Democrats already run moderates in nearly every swing district. It’s not enough. A data-driven response to the case for centrism as a core electoral strategy.
they do but they have to realize the actual center is bernie sanders. universal healthcare is center. getting rid of citizens united is center. getting money out of politics is center.
Seems it is always right-wingers complaining about how the Democrats should move to the center.
Democrats are not left-wingers, to be very clear.
What? You mean to the centre from centre right?
Ask Ms Harris and Ms Clinton how that went
Ask Zohran how well moving to the left has done (very well).
People just don’t want to acknowledge the real problem here: inequality. When people feel left behind, they are much more likely to break either reactionary or revolutionary. Status quo politics are not going to appeal to either of these groups. At the same time, the people who are doing well for themselves within the status quo are going to be put off by both the reactionaries and the revolutionaries. The people who are doing well don’t want radical change, one way or another. Why would they? They’re doing fine and they don’t want anything to jeopardize that.
So, if a politician moves to the center they will appeal to the pro status quo group, but they will lose both the reactionaries and the revolutionaries. Similarly, if a politician moves to either the reactionary side or the revolutionary side, they will lose the other two groups.
We are divided. There is no one winning strategy because there is no one, single group of American voters to try and appeal to, AND embracing any one group means alienating the others. And we’re not just divided because we watch different cables news stations or spend time in different web discussion forums, we’re divided because our lived experiences are different. Our divisions are not merely ideological, they are material.
I think there may be more opportunity for success here than your argument seems to suggest.
I agree with the focus on inequality. The sense that society is fundamentally unfair has a corrosive and a radicalising effect on politics. People can react to it in very different ways, from redistribution to out-group scapegoating, but the underlying motivation is that people see that there is vast wealth available in our society and they’re still struggling.
Where I may disagree is that most people are non-ideological. Not everyone, but a healthy majority. They aren’t focused on the philosophical roots of a candidate’s policies. They care that the candidate
- Sees, likes, and cares about themselves and their group
- Has a vision that gives them hope for something better
Many people can find that in candidates with a variety of ideological positions. The overlap between people who supported Bernie after the great recession, and went on to support Trump is bigger than one would expect.
So the equation is much less zero sum. You don’t lose one reactionary for every radical you bring into your camp. There really aren’t that many committed radicals and reactionaries.
The most toxic message today is the economic moderate. “Hey, it’s not so bad. Things could be a lot worse.” This is the zero sum relationship. You can’t keep both the people who are doing well and like how things work, and the people who are struggling and want the life they deserve. The material difference isn’t left vs right, it’s status quo versus change. There’s a lot more room for flexibility in the change camp.
The material difference isn’t left vs right, it’s status quo versus change.
Yes, but not everyone who wants change wants the same change, and so not every change candidate is going to appeal to every voter, even if most of them are looking for some kind of change.
I would agree that both Bernie and Trump were change candidates, but their differing levels of success shows which change message spoke more to the American people.
I agree that a political campaign promising change is the way to go (that’s been true since Obama in '08), but which one? I think it’s reasonable to assume that a change campaign built on economic populism is the way to go, but Bernie tried that twice and he lost twice.
I don’t like the word “inequality” because libertarians sieze on it is “disparity” is the better word
I’ve never heard them do this, what is their line of argument with regards to inequality?
“We’re not all equal!”
“Equality is impossible!”
“Equality? Don’t you mean ‘communism’?”
The issue is that, as conditions decline, more and more people are going to radicalize. If the only option that people see is reaction, then the rise of the far right is inevitable. We have likely already crossed the line where “maintaining the status quo” is sufficient to win elections, but even if not, it’s only a matter of time. Maintaining the status quo means maintaining a state of decline, and that decline is going to win out.
Then how did the right win by doing the exact opposite?
No one ever tells the fascists to move to the center. Odd.
Maybe moving to the right is the way to win… 🤔
That’s how tony blair got into power…sadly it’s never reverted over here in the uk.
The thing the left is missing is an extremely passionate and motivated voter base that will push your platform no matter what
I see Trump supporters all over the place, passing off absolute bullshit. They’ll push conspiracies about Soros funding the No Kings protest, while simultaneously defending Scott Bessent, who was Soros’ protege and a partner at Soros Fund Management for more than 20 years
Despite the bullshit, they are effective at converting the more moderate conservatives. Democrats don’t have that. All they have is a shrug, and “yeah, I guess they’re not as bad as Trump”
Status quo centrism is what led to this mess.
The New York Times continues to expose itself as a rag not even fit to wipe one’s ass.
Moving to the centre stopped moving when they kept moving the centre, right every time they Democrats bought about compromise.
The New Reich Times.
Will liberals ever gain strategic self-awareness?
Signs point to no, not unless someone pays them to.
Both the NYT and the Dems don’t want data, they want donations. When we talk about anti science these types of organizations should not be spared. They still twist science to protect wealth and cause material harm.
