It the left going to marginalize itself again?

[One of the 99]

This is a question that I really think needs to be considered by those on the left. As any political analyst will tell you, most elections are won in the middle, not at the extremes of right or left. Thus, any Senator, Governor, Member of Congress, Mayor or President needs to do is win over enough of these centerist/moderate/independent voters to add to their base to achieve 51% and victory. The larger or more secure the base is, the fewer of these independents need to be won over.

The GOP has had a large & secure base for over 30 years. Thus, they don't need to win over that many moderates in order to win elections. Although many on the right are fractured this year because of Donald Trump many traditionally right wing groups such as Evangelical Christians and the Tea party are rallying behind him because they want to win.

The same is not true of Democrats. Too often many in the base make the perfect the enemy of the good and abandon the Dems either by not voting or voting for a third party candidate. Thus, the Dems are more and more forced to seek centrist/moderate voters to get re-elected. Which in turn alienates the base even more and the cycle repeats itself.

The net result is that over the years Democratic incumbants on average have had to become more moderate while GOP incumbants have not.

I often think of what happened to Tom Daschle in 2004. While the man was being pilloried and demonized by FAUX News and right wing talk radio many on the left refused to come to his defense because his opposition to Bush wasn't strong or pure enough. Thus, Daschle was defeated by John Thune in the election. Much of the same is happening to Hillary Clinton this year with some on the left even parroting right wing talking points and attacks.

While no candidate or political party is owed anyones vote, setting the bar too high on certain issues or looking at the glass as half empty rather than as half full can be damaging overall. Why should any Democratic incumbant stick their neck out on certain issues knowing that in the end they will have to accept some compromise, because that is the way our system works, and then will be abandoned by their base because they accepted said compromise. The safer path it to not take a chance in the first place and just tack to the middle.

Therefore, the insistance by some on the left for 100% ideological purity can only serve to marginalize themselves. If the left abandons someone who has a 85%-90% record of voting for progressive legislation, because of the 10% to 15% that they didn't; they why should any incumbant bother to listen to the base. The end result is that the left becomes more and more marginalized because incumbants need to more and more go after the middle to win.

[onecaliberal]

1. Political analyst said trump could NOT win the nomination.

You can throw conventional wisdom out the window. 14 million people voted for Bernie. Why are they being marginalized?

[JaneyVee]

8. They are marginalizing themselves...

By now removing themselves from the political process. Stick around and build bridges and coalitions. Instead, most now just want to burn it to the ground.

[stopbush]

26. Bingo. One may as well aver that Romney voters were marginalized

when Obama won the last election but didn't incorporate Mitt's ideas into his policies.

Sour grapes.

[PatrickforO]

33. You guys gotta calm down. Most of this 'split' seems to be in your imaginations.

I'm voting for Clinton because we cannot let Trump anywhere near the White House OR the nuclear football. The guy doesn't have a clue and probably hasn't read a book in 20 years. No one's gonna vote for Trump, and I daresay most of us Bernie folk will vote Clinton because voting Green is just too big a risk when the Republican is a malignant narcissist with fascist tendencies. I mean, look at all the shitbag ku kluxers, neonazis and skinheads that have crawled out of the slime to support him. Christ, David Duke is running for office again. This shit's getting out of hand.

That said, look through my eyes a minute. It came out the DNC was in the tank for Clinton, well no surprise there. We knew that all along. But now, what do we see? Wasserman-Schultz is out. She's resigning. So it's over. We're cool.

Now let's get back to the election. I hear Clinton is supporting legislation that would make tuition in state schools free. Good. Maybe she'll also come to support some corporate tax reform to get companies like GE to actually pay their fair share in taxes!

She has also said she wants to extend Medicare down to 55 year old Americans. Now, I can totally get behind that because I've been saying all along that I want my tax dollars to at least partly be used to pay for stuff that actually does me some real good instead of crap like the giant domestic spying data pit in Utah and the F-35 fighter that won't fight.

So, Clinton hasn't, and won't lose any votes, I don't think. She won't lose mine.

But lighten up on Bernie, cause lots of us still love him, and will keep loving him because we want a New Deal. And Warren. And others to the left of the Third Way. That's just how it is. We exist and we're at the table. But speaking for myself, this new email revelation strikes me as a faux controversy, and we have enough shiny objects. Did you see how Bernie deflected that crap with Chuck Todd? It was great.

[Ron Green]

2. Thinking in terms of "left" and "right"

isn't going to build a survivable future.

[JRLeft]

3. What's considered extreme left in this country is called the center everywhere else.

[One of the 99]

10. And one of the reason for that is

because some on the left marginalize themselves by insisting on ideological purity.

