THE DEMOCRATS DILEMMA

LOST

Without re-litigating 2016 and without personal attacks, which way should the Party go:

Establishment v. Progressive

Policies v. Voter Turnout or Appeal to Independents v. Expand the Base


Michael

progressive.  

Lost with the establishment last time


LOST

Didn't lose because Hillary was the Establishment. Lost because Hillary was Hillary.


Terry

I don't get it, what do you mean by 'Policies v. Voter Turnout'? 


LOST
Smedley said:
I don't get it, what do you mean by 'Policies v. Voter Turnout'? 

 I tried to explain but was less than clear.

What I really mean is do you try to win over Independents by pushing policies they might favor or do you concentrate on getting bigger turnout from those who already inclined to favor your policies but don't vote.


mrincredible
LOST said:
Didn't lose because Hillary was the Establishment. Lost because Hillary was Hillary.

 Except she won the popular vote by something like 3 million people right?

From a purely pragmatic point of view, the question becomes how do you win over roughly 78,000 voters in Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan.


LOST

No matter how "centrist" or "moderate" a Democratic Candidate is the Republicans will attack him/her as a Radical, an Extremist , a Socialist.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/misleading-gop-ads-837692

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/trump-democrats-dead-op-ed-886805


mrincredible
LOST said:
No matter how "centrist" or "moderate" a Democratic Candidate is the Republicans will attack him/her as a Radical, an Extremist , a Socialist.
 
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/misleading-gop-ads-837692
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/trump-democrats-dead-op-ed-886805

 Yes, that's certainly been their political tactic for a while. But it doesn't necessarily indicate what voters will do. So if your point is that the Democrats might as well run someone far to the left because a Centrist would get attacked just as badly by the Republicans, I don't think that really tracks here.


LOST

I wasn't really trying to make a point, just wanting to have a discussion. 

A candidate has to understand that presenting oneself as a "moderate" or "centrist" will not immunize them from this sort of attack. They have to be prepared to hit back hard, and call a lie a lie and a liar a liar. 


To me with reference to recruiting a candidate for a House seat it's not a question of running a "moderate" or "progressive". They should recruit candidates who fit the District and based on "biography". The latter is why the Dems have been recruiting veterans. I think it's a plus to run someone who was "born and bred" in the District or has lived there a long time. Some Districts are ripe for woman candidates. In some that may not matter.

However I still think the overall National Strategy is to pull out more voters. Participation in voting in this Country is woefully small.


Mike

Turnout definitely. Convincing anyone of anything they don't already believe is a thing of the past.  That's because too many of us are too stupid and lazy to educate ourselves to act in our own best interest.  


Sweetsnuggles

Establishment.  I don’t think a strong Progressive candidate can attract sufficient votes in OH, PA, WI and MI. 


FilmCarp

I want to see every type of Democrat run in primaries at every level.  If the candidates' ideas resonate turn out will increase.  The Democrat I like may be wiped out in a primary.  Or not.


ml1

so am I to understand that some of the people who have been going on and on about how horrible the progressives are who stayed home in '16 are now suggesting that centrists might do the same and stay home in '20 if the Dems nominate a progressive?  Is the theory that people who aren't Trumpers now will not vote for a candidate who isn't a perfect match for them?


Hahaha

I think that’s about right. The Dem “purity test” ensures that no single candidate can make everyone happy and hence we’ll keep losing to Republicans who don’t think twice of holding their nose to vote for the candidate that gets them closest to their goals. 


nohero
ml1 said:
so am I to understand that some of the people who have been going on and on about how horrible the progressives are who stayed home in '16 are now suggesting that centrists might do the same and stay home in '20 if the Dems nominate a progressive?  Is the theory that people who aren't Trumpers now will not vote for a candidate who isn't a perfect match for them?

 I think the difference is that for some who call themselves "centrist", they could be against or worried about positions taken by Trump, and ALSO positions by someone they consider "too far" to the left.  I'm not defending any point of view, just pointing out that they could be weighing which approach they DON'T like is the one they can live with.

With "progressives" who couldn't support a candidate who was "not progressive enough", that same factor isn't there.  The worst they could say about the Democratic candidate was either she wasn't going as far left as they want the country to go, or she wasn't different enough from Trump (see, for example, on some foreign policy issues).  Either way, there wasn't anything to point to indicating she would be WORSE than Trump, which is what makes the lack of support or outright opposition so illogical.

Note: I put the same answer on the "May I question" thread.


ml1

and here's my answer from over there:

it seems to me it's exactly the same.

If the Democrats nominated a sane and sensible progressive candidate who had a platform of real ideas to help working people, and to curtail U.S. military action around the world, there would certainly be "cerntrists" who refused to vote for that person.  Even though there would be nothing nutty or scary about any of those ideas.  And that might help reelect an erratic malignant narcissist.

