they have to do is look at the discontent our "ally" is creating among us.

[Hekate]

19. Voter suppression is definitely THE issue. As for "wealthy supporters"....

...we actually have them, and gods bless them.

What I find hilarious (well, maddening, really) is the knee-jerk hostile reactions of some to any reference whatsoever to a "donor class" of Democrats. Kamala Harris was reported to have recently participated in a meeting of Democrats of the donor class, and the buzz is she might be garnering support for a presidential run. Amid the flutter of excitement here at that prospect of her candidacy were the usual gripes that amount to "REAL Democrats wear sackcloth and carry a begging bowl, and the rich can go to hell."

sigh

As far as I can tell, we are lucky to have some millionaire/billionaire Democrats. They are Democrats, for gods' sake. There are not as many of them as there are conservatives, and we should kind of cherish and nurture them, not lump them in with the Kochs. We need them on our side.

People like the Kochs, DeVoses, et al. are powerfully driven by their ideology, often religious. When you believe you have The One And Only God on your side, you can do amazing things. Jihads and Crusades, the slaughter of millions, that kind of thing.

~~~~~~~

[pirateshipdude]

14. Dems are at their weakest point in many decades

The only really legitimate reason I can find for this is because an outsider has come into our party and is working hard for the destruction of the it and the right have all out walked away from any law or rule of ethic that allows them an unfair advantage in suppressing and stealing votes.

What made us able to be attacked as we were was a black President for eight years and then trying to put in a woman. I feel that is what has allowed us to be in a position that we are.

Being a progressive party, because of the bigotry we do not 'not' run a back or woman because the bigots are empowered.

[killbotfactory]

16. When the other side promotes outright lunacy, it's foolish to try to stake out a middle ground. nt

[Starry Messenger]

18. It's hard to say what anyone wants--the Dems get more votes, but less representation

With massive voter suppression all we know is that more people vote for Dems, so we know they do not want right wing bullshit.

In CA, which fought voter suppression, some regions vote for very left-wing candidates, some vote for centrists, some for right-wing nut-jobs. It would be interesting to take a look where there is "clean" voting to see what kinds of candidates fit the region.