Hard data shows a centrist Dem candidate would lose in 2020

[Fiendish Thingy]

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/02/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-that-a-centrist-democrat-would-be-a-losing-candidate/


"Yet the Democratic Party and their mouthpieces at major newspapers are clearly not heeding Piketty's prophecy. Rather, TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — e.g. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win back those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, e.g. many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing

<snip>


Now, why hasn't the Democratic Party heeded Piketty's warning? I think you already know why. To quote Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." The donor base of the Democratic Party consists of a lot of pretty rich people who prefer the Democratic Party to be left on social issues but right on economic issues. The party elite see these wealthy folks as part of the party, and don't want to nominate a candidate who accurately sees them as class enemies. I wonder sometimes if there are Democratic Party eggheads working for the DNC who are aware of Piketty's prophecy but are not willing to risk evolving the party, lest they lose their benefactors."

Much more, including links to the hard data (over 100 pages!) at link...

[BeckyDem]

1. Thomas Frank did too. K&R

[billpolonsky]

2. This election is the Democratic Party's to lose...

..."Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was"

[link:

|

[comradebillyboy]

3. The home of HA Goodman says what? Salon has no credibility.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. You're lumping Thomas Piketty with H.A. Goodman?

That's just embarrassing...

[comradebillyboy]

6. Pardon me for having an opinion that differs from yours.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Lots of academics write lots of papers.

Why should we treat some as dispositive and some as not?

[MineralMan]

41. Sorry. Picketty is a French Economist.

I question the validity of his data on an upcoming US Presidential election.

It's a reach for him to make such predictions, I think.

[progressoid]

56. Have you read his paper?

It's only 180 pages long.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf

[MineralMan]

61. No, I have not, nor will I.

I don't have time for that at all. I have a stack of academic neuroscience papers I have to read. What a French economist has to say about US elections is not that interesting, somehow.

[lapucelle]

72. Piketty didn't write the Salon article. N/T

[Fiendish Thingy]

82. The Salon article is about, and links to Piketty's study

But you knew that, right?

[lapucelle]

83. The article is simply a Salon writer's spin on a scholar's work.

So there was no comparison made between H.A. Goodman and Picketty, but merely a commentary on Salon's standards as exemplified by H.A. Goodman.

[Gothmog]

90. I agree as to the reliable of Salon

The article cited is not well done and relies on 2014 book that most economists rejected

[KPN]

4. Don't know about the data, but I do agree with

"Piketty's point ... that the so-called left parties, like the Democratic Party in the U.S., the Socialists in France and Labour in the U.K., have in the past two decades not really been that left, at least on economic issues."

That's why I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary and am leaning toward Warren as the front-runner amongst my 3-4 front-runners at the moment (fyi, Sanders is not one of them though I will vote for him should he win the nomination).

I guess the question is how many Independents, not-party affiliated, and Democrats feel like I do. I don't know the data on that. Maybe I'll look into the last 100 pages of Piketty's book.

[Hortensis]

16. With Warren's record of real achievement and

believable commitment to more, she could potentially appeal to a broad range of those who are economically progressive, from the left right on across the center to the moderate right. I like her a lot.

However, a whole lot of people seem to be seeing her as a lot like Sanders, and I am wondering what will happen when more of the farther left understand how very different she really is.
Guessing it should be fine for those truly issue oriented. But a minority but significant portion of his support is proven to be significantly more motivated by animus against the Democratic Party than by issues, and she's a solid Democrat, so could lose any of those she drew.

Pew says Dem-leaning indies mostly mirror Democrats, so look to the polls? But they average younger (so maybe a bit more pro-?), average a bit more male (so maybe a bit less?), and the few who are truly independent tend to avoid politics altogether.

[Prosper]

7. Already have the centrist vote.

Trump accidentally won by appealing to the suffering silent working class. For over 60 years the Republican party has done everything possible to destroy capitalism and turn this country into a fascist plutocracy . The result was making accumulating money cheaper, faster and easier. The casualty of hoarding money is working class jobs. If a Biden type is the candidate Trump will sound off with his memorialized promises of : Healthcare for everybody whether or not people can pay, lots of good paying jobs and make America Great Again. The same people that suffered stagnant wages for over 50 years will be up for grabs again. Trump can promise everything saying his plans are working just need more time. A Bernie is needed to get the winning votes. The Biden votes are already in the win column but they won't be enough unless the suffering working class is recognized. Trump bought a lot of votes with his tax cut.