[JRLeft]

12. Wrong we hate corruption, and the fact that if a Democrat does we are to support it or

ignore it. If a Republican does it, we are to condemn it. It should not matter which party did it, if it's wrong it's wrong.

[One of the 99]

15. It's that type of us versus them thinking

that requires purity tests which only serves to marginalize the left.

[Hortensis]

17. Most of the Democratic Party is "left," and

we're anything but marginalized. Hillary Clinton will be our next president.

It's getting enough Democrats elected to the U.S. Congress to break gridlock that we need to work in national government. Also judgeships.

[One of the 99]

25. True

I'm really talking about those on the far left who voted for Nader in 2000 and now are voting for Jill Stein.

[Hortensis]

32. That's mostly what I assumed, One.

I just like to keep the record straight. Liberal left and far left are very different sorts of people.

[One of the 99]

40. Yes they are.

I tend to be more liberal left and have been called a sell out, corporate stooge and several other names by those on the far left. Those on the liberal left can get things done. Those on the far left rather self-righteously sit in their ideological high horse and get nothing done just so they can claim that they didn't compromise their principles.

[Hortensis]

42. Exactly. Lol. No "rather" about it.

By all measures but theirs', I'm strong liberal and supporter of progressive government initiatives, but to the ones we're talking about I'm merely a corrupted and blind enabler of a hopelessly corrupt and broken system in grave crisis. After a pleasant hour or several passing those insults into the ether, they go back to watching TV and deciding what they're going to do for fun next weekend.

At least that's what I imagine. Maybe some go back to long hours on GOTV or cultivating their survival gardens.

[oxymoron]

4. No, the Dems seem to be doing a pretty good fkn job at marginalizing the left.

They sure don't seem to need my help.

[JaneyVee]

5. Exactly. The far left tactics are outdated and obsolete...

Protesting and such tactics are out and accomplish nothing. In style: running for office and infiltrating the system from within.

[MohRokTah]

6. It's all about the reliable voters.

Reliable voters have their issues listened to.

Unreliable voters aren't worth a pile of shit.

[merrily]

7. 100% ideological purity is a silly falsehood that is repeated endlessly and,

I would submit, mindlessly. On the one hand, the left is accused of it incessantly on DU. However, DUers then questioned Sanders supporters as to how they could possibly support Sanders, given his stand on guns (which btw, the NRA has consistently rated F to D-, as opposed to Howard Dean's A rating from the NRA).

I doubt that anyone agrees with any politician 100%.

Oh, and the left never marginalized itself. Marginalization is the product of decades, if not centuries, of brainwashing by people with power and money.

[One of the 99]

11. Yes it has

Admitting the problem, rather than blaming everyone else, is the first step to solving it.

[SpareribSP]

34. How can you accuse the left of marginalizing itself

When it's being shown that the democratic party is directly working to marginalize it? I think preventing Hillary from pivoting more towards the center has been a great first step, and I think that we'll continue to see progressive change to the Democratic party from within. I hope that we emerge with the most progressive platform ever from the Democratic convention, and then we see it enacted. Doesn't feel too crazy to me!

[One of the 99]

41. Wow, you just completely missed the point and

are stuck in your bubble.

[SpareribSP]

45. Nah, I'm just very tired old tired talking point about purity tests.

I feel like it's an unfair characterization, and personally is completely out of step with reality.

[One of the 99]

46. It's not a talking point.

It is reality.

[CrowCityDem]

9. The people who think voting Green is more noble than supporting Dems are not progressive.

Voting in a way that enhances Republican's chances, even slightly, is a slap in the face of the very idea of being progressive. When we have a party in this country literally fighting to take us back to the days when casual racism was the norm, those 'pure' progressives need to understand what they're standing for. Rather than working to get as much progress as they can, and then arguing for even more, they're willing to flush people's lives down the drain for the sake of proving a point.

That is not progressive, and those people don't deserve to call themselves that.

They need to take a lesson from Bernie. He fought for what he believed, but now that there's a choice, he's taking the progress we can get without hesitation. If those people won't even listen to their hero, they don't actually believe in anything.

[DinahMoeHum]

29. +1000s

[Martin Eden]

13. Tacking to the "center" and running away from Obama in 2014 was a catastrophe

Even low information voters recognize weakness and lack of principles when they see it.

I understand the Democratic Party is not monolithic ideologically, but the biggest mistake Democratic politicians can make is to accept and parrot any part of the false framing of issues relentlessly constructed for decades by Faux News and rightwing talk radio.

Meeting today's Republican Party halfway marginalizes the Left, moves the goalposts steadily to the Right, and slowly transforms the Democratic Party into something that many can no longer in good conscience support.

