Hard evidence shows a centrist candidate not as strong as a progressive

[Bucky]

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

The traditional argument that a Sanders or a Warren candidacy would be more vulnerable to a Trump victory is based on the idea that 100% of the people are voting, and they vote along a one-dimensional spectrum of left to right.

That is, the further to the left a candidate's policies are, the more voters you lose in the middle. And if the body of voters in the United States were one-dimensional in their thinking, then that is thinking understanding of how election work would be right.

Here's the thing: that analysis is a shallow smear of horse pucky.

Thomas Piketty, a French political economist, in 2013 wrote "Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right: Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political Conflict" in the journal "Capital in the Twenty-First Century." He analyzes around 70 years of post-election surveys from Britain, the United States and France and concludes that people are voting for (wait for it) the candidates who speak to their concerns, not based on simple Left Right polarities.

First, the sheer amount of data analyzed in Piketty's paper is stunning. He and his researchers analyze voters in those three countries by income (broken into deciles), education, party, gender, religion and income disparity. The final 106 pages of the paper consist of graphs and charts. This is a seriously detailed data analysis that took years of work, and any intelligent political party operative should take it very seriously.

Now, for the findings. Piketty's basic thesis is that poorer and less educated voters were historically the kind of voters who voted for left and left-liberal parties. These voters understood that their class interests did not align with the right-wing parties of the rich; thus, historically, the "high-income, high education" voters picked the right-wing parties.

This shifted in the past 70 years: "high-education elites now vote for the 'left', while high- income/high-wealth elites still vote for the 'right' (though less and less so)," Piketty notes. Note the scare quotes around "left": part of Piketty's point is 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. With the exception of Jeremy Corbyn's contemporary Labour Party, the aforementioned are aligned with the same kind of neoliberal economic policies that rich elites favor.

In other words, people respond to Trump's attacks on elites because they don't like elites. They think liberals are snobs. They don't tend to think Bernie is a snob. That's what he's doing right and most of field is doing wrong.

Remember that the next time you're making fun of wypipo for voting against their own economic interests. They're falling for the charms of a malicious con artist because we quit speaking to them. As Sanders shows every time he gets on Fox News, he does speak to the concerns of the forgotten working class.

[Ninga]

1. Spot on! Nt

[Squinch]

2. Suuuuuure. That's why moderates kicked ass in 2018, and Our Revolution got clobbered.

But I guess that's not hard evidence.

Academic papers are much better.

[Bucky]

4. Yes, 70 years of data isn't hard evidence, but your one inaccurate generalization is

Well played

[Squinch]

6. In what way was it inaccurate? Did you think Our Revolution and similar candidates performed well

as opposed to moderates in 2018?

[Bucky]

9. I'm not sure what evidence you're citing.

You're calling 2018 a victory for moderates. Are you talking about Tlaib? Ocasio-Cortes? Do you have any numbers or data behind that generalization?

I will say l'm impressed you're able to read through the article I linked to, digest it, and formulate an opinion against it in just 3 minutes.

[Squinch]

19. You aren't the first to have posted it. Sorry to stomp on your gotcha. You guys are always trotting

out that article. Even though the 2018 election had opposite results.

Here's one piece on the dismal performance of progressives in the midterms

Progressive Democrats running in competitive House districts had a bad night on Tuesday

Moderate Democratic candidates were the big winners of swing congressional districts in the 2018 midterm elections, flipping most of the 28 key House districts from Republicans’ control and winning key gubernatorial races, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Illinois. Democrats’ net gain in the House was 26 seats.

Progressive candidates flipped few of those seats. For the most part, the biggest upsets for the left occurred during the summer primaries; most of those districts were already blue and primed to elect Democrats. Many of the left-wing candidates who tested the theory of turning out their base, even in more conservative districts, lost on election night.
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18071700/progressive-democrats-house-midterm-elections-2018

If you need more information, it's all over the google machine.

[LakeArenal]

26. Good one, squinch

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Bucky.

[uponit7771]

5. Historical evidence shows the centrist candidate winning in swing states beyond MOE. Swing states ar

... are what matter

[Bucky]

7. I'm not sure I would agree that Trump is a centrist candidate

Nope, his victories in Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin was because he sold himself as an outsider and disruptor going up against elites.