[BeckyDem]

8. The frightening aspect of Trump, and there are many, is how his appeal

crosses from the corporate world and the fundie world. He manages to please both sectors and that always freaks me out. The greed lust in the corp world is nuts, there is no other planet to move to if we allow deregulation to further advance climate change.

[CrispyQ]

36. The 1% think once the takers & eaters are all gone -

that's us, by the way

then everything will be hunky-dory. They will have this planet as is, all to themselves. And once we're all gone, that will take care of the harmful emissions. They are in denial how hot the planet already is.

[BeckyDem]

60. As a fellow taker and eater, that is likely what they believe!

They scare the hell out of me.

[brewens]

58. The powers that be are pulling out all the stops to ensure we do not see how well a liberal

candidate would do. Again.

No one seems to agree with me, but I think that was the real problem last time around. That doesn't mean I think it should have been Bernie either. I think the, "it's her turn" and "time for a woman in the White House" crowd kept others from making a serious run. Biden also didn't run. If Biden felt he would make a great President, where was he? I saw no reason whatsoever for him to pass it up.

I think we ended up with about the same thing on both sides. Loyal GOP voters voting for Trump no matter what, along with Hillary haters. On our side everyone that would have voted democrat anyway, along with anybody but Trump voters. I think we had all those votes anyway no matter who our candidate was and could have had millions more for someone more liberal.

[Go Vols]

67. +1

[lapucelle]

73. One of these graphics represents the 2016 Democratic nominee,

and the other represents the candidate I'm supporting this time around.





https://www.ontheissues.org

[honest.abe]

9. If this analysis is correct then why is Biden leading in all the head-to-head polls against Trump?

Are the polls all wrong or is this analysis flawed? I think flawed because we are dealing with a unique situation with Trump.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Mondale was ahead of Reagan at this point in the cycle, IIRC nt

[TwilightZone]

11. Mondale was never ahead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections#1984_United_States_presidential_election

[crazytown]

32. At this stage of the cycle Mondale was ahead 49-43 over Reagan

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/19/us/glenn-leads-mondale-as-vote-getter-in-gallup-poll.html

[Drunken Irishman]

39. And Glenn had a much larger lead than Mondale.

Plus, the unemployment rate was 10.10% in May, 1983 - apples to oranges comparison.

[crazytown]

66. Yes, just xprrecting a statement of fact.

As DSB has pointed out, a better predictor of the GE is the president’s approval rating. Reagan was 41% at this point. By November 1984, with a recovery well underway, he was at 59% and won 60% of the vote.

[Drunken Irishman]

86. Yes - so, at this point there is no reason to believe Biden can't win.

[honest.abe]

12. If his analysis is correct then why doesn't the effect show up now in the polls?

Most voters know what Biden stands for already.

[SouthernProgressive]

26. YRI NT

[marylandblue]

24. He can't predict the outcome of every election, but

if he is correct, then either Biden would end up losing to Trump, or in 4 or 8 years he will be replaced by a smarter, smoother version of Trump.

Alternatively, Warren or perhaps Buttigieg would defeat Biden then defeat Trump. Warren almost certainly has read Piketty's book, and I suspect Buttigieg has too.

[aidbo]

42. Do you have a land line? If you do, do you have caller ID? If you do, do you pick it up..

..when you do not recognize the number on the Caller ID? Or, if you do not have a land line, do you answer calls on your cell phone from numbers you do not recognize?

For a huge amount of people under 50 years old the answer to all those questions is "No". Many people even younger do not answer their phone for a call at all and prefer to do all of their communicating with friends through texting or other apps. I don't see how they could get enough people under the age of 50 to answer a poll to get a representative sample, but I only have anecdotal evidence. I personally think that the polls are wrong. But I'm not allowed to say that the polls are wrong when they go against the candidate I'm supporting, so..

[honest.abe]

50. Well, its possible the polls are wrong but I doubt it.

The better polling outfits adjust for the issues you stated. No doubt there is room for error so that's why its better to look at multiple polls and long term trends to get a more accurate picture of what is happening.

[Prosper]

88. Who is being polled?

At this time isn't it likely Democratic voters? Plus don't overlook the Bradley effect.

[LongtimeAZDem]

13. Salon gleefully fueled the "Hillary is worse than Trump" garbage.

[Prosper]

89. Trump tax cut

Bought a lot of upper class voters.

