"As her lead in the primary widens, Clinton seems to be moving back toward the center."

[uawchild]

"Hillary Clinton is playing a dangerous game: How her anti-Bernie talking points could cost her — and America — big time
As her lead in the primary widens, Clinton seems to be moving back toward the center. This could be a huge mistake."

by CONOR LYNCH

"Hillary Clinton is starting to remind progressives why the name Clinton brings up such a mixed bag of emotions, and why it’s so hard to believe Clinton’s pivot to the left this campaign season. Lately, the “progressive who likes to get things done” has gone after her main competition, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for his advocacy of a single-payer healthcare system, which is a staple of progressive policy, found in many other industrialized states like Canada and Taiwan. Taking a page out of the GOP handbook, Clinton and her campaigners have gone into fear-mongering mode about the fact that such a plan would cause an increase in taxes on the middle class.

“Hardworking, middle-class families need a raise, not a tax increase,” said Clinton during the second Democratic debate, while a senior adviser to a pro-Clinton organization tweeted: “Hillary Clinton was the only one who ruled out raising taxes on the middle class – others talked about raising taxes to 70 and 90 percent.” Of course, this is nonsense. Sanders only stated the fact that the top rate was over 90 percent under Dwight Eisenhower. He was quite clear when he said: “We haven’t come up with an exact number yet, but it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was 90 percent. I’m not that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower.” (Plus, people seem to forget that he is talking about a progressive tax, with top rates only on income over a certain level, not all of the income an eligible individual earns.)"

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/20/hillary_clinton_is_playing_a_dangerous_game_how_her_anti_bernie_talking_points_could_cost_her_and_america_big_time/

[HerbChestnut]

1. I think most saw this coming

And it's one of the reasons she's viewed as 'Untrustworthy'. She lost any chance of my support now that she's actively campaigning against universal healthcare.

[Nay]

13. YUP. nt

[azmom]

39. Yup.

[ibegurpard]

2. Not the center

The Right.

[CharlotteVale]

3. Exactly, and she never left it in the first place.

[tk2kewl]

23. +1

[NurseJackie]

4. I think the author doesn't understand that elections are won from the middle.

Throwing red-meat to one's base builds momentum, all successful candidates do it, but at some strategic point, a candidate must soften their "red meat" rhetoric and look less extreme in order to attract the necessary supports and votes from the center of the political spectrum. For any candidate to believe otherwise is naive and foolish.

[Jim Lane]

30. Absolutely. That's why I knew we'd clobber Reagan in 1980. (n/t)

[NurseJackie]

31. He certainly had a strong campaign. Imagine how much worse it would have been.

There's a lot of work that needs to be done. Bernie really needs to get on the ball and improve his numbers if he expects to be the nominee. He'd have an hell of a hard time if we were dealing with an ongoing hostage situation and if the economy and unemployment rate was comparable to 1980.

[BootinUp]

38. 1980 was definitely a turning point in US politics

We are still suffering from the reverberations. Are you trying to draw a parallel between now an then or was that just a mindless snark comment?

[Jim Lane]

42. I'm drawing a parallel between now and then.

As an aside, there's really no point in asking me if my post was just a mindless snark comment, because even if it had been, I wouldn't have admitted it.

But getting back to what substance there is in your post: The parallel is that this "elections are won in the center" maxim assumes that all voters vote strictly on the basis of ideology. Everyone can be aligned on a single linear left-right scale, each major-party candidate has a lock on the people between himself/herself and the edge, and the fight is between them over the center -- the people who think one candidate is too liberal but think the other is too conservative.

Certainly that model has many adherents. I think it was Theodore H. White who noted, in one of his books, that the candidates can sometimes scramble so hard to get to the center -- Democrats tacking right and Republicans tacking left -- that they end up passing each other. (That's less likely to happen with the contemporary GOP, in thrall to its extreme right.)

The point of my reference to 1980, though, was that this ideology-only model is too simplistic. I was canvassing and phone-banking for Kennedy in the primaries that year. I heard more than one person say, "I'll vote for Kennedy but if it comes down to Carter versus Reagan I'll vote for Reagan. We gotta get Carter out of there."