Or at least that's the theory.  Personally, I think such a person could win, and possibly even perform better than a centrist.  Just looking at the polls, it's obvious 40% of Americans are all-in on Trump.  No Democrat is getting them.  About 50% dislike Trump.  The Democrat is likely to get them.  So they're fighting over the other 10%.  And it doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate, the right will be hysterical over the person being a "socialist" who "hates America."  Might as well pursue real progressive policies if the Republicans are going to accuse the candidate of that anyway.  And the bonus is maybe you get a higher percentage of young voters and people of color to support the Democrat.



LOST

I am in favor of the Democrat who can win.

The Democratic Candidate who is likely to flip the 11th  District from red to blue and the Democratic Candidate who has a good chance to do the same in the 7th District are very different from the Democrat who is almost certain to flip the 2nd District.

 And this is just in New Jersey!!!!


https://www.270towin.com/2018-house-election/states/new-jersey


LOST

The 3rd District of West Virginia went for Trump by 49% points.

Some are predicting that the Democratic Candidate for Congress might win.


https://voteojeda.com/about-richard-ojeda/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-have-a-chance-to-win-one-of-the-reddest-districts-in-the-country/



ml1

I do know one thing for certain.  Following the advice of people who lean to the right is NOT the path to success for the Democratic Party on a national level.


RealityForAll
ml1 said:
I do know one thing for certain.  Following the advice of people who lean to the right is NOT the path to success for the Democratic Party on a national level.

 And you know this how?


ml1
RealityForAll said:


ml1 said:
I do know one thing for certain.  Following the advice of people who lean to the right is NOT the path to success for the Democratic Party on a national level.
 And you know this how?

I'm making the assumption that right leaning voters won't espouse liberal positions on issues.  I think we've been through this before and I posted articles on about a half dozen liberal policy positions that are overwhelmingly popular with voters.  


dave23

Going more conservative will sway exactly 0 Republican voters. Donald Trump's approval among Republicans remains in the mid- to high-80s. He embodies contemporary conservative beliefs and the Democrats should not go that route.

It's about getting the vote out, particularly among young people, women and minorities. (It's the only way to overcome the gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts.)


RealityForAll
dave23 said:
Going more conservative will sway exactly 0 Republican voters. Donald Trump's approval among Republicans remains in the mid- to high-80s. He embodies contemporary conservative beliefs and the Democrats should not go that route.
It's about getting the vote out, particularly among young people, women and minorities. (It's the only way to overcome the gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts.)

 About 51% of registered voters in NJ are Dems. And, approximately 19% of registered NJ voters are Independents.  In midterms, I think Dems should be focusing on attracting swing voters (AKA Independents) in addition to base.  Not all registered voters turn-out.  For example, elderly Repubs (or maybe it is all elderly - unsure) generally have very high election turn-out. Whereas, Dem millennials generally have lower turn-out rates.


See:  http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/

See:  https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-2018/power-role-older-voters.html


ml1

and most independent voters actually lean one way or the other ideologically:

Most people who initially identify as independents will express a "leaning" toward one of the major parties if probed. Gallup has asked independents for their party leanings consistently since 1991. In addition to the 29% of Americans who identify as Democrats, another 18% initially identify as independents but when asked say they lean toward the Democratic Party, resulting in a combined 47% of Democratic identifiers and leaners. Meanwhile, 42% of Americans identify as Republicans (27%) or are Republican-leaning independents (15%).  
https://news.gallup.com/poll/225056/americans-identification-independents-back-2017.aspx

so the numbers would suggest that the Democratic Party moving to the center is a mistake, since more independents lean Democratic than Republican.

To win in 2020, the Democrats need to increase turnout among young people, African Americans, Hispanics, and take a share of Independents.  Everything we know about those voters suggests that a right turn for the party would be a huge strategic mistake.


dave23
RealityForAll said:
 About 51% of registered voters in NJ are Dems. And, approximately 19% of registered NJ voters are Independents.  In midterms, I think Dems should be focusing on attracting swing voters (AKA Independents) in addition to base.  Not all registered voters turn-out.  For example, elderly Repubs (or maybe it is all elderly - unsure) generally have very high election turn-out. Whereas, Dem millennials generally have lower turn-out rates.

 Yes. That's why I wrote, "It's about getting the vote out, particularly among young people, women and minorities."


Joseph

When I think back to when 18-yr-olds got the vote (“we can die in war but can’t vote!”) and look at % who now vote, I could cry. 

We need a centered centrist in ‘20. If we consider who progressive candidates appeal to, and then look at the voting records of those groups, we lose. 



dave23

The centered centrist lost to Donald Trump. And centered centrists tend to be impossibly boring and come across as wishy-washy, which helps keep the young vote home. It's a tricky problem.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Featured Events

Sponsored Business

Find Business