[uponit7771]

8. Trump isn't beating Biden historically in the swing state poling either.

[Bucky]

10. You have to look at historical performance. Biden was beating Bernie

Until about two weeks before each of the last three contests. I love Uncle Joe Biden, but he's not a closer. His numbers always fade right before the voting. That's what happened in 2008 (when I supported him) and that's what happened in 1988.

That's a lesson I don't need to learn again

[uponit7771]

12. I'm looking at 538 Data Biden's winning most outside of MOE, it was an MSNBC aggreate poll that

... reported such right before the debates and Biden mentioned it.

Biden is beating Trump by the most for the last 3 months, that can turn but we need to see that

[Bucky]

15. I'll vote for whoever we nominate. I'll vote for Gilbert Gottfreid if he has a D behind his name

But the massive pool of non-participating voters will only be tapped by a candidate compromising real change. I just don't think Biden can be that messenger after 40 years in Washington.

[Garrett78]

13. In 1988, he had to drop out early due to a plagiarism scandal. But, yes, he's never...

...been good at this. He seems lost without a script to follow.

[Bucky]

20. Dammit,

You're right, I overreached with the 1988 line.

I didn't check before I posted. I do recall being disappointed in 2008 though. I really thought he was the man for the moment then. Joe Biden is still a hill I'm willing to die on. But I think he's wrong on Medicare for all and I fear he's not as agile as he was a decade ago.

And if I'm going to be honest, I'm not prepared yet to spend the next 4 months or 4 years deflecting distractive arguments about Hunter Biden.

[Garrett78]

23. I don't think Biden on a debate stage with Trump would go well for us.

In fact, I think it would go very poorly.

[LakeArenal]

27. I Love Uncle Joe, but......

That’s such a obvious cliche.

[LAS14]

11. McGovern?

I certainly place Sanders in the same type of camp as McGovern or Goldwater. I don't place Warren there. Not sure why not.... Any ideas?

tia
las

[Bucky]

14. Warren is less divisive within the party.

That's why I'm supporting her. I don't think she has all of Bernie's mojo, but she does speak the same language. Moreover, I think she's uniquely qualified to unite the progressive and mainstream liberal wings of the party (the latter of which people are calling "moderates", but they aren't really moderates--Biden and Klobuchar have genuine liberal credentials)

Sanders in Iowa, before people were able to make a second choice, won by 6000 votes. When people were given a second round, Buttigieg closed that gap to 2,000 votes. That is, people who didn't support Buttigieg at first were more attracted to him than to Bernie.

No Democratic candidate will go the McGovern route. Democrats have a rock bottom about 200 electoral votes. But I think Elizabeth Warren's appeal is more likely to have coattails. The White House is important, but we won't get real progress until we get the US Senate out of Mitch McConnell's control

[PETRUS]

25. Warren/Sanders

I think you're right about Warren being less controversial with Democrats. Her policies are pretty close to Sanders, but her way of talking about them is markedly different. If you look at the demographics of their support, they are reaching entirely different groups of people even though their proposals are similar. Warren's support is whiter, more educated, and higher income. I'm not trying to make any particular point here other than noting that style and persona seems to matter in terms of getting through to people.

In terms of judging whether or not Biden and Klobuchar (or any number of other politicians) are "moderate" or "liberal," I'd say that it's not uniformly one way or the other. In some areas, Biden (for example) is more to the left than the average liberal was a generation ago (e.g. most "social" issues), and in some areas he's more to the right (e.g. some economic issues).

[Garrett78]

18. Neither the electorate nor the political climate has remained static for the last 48 years.

[Garrett78]

16. A related post I made last night:

Russia will do anything to undermine any candidate who becomes the frontrunner. I'm sure Russia is aware of the perception that Sanders can't win, so they're going to exploit that for all it's worth.