Now, ideologically it makes no sense to prefer both Kennedy and Reagan to Carter. What was going on was that Carter was a more centrist Democrat who had high personal unfavorables (remind you of anyone?). Some voters were attracted to both Kennedy and Reagan because they were both perceived as straight talkers who had strong convictions and were willing to fight for them. So, even though Reagan was ideologically well to the right, and far less well suited than Carter to contest the center, Reagan was effective at mobilizing the people who were on his end of the spectrum AND he was effective at getting votes from people who didn't vote strictly on ideology.

Carter held the ideological center. Reagan carried 44 states.

The "elections are won from the center" view means that the Democrats should always nominate their most conservative candidate and the Republicans should always nominate their most liberal candidate. I don't think that's a guaranteed recipe for success.

[BootinUp]

47. I do not totally buy into the linear left-center-right picture, so I think

we agree that it does not describe politics accurately or predict outcomes. In 1980 I was 17 and knew that I was a democrat same as my parents. I watched many of the debates and followed the news. It was plainly obvious that Reagan had captured much support for his anti-government policies and lower taxes. Carter had no chance. Forget the Iran hostage situation. 1980 was about the economy.

As I recall, during the late 70's everyone felt the Democrats could not fix the economy, stagflation and all. Carter and Volker should be credited with the fixes to stagflation but that is not the conventional wisdom. In the decades since, our country has paid less and less attention to politics, in part because they are too busy trying to survive and also because the media coverage of politics has become a joke.

The anti-government rhetoric that rose with Reagan is still with us maybe even worse. From 1980 and through today a candidate cannot propose new economic programs that are government driven programs without a great deal of skepticism from the public and the media that covers politics. That is why you see Democrats propose programs that depend on the private sector playing an important role. The ACA is one example, and many of President Clinton's initiatives from the 90's too.

I believe that the pendulum on this anti-government movement is swinging back now. The obvious failure of the Reaganomics is settling in and Bernie Sanders success is a clear indication of this. But my sense is that there is still a ways to go. The current support for Hillary in the Democratic party seems to affirm that sense. Hillary has moved left on economic policy as she should, based on recent events and inequality problem, but at the same time the other side is moving right. The public seems confused, but the 0.1% are not confused.

Assuming Hillary is the next president and there are no major shocks to the system through her administration, I would definitely anticipate a more progressive platform gaining the next nomination. This assumes that the anti-government movement subsides from where it is now.

What do we mean when we talk about the center? I do not think we should be talking about specific policies, but instead we should be talking about what resonates with the public. That is a moving target, always will be.

[MrMickeysMom]

41. This isn't a meat locker blue ribbon special..

... for K-righst sake...

[firebrand80]

5. I really hate Hillary

She's always trying to win

[valerief]

6. Duh. This was inevitable. nt

[Autumn]

7. This is why she is not seen as being trustworthy

[upaloopa]

8. I don't see how not wanting to raise middle class taxes is a

shift to anywhere. It's where Hillary and Obama have always been.

[plus5mace]

11. 2.2% of income to provide for healthcare is a hell of a lot cheaper than Obamacare.

You're spreading dishonest bullshit to propagate a flawed system, and doing it knowingly.

[upaloopa]

20. Please explain to me how everyone in this country

gets medical care and all providers and clinics and hospitals and institutions and medical supplies and medications are paid for by raising taxes 2.2% of income?
And how are we to build up the pool of money it will take to get started. How do we employ those in the insurance industry who lose their source of income? How do we compensate the share holders of industries we run out of business?

[Kentonio]

24. Since when was share holding a protected profession, where you get compensated for losses?

[azmom]

40. You are worried about the shareholders?

Ain't that grand.

[hobbit709]

52. Why should the shareholders be protected?

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has
made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the
duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary
public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor
corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned
back, for their private benefit. That is all." Life-Line 1939 R.A.H.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

17. A couple of bucks a paycheck

to get rid of your health insurance premium? That's a no brainer.

[Maedhros]

9. Why on earth would anyone believe her on her positions?

She cynically changes them to fit the situation.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. The center is where elections are won.

If American voters believe that Sanders, a very left Liberal (despite his hawkish votes), is better for the country, why aren't his poll numbers showing it?

People will naturally say YESSSS! to liberal policies, but when the rubber meets the road, they abandon them.