[BannonsLiver]

14. Oh...it's Salon

AKA the public information wing of the Sanders campaign. Might as well have been written by David Sirota.

[Thekaspervote]

62. Yup!

[IronLionZion]

15. The GOP nominated an unelectable unqualified nonreligious dumbass

and we saw what happened as he ran an openly extremist campaign.

Let the Democratic voters decide our party's nominee. Conventional wisdom has failed many times.

And I disagree with the notion of Kamala Harris as centrist. She holds many liberal views on important issues like single payer healthcare.

[JI7]

17. so much BS

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ, JEC, WJC, BHO

They don't seem like far left radicals to me.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. FDR? LBJ?

Quite progressive economically, which is what the article focuses on.

[BootinUp]

84. yep. nt

[Vidal]

20. No Hard Data

think your headline is wrong

[honest.abe]

21. Don't trust the Salon narrative. Here is the actual article by Picketty to form your own opinion.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf

It's a very thorough analysis with lots of data and charts. I think the very last line of the article sums it up.

Without a strong and convincing egalitarian internationalist platform, it is inherently difficult to unite low-education, low-income voters from all origins within the same party.

Yes, it's difficult but not impossible. Given what Trump has done as President, many of the "low-education, low-income voters" that voted for him in 2016 should now be enlightened to Trump's fake message and will swing back to the Democratic Party and in particular to Joe Biden because he is someone who is genuine and can be trusted.

[marylandblue]

29. But will Biden make redistributionist economics a central part of message and policy?

If not, then we get a 4 or 8 year reprieve, followed by another Trump, only smart and more dangerous.

[honest.abe]

37. I am sure Joe will include some level of redistributionist economics into his message.

If he is able to clean up the mess Trump has made and bring back credibility to the office of the President, he will win again in 2024. In 2028, I suspect we will have a great candidate to take us to the next level.

[JI7]

80. the low income types voted for trump over social issues

and they are getting what they voted for.

[LibFarmer]

22. Hard Data equals

A herd of unicorns romping on a hell frozen over while pigs fly overhead.

[PDittie]

23. "VBNMW"

is the centrist bloc. (That's the actual purity contest.)

If what the centrists keep saying -- whether it is true, or accurate, or even close to either one; that the "libruls"/"far left"/"BSers" have not returned to the Democratic Party in 2020 to support the entire party, just their own caucus or candidates, then by this logic it makes sense to let them pick the nominee in order to keep them inside the tent. Pissing out, as opposed to outside pissing in, as the old saying goes.

The downside is that a centrist wouldn't be able to lay blame on liberals for not voting, or for voting third party, of course. I realize this takes the fun out of shaming others for your candidate losing. Life can be a bitch that way sometimes.

By contrast, if you don't care who the nominee is or where they align with your beliefs just as long as they can "beet Trump" ... then kindly stand aside and let the rest of us pick the nominee. Liberal, centrist, or otherwise.

Your vote is already in the tank. Thanks!

[YOHABLO]

54. Am I the only one who hasn't a clue what "VBNMW" means?

[Demit]

71. Vote Blue No Matter Who

I couldn't figure it out either so I looked it up. It refers to people supporting the Democrat no matter what and that's why we get bad governance. The "lesser evil is still evil" kind of thing.

[AlexSFCA]

27. Harris is a centrist now?? that's rich

[LuvLoogie]

28. hard data...

[still_one]

30. Typical Salon bullshit. I remember what Salon did to Hilllary, distorting and

misrepresentation, so I’ll take their analysis with a huge grain of salt

[lapfog_1]

31. So long as it is HARD DATA and just an opinion

[The Mouth]

33. My take is that this country is culturally conservative, but

not afraid of economic liberalism.

Except for a few large cities and college towns, the American populace pretty conservative in terms of what people are comfortable with, and changes much more slowly than many of us would wish.

I'm a native San Franciscan, and to me, and people I know from NY, and Austin and Boston, the masses can sometimes be horribly conservative in terms of cultural issues such as race, LGBT, climate change, and American imperialism/exceptionalism.

On the other hand, almost everyone has some experience with budgeting, investment, and debt. Many folks who culturally fit in better with the Republicans see that we need investment in education and infrastructure and more, not less regulation of Wall Street insanity.

