All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[aja_christopher]

They didn't lose because they were moderates. But let's flip the table...I can show, by such noted right-wing websites like Slate, that left-leaning candidates mostly failed in 2018. It was suburban centrists that carried the day.

This is the only thing that really matters in this debate -- it doesn't mean progressives can't win, it just means progressives shouldn't ignore reality when it comes to American voting habits and the actual data involved.

[Tami]

[The Overlord]

With all due respect, that's hot garbage. Can we please stop trying to slander centrists by calling them Trump-lite? That's the kind of "Rhino" bullshit the likes of Limbaugh did for years that got us in this place. Being a centrist does not make you evil and presenting them as evil is exactly one of the goddamn things that got us Trumpism. Please. Knock it off. It's so bad for our politics and our country.

It's my opinion and I am entitled to it. I judge Biden for is record more than anything:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...y-clinton-2020

Is mass incarceration a moderate policy now? That's what Biden promoted.

I do not think centrism is evil, I think it's weak, I think it breaks under pressure and let's bad people like the extreme Republicans get a lot of what they want, it surrenders and cedes ground, it let's the GOP set the terms of battle everytime and let's them frame the debate. Why should I respect that is too weak to fight to win on every front?

The GOP is a far right party and they promoted an image of strength, while the moderate Democrats have been cast as weaklings. I bet truly left wing Democratic party could present a better image of strength and determination, which the moderates have failed to do.

[Theleviathan]

It's my opinion and I am entitled to it. I judge Biden for is record more than anything:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...y-clinton-2020

Is mass incarceration a moderate policy now? That's what Biden promoted.

I do not think centrism is evil, I think it's weak, I think it breaks under pressure and let's bad people like the extreme Republicans get a lot of what they want, it surrenders and cedes ground, it let's the GOP set the terms of battle everytime and let's them frame the debate. Why should I respect that is too weak to fight to win on every front?

The GOP is a far right party and they promoted an image of strength, while the moderate Democrats have been cast as weaklings. I bet truly left wing Democratic party could present a better image of strength and determination, which the moderates have failed to do.

That mass incarceration was heavily campaigned for by the black community and many key elements of the Democratic voting bloc at the time. We can look back with it and regret it, but context is important.

More to the point - losing gives you zero strength. Zero. Winning the house has been the only thing that stemmed the tide of the last four years. Following what you say would lose strength, not gain it. Frankly, it's you who isn't fighting to win because you are prizing your ideology over election wins.

Run progressives where they can win. Where they can't, run people that will beat Republicans. When progressives can win more districts, run more of them. Until they can...you will lose with what you say. Out of arrogance you are rolling out the red carpet for the next Trump.

[The Overlord]

Battling on populism is a pissing match that everyone loses. Build a voting coalition that is sustainable.

2018 is the data you need and has been posted here a lot. Far left candidates mostly got beat and centrists were the ones that flooded the House in a wave.

Kerry lost to an incumbent and Hillary lost because the name "Clinton" is toxic. They didn't lose because they were moderates. But let's flip the table...I can show, by such noted right-wing websites like Slate, that left-leaning candidates mostly failed in 2018. It was suburban centrists that carried the day.

You data about policies is irrelevant because policies are complicated. You can ask your average American about one thing (universal health care) and think you have a majority. You tweak the question even slightly (like, you'll lose your current insurer....even though that should've been obvious in the first question) and get TOTALLY different results. It's a bad place to hang your hat. So I ask...where is your election data showing a groundswell of far left support just waiting to burst out for a liberal?

A congressional election in a district and a federal Presidental one are different beasts though.

What have the moderate proposed that is popular and gaining traction?
Okay, do you want me to say first sure that Warren or Sanders will beat Trump? I can't say that, I do not know the future.

But you say with absolute certainty that Biden will win? What if Trump picks apart his record or makes a bunch of gaffes?

I have my theory and you can have yours, but I think this most electable thing is a bit of myth:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rol...th-858699/amp/

What if Biden if chosen because he is the most " electable" and he loses, then what?

[numberthirty]

While everyone debates what happened in the debate and all the angst over Biden, Sanders, Gabbard and the author, et al, what doesn’t seem to get much mention (at least to me) is the fact that winning back the Senate is just as important as the presidency to Democrats, if not moreso. Even if Dems reclaim the Oval Office next year, it won’t mean jack **** if Moscow Mitch is still in place as Majority Leader and obstructing everything to death.

For what is not even the first time...

"Business As Usual..." Democrats care about their political careers.

They do not care about actually putting the potential future of said political careers in jeopardy to actually do the people's work.

[aja_christopher]

Five crimes in five days sounds like a slow week for Trump.

[numberthirty]

That mass incarceration was heavily campaigned for by the black community and many key elements of the Democratic voting bloc at the time. We can look back with it and regret it, but context is important.

More to the point - losing gives you zero strength. Zero. Winning the house has been the only thing that stemmed the tide of the last four years. Following what you say would lose strength, not gain it. Frankly, it's you who isn't fighting to win because you are prizing your ideology over election wins.