[One of the 99]

24. Thank you for proving my point!

[SpareribSP]

35. Are you saying Obama was too left?

[One of the 99]

39. Nope, never said that.

And please don't try to dishonestly put words in my mouth again.

[SpareribSP]

44. I'm honestly just confused, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[One of the 99]

47. No doubt about that.

[Martin Eden]

37. Was that a typo?

I'm pretty sure I disproved your point ... unless I misunderstood it, or unless you don't consider 2014 a catastrophe.

[One of the 99]

38. No you proved it. Thanks again :-)

[CentralMass]

14. Elections are about more then winning at any cost.

Issues matter.

What good is winning if we end up with trade policies like the TPP getting rammed down or throats. Or looking back find that there were back door meetings with Big Pharma prior to the ACA being passed so that their profits wouldn't be hurt.

Or having cuts and modification to SS put on the negotiating table.

We are worried about the damage that years of deregulation have caused starting with the deregulation of the savings and loan banks during the Reagan Adminsrations And the repeal of Glass Steagall act.

When our candidate has made upwards of a quarter of a million dollars for a single 40 minutes speech to a Wall St firm and has made millions from similar speeches over recent years, we want to know who's back they have.

We want a definitive energy policy where it is clear where out elected officials stand on fracking, offshore drilling, and investing in clean and renewable energy.

We want to some real public education reform. One tat doesn't look like it came from a Republican think tank.

We have learned that rubber stamping campaign rhetoric with our votes dies not insure that our votes or the tissues that we are concerned about matter.

[One of the 99]

16. Thanks for proving my point!

[CentralMass]

18. Thank you for your condescending superiority.

[JTFrog]

21. You should expect pushback when you make ridiculous claims about Democrats

acting like Republicans or claim they are supporting right wing policies. In fact that "special brand of criticism" has no place here. Especially during election season. Anyone who posts crap like that takes their chances.

[One of the 99]

23. You're very welcome :-)

[stopbush]

27. What good is losing as you get none of your policies implemented?

[CrowCityDem]

30. What good is it? Stopping the destruction of the country is a pretty big deal.

[misterhighwasted]

19. Considering what's at stake in this election, is a good place to begin.

Hillary or Trump will appoint our next Supreme Court majority.
There is no chance for changing anything in the future of laws & policy with Trump.

Unless one believes in an America designed by TrumpnPutinpence, why is there any question as to November's choice.

[DirkGently]

20. It's the "center-right" headed for oblivion.

America is swinging slowly closer to the actual center of modern democratic political thought, which is considerably left of where the dying "center right" corporatist American model has been.

We're now discussing policies like universal healthcare and education and a vastly increased minimum wage that are well outside of what the comfortable conservatives on either side like to pretend are "moderate."

The conservative vision that likes to call itself the "center" is plummeting to a fiery death that cannot come too soon.

[DemocraticWing]

43. Nailed it.

Speaking as somebody who is in my 20s and see my peers organizing along with me for real leftist action, I don't think the politicians currently inside the "Overton window" of the accepted mainstream know what's coming for them. The Democrats are either gonna move left or be obsolete. I think they'll move left.

[DirkGently]

48. +10 for "Overton window" reference.

Framing is right at the core of the discussion. Non-rightwing is not "the center," nor is mild social democracy "leftwing extremism."

So glad to hear the 20-somethings have a handle on this. A lot of this is in your hands.

[G_j]

22. Me thinks you are the one doing that..nt

[wyldwolf]

28. yes, you can count on it.

"progressives" = petulance and fart-in on the convention floor.

[NorthCarolina]

31. They are won in the middle more by constraints in the system than by will of the voters. -nt-

[BzaDem]

49. So what? Why would that matter?

The structural constraints are never going to change, because they are enshrined in the Constitution, which requires near-unanimity to amend. There will always be a two-party system for presidential elections, due to the electoral college. The Senate itself is biased towards small, generally right-leaning states (relative to a proportional system). Most importantly, the vastly larger number of veto points our system has than most other systems (two houses, and a President, and a Supreme Court of life-tenured justices) essentially means incremental change is the only game in town.

Given these constraints, who cares where they come from? If one's goal is to actually change policy (versus merely protest), one needs to take actions that increase the likelihood of changing policy. Furthermore, one needs to prevent themselves from taking actions that objectively and significantly decrease the likelihood of future progressive change. Complaining about the rules or the system doesn't actually help cause change, or make it any more likely for it to happen in the future.

[yodermon]

36. Sorry. I'll dress more modestly and stay out of parking garages at night, alone.

I'll also drink less, and refrain from any actions that might "lead him on" lest he get the wrong idea.
Skirt below the knee
Avoid eye contact
Again, sorry, for any trouble I may have caused and for always being the "victim"
silly me.