So 'Centrist' can be a good thing, or a bad thing. I think a candidate who runs on economic issues and can explain them well, while really downplaying (yes, according to some 'throwing under the bus') cultural issues ("identity politics' as the repubs call it) can make the greatest inroads on those centrist voters. BUT, will such a candidate energize those of for whom these cultural issues are paramount? Or will sheer abhorrence of Trump be enough for a sufficient turnout.

In other words, how liberal of a candidate can get elected, and what type of liberal issues can they run on and win.

at least that's how I see the question.

[crazytown]

34. "the Democratic establishment" ?

That's all I need to know about this 'hard data' study.

[stonecutter357]

35. lol fail !

[emmaverybo]

38. When Republicans attack Biden, they won't be calling him a centrist. He is a liberal. Always has

been, always will be.

[Go Vols]

74. always?

The landslide 1984 Presidential election defeat spurred "centrist" Democrats to action, and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed. The DLC, an unofficial party organization, played a critical role in moving the Democratic Party's policies to the "center" of the American political spectrum. Prominent Democratic politicians such as: Senators Al Gore and Joe Biden (both future Vice Presidents) participated in DLC affairs prior to their candidacy for the 1988 Democratic Party nomination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

[emmaverybo]

87. I don't think Republicans have changed their mind. He will still be a "libtard" to them, and

always a liberal to me and many others who go back before Wikipedia.

[MineralMan]

40. What hard data?

Was there some you could have included? I guess not.

I don't have time today to read 100 pages of data. Sorry.

[Blue_Tires]

43. So by extension then the issue of impeachment must be

really popular with the same crowd?

[Uncle Joe]

44. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread Fiendish Thingy.

[Downtown Hound]

45. Hard data. LOL.

[Fiendish Thingy]

46. Lots of evidence backed research and analysis

Should you choose to follow the link (link to Piketty’s original study also posted in this thread)

[Downtown Hound]

47. Sounds really impressive.

[LanternWaste]

53. I'm not too confident you're aware of the meaning of the words...

'evidence', 'research', and 'analysis'. But other than those few oversights, you're spot on!

[Fiendish Thingy]

64. Clearly you're not familiar with the work of Thomas Piketty

The reknowned progressive French economist- but any nominee the Dems select should be.

[Loki Liesmith]

68. Yes. He's nothing that impressive.

[LanternWaste]

93. Clearly your not familiar with the difference between analysis and an editorial on that analysis

- but any nominee the Democrats select should be.

Try again... this time with critical thought reaching a valid conclusion predicated on rational logic instead of editorials.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. Can you cite the page(s) where the evidence for his claim is/are

Thank you in advance.

[Peacetrain]

49. I second that motion...

and also thank you in advance

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. I'm genuinely curious

The original poster makes it sound like it can be reduced at a mathematical equation. That doesn't seem realistic.

[Peacetrain]

52. Is this Thomas Piketty the french economist?

I do not know the op writer so I did not follow his link.. but what may apply in France does not apply here.. if that is who he is talking about edit to add.. so I am genuinely curious also

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. He said it is based on a study of French, American, and British political history.

The last Labour Prime Minister was Tony Blair. He was center left.

[Peacetrain]

57. Then a good chance that is who it is...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I'm not wed to any candidate. I just want to defeat Trump

Here's the gravamen of his argument:

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — e.g. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win back those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, e.g. many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing

The reason the Democrats won the mid terms is because they tied the Republicans in the suburbs. In the 014 midterms the Dems lost the suburbs by twelve points and consequently the mid terms. A candidate who is considered outside the mainstream could lose the suburbs and consequently the election. Piketty believes there's an inchoate mass waiting to be mobilized. I see scant evidence of that.

[Peacetrain]

63. I read that in the body of the op.. and disagree with the premise if it refers to the United States

can't speak for France or Great Britain..they are a much more homogeneous grouping.. its our very diversity that makes us unique and less likely to be responsive over the long haul to a set stance.. immigrants move from the bottom of the social tier to the top in our type of democracy/republic.. thinking of no Irish need apply to the Italians need not apply just a few decades ago.. and the Swedish had the same issue in Minnesota.. we are pretty fluid..

People doused in racial and cultural hatred.. unless they have an epiphany.. will always be that way..and even they move back and forth across political lines if they thinks it benefits them financially.. we truly are a rather unique group of people joined together not by birth culture race but need ..