Run progressives where they can win. Where they can't, run people that will beat Republicans. When progressives can win more districts, run more of them. Until they can...you will lose with what you say. Out of arrogance you are rolling out the red carpet for the next Trump.

Here's the whole reason that people need to seriously reconsider this sort of thinking...

If there was an actual "Where Progressives Can't Win...", we probably wouldn't even be talking about Sanders right now. Meanwhile, he competed and won in places where plenty of folks didn't think he had a shot.

[The Overlord]

That mass incarceration was heavily campaigned for by the black community and many key elements of the Democratic voting bloc at the time. We can look back with it and regret it, but context is important.

More to the point - losing gives you zero strength. Zero. Winning the house has been the only thing that stemmed the tide of the last four years. Following what you say would lose strength, not gain it. Frankly, it's you who isn't fighting to win because you are prizing your ideology over election wins.

Run progressives where they can win. Where they can't, run people that will beat Republicans. When progressives can win more districts, run more of them. Until they can...you will lose with what you say. Out of arrogance you are rolling out the red carpet for the next Trump.

I think strength brings victory. I think I am arguing for what I think is the best way forward.

The Dems lost a thousand seats during and seveeral governorships during the Obama years, how is that winning?

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...egislatures-o/

I know you have to run moderates in some areas to win, but saying the moderates should always call the shots and we should run an endless supply of Kerry, Biden and Clinton types, is learning nothing from 2016. You seem to want to repeat history, I want to break the cycle we are trapped in.

Trumpism grew under Obama's watch, why should we assume the same thing won't happen with Biden?

[aja_christopher]

Here's the whole reason that people need to seriously reconsider this sort of thinking...

If there was an actual "Where Progressives Can't Win...", we probably wouldn't even be talking about Sanders right now. Meanwhile, he competed and won in places where plenty of folks didn't think he had a shot.

No one is saying progressives can't win -- what is being said is that you can't convince people that they can win consistently until we see it happening on a much larger scale, especially in contrast to moderates, who are leading the charge in taking back both the House and the White House, and potentially the Senate.

Intentionally avoiding the statistical fact that moderates win more congressional seats and presidencies than progressives does not make said fact go away -- you can support whatever candidate you want, but don't ignore political reality and sabotage more successful platforms in the Democratic party just because you disagree with them.

[Theleviathan]

A congressional election in a district and a federal Presidental one are different beasts though.

What have the moderate proposed that is popular and gaining traction?
Okay, do you want me to say first sure that Warren or Sanders will beat Trump? I can't say that, I do not know the future.

But you say with absolute certainty that Biden will win? What if Trump picks apart his record or makes a bunch of gaffes?

I have my theory and you can have yours, but I think this most electable thing is a bit of myth:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rol...th-858699/amp/

What if Biden if chosen because he is the most " electable" and he loses, then what?

If he has the best shot and he loses...then he loses. But if he is the best shot....then anyone else loses too.

You seem to be of the misguided belief that policies matter to voters.

I prefer to set my personal ideology aside in favor of data. Thats where our theories separate. Yours is based on a want, mine on relevant data.

[aja_christopher]

I think strength brings victory. I think I am arguing for what I think is the best way forward.

The Dems lost a thousand seats during and seveeral governorships during the Obama years, how is that winning?

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...egislatures-o/

Political cycles come and go -- prior to that, Democrats were on the winning side of the political spectrum after Bush.

You might just as well point at the last historic midterm and use it as an indication that moderates are the key to winning back Congress and the White House.

[Tuck]

Candidate Donald Trump, and now President Donald Trump, has no discernible policy principles or underlying philosophy to anything he campaigned on or has done, or tried to do, as President.

Clearly, there is more to what American voters look for in a candidate than where they fall on the political spectrum . . . because Trump sends that thing into logical paradox mode. (The man's a Dixiecrat as much as anything identifiable.)

[Jack Dracula]

Meanwhile, the Fed finally caved to Trump's pressure and lowered interest rates for the first time in 10 years.

Which had the opposite effect of what Trump had hoped for: The DJI now had two days of sharp losses.

The thing is that when those drops occur they're perfect opportunities for someone with knowledge beforehand to buy low and wait for the eventual upswing.
Not that Trump would ever involve himself in that sort of criminal activity.

[numberthirty]

No one is saying progressives can't win -- what is being said is that you can't convince people that they can win consistently until we see it happening on a much larger scale, especially in contrast to moderates, who are leading the charge in taking back both the House and the White House, and potentially the Senate.

Intentionally avoiding the statistical fact that moderates win more congressional seats and presidencies than progressives does not make said fact go away -- you can support whatever candidate you want, but don't ignore political reality and sabotage more successful platforms in the Democratic party just because you disagree with them.

Here's the problem with your take.

When you look at voter participation, you need to accept the reality that running on moderate platforms probably "Sabotages..." being able to win elections to a larger degree than progressive politics.