I think that perception is false. I know you disagree and I respect your opinion. But that perception seems to be based largely on false assumptions about so-called independents, moderates, undecideds, etc. And the notion that 2018 was the result of Trump voters switching sides (stated repeatedly by a DU poster and echoed by others). I say false assumptions because of the following:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814522/independents-voters-facts-myths

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/10/18076872/trump-46-percent-solition

Regarding the first 3 articles, those who self-identify as such and such are all over the map ideologically-speaking and the vast majority of so-called independents are completely wedded to a particular party. It's a myth that there's this large mass of astute, consistent middle-of-the-roaders with some well-defined "moderate" ideology, who are just waiting to see which party will put up the candidate closest to the center.

Many people, especially young people, are starving to vote for someone who dreams big and will fight for a future that isn't filled with misery (many people recognize that that's where we're headed with the status quo, Trump or no Trump). From the first article: "Anybody who claims to have the winning formula for winning moderate, independent or undecided voters is making things up. Perhaps more centrist policies will appeal to some voters in each of these categories — but so will more extreme policies." Many of those so-called "extreme policies" poll very, very well.

As for the 4th article, what happened is we saw Dems break turnout records. It wasn't that Trump voters switched sides, or that anti-Trump Republicans came to our rescue in droves. That simply isn't what happened. So, what did happen? Well, for instance, every single major ethnic and racial group had a greater increase in turnout from one midterm to the next (in this case, 2014 to 2018) than ever before in US history. And the age group that had the greatest increase in turnout between 2014 and 2018 was the 18-29 age group (20% in 2014 to 36% in 2018).

Yes, it's true that many moderates flipped districts (while some others lost statewide races for the US Senate). It's also true that some very progressive candidates got elected. We can have a more moderate candidate win a district while also having a very progressive candidate win a national election. Those aren't mutually exclusive events, especially at a time when the driving force in the US as a whole is an opposition to the status quo, a general sense that we're in grave danger and that the US is - in the words of Howard Zinn - "topsy-turvy." A whole lot of people desperately want fundamental change.

So, yeah, I think Sanders can win states such as PA, MI, AZ, etc. Regardless of who our nominee is, I think it'll be a close election.

[Eyeball_Kid]

30. Who is right on the issues and who is right on "branding"?

And who can see the difference?

That's one of the features of this and most elections. In this season, those who are branded as "moderate" are nonetheless consistent with "liberal" views on a number of policy proposals. But those branded as "liberal", such as Sanders and Warren, are still within the mainstream of political persuasion. We know this because when people are polled on specific issues, they favor policies that Sanders and Warren espouse. It's true again and again. But their "branding" creates divisions when there is very little disagreement among them. So Sanders and Warren are the objects of criticism by those who are more comfortable with the "moderate" brand only because the brand is different, not because there will, in the end, be wide and perhaps disparate variations of legislative activities.

My view is that there are small differences among those candidates branded as liberal and moderate, while the bigger difference occurs with the public's perception based on how the candidates are branded.

What's also fascinating is that the public, the candidates, and the media all collude with the thinking that these proposals have weight with a future legislature. But the reality is that the candidates' proposals are not the same proposals that will come out of the conference committees and Congressional hearings and the markups and the riders. All we can discern about the candidates and their ideas is the general direction that they will tend to push.

[Garrett78]

31. I think those are wise observations. I also think, though, the direction that they tend to push...

...is of great importance, now more than ever. Winning behind a movement of youth and POC and those opposed to the status quo would change present realities regarding what's possible. Millions are starving for profound change. And when negotiating, one shouldn't start where one hopes to end up.

Sanders has his flaws to be sure, but if he wins and lays the groundwork for more AOCs, we may just have a future. And, as I wrote in my last post, I think he can win. And we should be hoping he does, because we need major fundamental change and soon. We're in grave danger as a society and as a species. We need leadership that will inspire an army of Greta Thunbergs.

This is a very, very powerful message: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=559093. It speaks to pains and fears while offering hope and optimism. One of the criticisms leveled against Democrats over the years is the reliance on policy prescriptions while failing to appeal to emotions. In the past, I've wanted to push back against that, because I'm of the rational/logical bent ('We should be able to win on facts alone, dammit!'), but the fact of the matter is there are a hell of a lot of people for whom that emotional connection/inspiration is key.