EDIT TO ADD You are absolutely right that the most important thing is to beat Trump

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. People vote for cultural reasons as much as economic ones.

[ProfessorPlum]

65. The Hard Data is the 2016 election

where a centrist Democrat lost to Trump.

I also think that repeating this strategy (surely a centrist Democrat will beat Trump) is a loser for us.

[redstateblues]

70. Huge difference in terms of the negative numbers

Our candidate had. Thinking that policy is the main factor in electing a President is a loser.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. I am the last person to speak ill of Secretary Clinton but she didn't lose because of her ideology.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. A professor believes one election is dispositive of every election?

By the author's definition Barack Obama is a centrist and he is the first Democratic president to win consecutive popular vote majorities since Franklin Roosevelt.

[JI7]

79. Russian attack on Hillary while they propped up the incompetent

men she ran against and got millions more votes than.

[Kurt V.]

78. K&R

[appalachiablue]

81. Thanks for posting, plenty to work on & consider. Piketty, a professor

at the Paris School of Economics and the London School of Economics knows a thing or two, at age 40-something! His book, 'Capital in the 21st Century' is a landmark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty

[Demsrule86]

85. Blue wall...election will be one or lost in those states.

I read the OP and consider it a cross between wishful thinking and nonsense.

[Gothmog]

91. Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder?

Most economists are ignoring the work that this article is based on http://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/marshall-steinbaum-why-are-economists-giving-piketty-cold-shoulder

But despite Piketty’s resonance with public experience and apparent applicability to the economic environment of global finance, his book was mostly greeted with hostility by the academic economics profession. There was a sense among academic economists that the book was a hostile action from within, and aside from Nobel Prize–winners Robert Solow and Paul Krugman, who both published reasonably favorable reviews in the highbrow popular press, the reaction was, in general, quite harsh.

In the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson wrote, “If the history of grand pronouncements of the general laws of capitalism repeats itself—perhaps first as tragedy and then as farce as Marx colorfully put it—then we may expect the same sort of frustration with Piketty’s sweeping predictions as they fail to come true, in the same way that those of Ricardo and Marx similarly failed in the past.” In the Journal of Political Economy, after praising Piketty’s lifelong research agenda assembling inequality statistics for income and wealth (as do all the reviewers named here), Lawrence Blume and Steven Durlauf wrote, “Capital is, nonetheless, unpersuasive when it turns from description to analysis. . . . Both of us are very liberal (in the contemporary as opposed to classical sense), and we regard ourselves as egalitarians. We are therefore disturbed that Piketty has undermined the egalitarian case with weak empirical, analytical, and ethical arguments.”....

But perhaps the greatest rebuke of Piketty to be found among academic economics is not contained in any of these overt or veiled attacks on his scholarship and interpretation, but rather in the deafening silence that greets it, as well as inequality in general, in broad swathes of the field—even to this day. You can search through the websites of several leading economics departments or the official lists of working papers curated by federal agencies and not come across a single publication that has any obvious or even secondary bearing on the themes raised by Capital in the Twenty-First Century, even in order to oppose them. It is as though the central facts, controversies, and policy proposals that have consumed our public debate about the economy for three years are of little-to-no importance to the people who are paid and tenured to conduct a lifetime’s research into how the economy works.

This dearth of reaction to such a critical work is not healthy. It is as if the rapturous reception by the public increased the resentment among Piketty’s academic economist colleagues. As an appeal to the public to resolve, or at least have a say in, what the experts consider their own domain, Piketty appears to have questioned the very value of having a credentialed economics elite empowered to make policy in the name of the public interest but not answerable to public opinion. The economics elite, it seems, answered by stonewalling Capital in the Twenty-First Century, so it would not have the impact on economics research agendas that it merits.

No one in academia is taking this book seriously and so it is hard to base election results on this book

[highplainsdem]

92. Sigh. You can usually cherrypick an academic to cherrypick allegedly "hard" data to "prove"

damn near any premise you favor.

Recent polls provide much more valuable data in real-world politics, and strategists typically know how to read those without any academic's help.

[LanternWaste]

94. Thankfully, this 'hard data' sourced from 2013 was ignored during the mid-term win.

Allowing thirty-three of the forty GOP seats Democrats picked up were won by candidates who had been endorsed by the moderate NewDem PAC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. Hard data makes its sound like the author of the paper reduced it to a mathematical certainty.

It's actually hilarious if you think about it. It's embarrassing.