Americans are innately wary of big changes too fast. Incremental? Sure. But not the kind that Sanders is advocating. Those are too radical for their moderate palates.

Suffice it to say I disagree with them. I would LOVE to have a bona fide liberal president and a Congress that will work with him/her. But American voters, so far, outnumber me. We can't even get a true anti-war atheist candidate to run successfully for president! We all say we hate war, but for some reason we don't trust candidates who are not religious and who are not at least willing to use military force in a time of conflict.

The center is where elections are won. Unfortunately.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

15. Not in 1932, '36, '40, '44. Not in 1968. Not in 2008.

Depends on wealth inequality and social conditions.

[AgingAmerican]

19. There is no center in American politics

Those who go to the 'center' try to be all things to all people and lose elections, AKA triangulation. It cost us the last two midterms.

[BlueCaliDem]

33. According to many DUers here, President Obama tacks to the center. Yet he won both his elections

with over 51% of the vote, a feat not emulated by any other Democratic presidential candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Of course I disagree with that assessment of President Obama's political heart...I've always believed him to be a strong progressive. Liberal? No. But he's always been a strong progressive.

A more liberal candidate ran for president in 2008...remember Rep. Dennis Kucinich? How well did that work out for him? What were his poll numbers?

Those who go to the 'center' try to be all things to all people and lose elections, AKA triangulation. It cost us the last two midterms.

You may be correct in Statewide and in districts, but that doesn't hold water for national presidential elections, as President Obama's historic elections have proven. Unless, of course, you believe that President Obama is a left-of-center progressive? But judging by your past posts, you don't.

[Fred Sanders]

12. Salon writers are sometimes unintentially hilarious. Although. It as much as some at DU carrying

water for the GOP!

[dmosh42]

14. In the end it will be about serving her biggest donors, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, etc.

[AgingAmerican]

16. DWS/Hillary intentionally risk losing the general to gain her the nomination

It's like they are playing chicken with the Democratic electorate.

[NurseJackie]

32. Yes, that's got to be it. Go with that.

[UglyGreed]

18. .

[Doctor_J]

21. Center?

She'll make Reagan look like Lenin by the time this is over. She's already far to Reagan's right, and moving toward the current republican fascists.

“Hardworking, middle-class families need a raise, not a tax increase,”

And she wants to give them neither

[NCTraveler]

22. While her lead what? nt.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

25. Chameleons sometimes burst bubbles.

[EndElectoral]

26. How can she move back to a place she never really abandoned, except in rhetoric.

[fredamae]

27. hahahahahahhaha n/t

[NYCButterfinger]

28. I'm centrist on some issues. Swing voters matter.

You can't play horse with the toy, and expect everyone to love the toy. You have to have a balance.

[NYCButterfinger]

29. An atheist like Sanders has a lot to prove

The churchgoers I know think he's going to close churches down if he's president. He has a lot of work to do.

[karynnj]

34. He is not an atheist - he is Jewish nt

[TSIAS]

37. Sorrry

Sounds like many of the people at your church (not you) are idiots.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

46. The churchgoers who think that are idiots.

And as pointed out to you up-thread, he's not an atheist, he's Jewish.

Close churches. Sounds like the same dumbasses who believed Obama was going to ban the Bible.

[bigwillq]

35. Well, she is a moderate.

At least that's what said. Never know what to believe with her.

[bigwillq]

36. Congrats on 500 posts!

[Hekate]

43. Because that is how you win the General Election -- always. If you can't deal with that, you lose.

She's not a right winger, she's never been a right winger, but she will run to the center if she wants to win, and she does.

[davidn3600]

45. Not even to the first primary and she's already back to the center

By the time the general election rolls around, she'll be leaning right.

[Avalux]

48. What center? She sounds like what a Republican used to be.

Our country is shifting right, whether we want to believe it or not. The only reason we think we live in a democracy is because they allow us to vote. I won't even get into the whole voting thing.

Bernie is the only chance we have to pull the reigns back and move left.

[Todays_Illusion]

49. Hillary started in the center she was jerked frimly over the line to the right by all that money.

[Scuba]

50. Bullshit. Hillary's moving "toward the center" would mean she's moving left.

[Renew Deal]

51. Finally people acknowledge Hillarys wide leads.