Again, the research tells us that many people misunderstand "independents," "moderates," "undecideds" and those who self-identify as all of the above. Instinctively, one might think those terms must mean "middle-of-the-road"/not a fan of either party, so it's understandable why people get it wrong--but they do get it wrong. People put too much trust in the idea that how others self-identify matches their own definition of the term and how everyone else who identifies that way has the same meaning in mind.

And then there's this:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/19/knight-nonvoter-study-decoding-2020-election-wild-card-115796

Nonvoters are an eclectic faction with distinctive blocs that support Democrats and Republicans—but don’t show up to cast their ballots—and an even larger group that is alienated from a political system it finds bewildering, corrupt, irrelevant or some combination thereof.

Some nonvoters are more likely than others to engage, and I take some degree of comfort in research that suggests they tend to be more progressive:

Like other scholars, their research identified a substantial cohort of would-be Democratic voters who rarely participate in the political process. These “passive liberals” are weakly engaged but progressive on most issues when they are, isolated from “the system” and fatalistic about how it will affect their lives, and far more likely to be African American and to feel the world is becoming more dangerous. They constitute 15 percent of the voting age population.

“They’re younger, more urban, more female, more black and Hispanic on average and have a clear orientation toward the Democratic Party,” says Stephen Hawkins, More in Common's director of research. “But they feel disaffected and cynical toward the system so they are less inclined to vote as a whole.”

This group closely mirrors one of two camps that Ibram X. Kendi, founding director of American University’s Antiracist Research and Policy Center, has called the “other swing voters,” the ones who chose not between voting for the Democrats or the Republicans but rather between Democrat and not voting at all....These “passive liberals” stand in stark contrast to a larger mass of nonvoters who are far more profoundly disengaged from and disinterested in politics.

[highplainsdem]

17. LOL! I think this is the fifth time we've had an OP about that silly article. Search the site

for

piketty hard data

and you'll find threads with lots of replies about what's wrong with it.

[Bucky]

21. Thanks.

I'll check those out.

[Peacetrain]

22. Who is a centrist besides Bloomberg??

I think everyone else would have been talked about as good solid Liberals.. Maybe if you have a Socialist then the Left has moved more to the center.. I guess I can see that..assertion makes not sense to me

[Midnightwalk]

24. Read the article

But can’t find a link to the paper

Interesting but not sure it tells us anything. I’ll pick at two examples to show why:

With the exception of Jeremy Corbyn's contemporary Labour Party, the aforementioned are aligned with the same kind of neoliberal economic policies that rich elites favor.

Corbyn’s Labour part wasn’t aligned with neoliberal economic policy. The last election was a disaster.

In the first two decades of the twentieth century the Socialist Party of Oklahoma consistently ranked as one of the top three state socialist organizations in America. At the party's height in the elections of 1914, the Socialist Party candidate for governor, Fred W. Holt, received more than 20 percent of the vote statewide. In Marshall and Roger Mills counties, where the Socialist Party was strongest, Holt captured 41 and 35 percent of the vote, respectively. More than 175 socialists were elected to local and county offices that year, including six to the state legislature.

That was quoted by the article at
[link:https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=SO001|]

I’m a little suspicious that refers to 1914. It would be a stronger statement if it was more contemporary.

That said I agree we need a strong message to the working class but I don’t think that’s enough. If it were enough, why didn’t that message sweep in more left leaning candidates in 2018 in the middle of the country? Ignoring that is kind of like pointing out that socialism was popular in Oklahoma in 1914.

We also need to not alienate the moderates because I don’t think swing states are going to turn enough to make up for loss of moderates. That means being able to say “we’re going after the profiteers but your taxes aren’t going up”.

Warren has a strong message that’s a little more grounded in reality. I think she could better get past the attacks. She is strong enough but is her voice?

[Faux pas]

28. As I said on another thread...

To me moderate/centrist means nothing changes. No forward movement, no new ideas. Same old same old. I don't believe that's a good thing.

[Happy Hoosier]

29. Horse pucky

“Remember that the next time you're making fun of wypipo for voting against their own economic interests. They're falling for the charms of a malicious con artist because we quit speaking to them. As Sanders shows every time he gets on Fox News, he does speak to the concerns of the forgotten working class. ”

Ahhh.... economic anxiety.... horse pucky!

Please look up the Southern Strategy!

This such infuriating nonsense.