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

[aja_christopher]

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.

That's not my take -- that's saying rely on actual data and voting history regarding moderates and progressives instead of your (or my) own "take" on it.

Progressives aren't the ones winning the majority of seats in Congress or the presidency -- until that changes, save the rhetoric and show me the wins.

[numberthirty]

That's not my take -- that's saying rely on data and voting history regarding moderates and progressives instead of your (or my) own personal bias.

Progressives aren't the ones winning the majority of seats in Congress or the presidency -- until that changes, save the rhetoric and show me the wins.

Someone just pointed out the number of seats that "Business As Usual..." Democrats lost while former President Obama was in office.

If we are going to rely on data and voting history, Let's. The idea that you can just shrug off those losses while you try to say "Progressives Are Less Likely To Win Elections..." is a suspect one.

[aja_christopher]

Someone just pointed out the number of seats that "Business As Usual..." Democrats lost while former President Obama was in office.

And I just pointed out the fact that prior to that, they won.

I'm not going to argue this with you -- talk is cheap and until progressives prove they can win consistently, it doesn't make sense to attack what has already been proven to work, even if it doesn't work every single election.

And I didn't just say "progressives don't win elections" -- I said that the data shows moderates win a lot more than progressives and won the House in 2018.

Argue with the data and stop trying argue with me for pointing out the fact that most voters in America prefer moderate Democratic candidates.

[numberthirty]

And I just pointed out the fact that prior to that, they won.

I'm not going to argue this with you -- talk is cheap and until progressives prove they can win consistently, it doesn't make sense to attack what has already been proven to work, even if it doesn't work every single election.

And I didn't just say "progressives don't win elections" -- I said that the data shows moderates win a lot more than progressives and won the House in 2018.

Argue with the data and stop trying argue with me for pointing out the fact that most voters in America prefer moderate Democratic candidates.

Put simply, the fact that Dems lost a lot of elections is no more an indicator of how things will be going forward than the number of elections that progressives win in the here and now.

You just pointed to the fact that there is more to it than "The Data..." before telling me to take issue with "The Data..."

It's either...

- You Can Go With "The Data..."

or

- You Should Consider The Reality Outside Of Just "The Data..."

Not ignoring it when it suits you, and using it to try to "Prove..." something as fact when it suits you.

[ed2962]

"Dark psychic forces"? I already hate this meme, and it's not even a meme yet.
Is that the new X-Men reboot? Is Jean Grey going to blow up a star after every debate?

I don't necessarily agree with her, but Kooky New Age Lady actually made a substantive case about reparations. The pragmatic candidates had a slap fight over bussing, an issue that's already been settled.

[numberthirty]

I don't necessarily agree with her, but Kooky New Age Lady actually made a substantive case about reparations. The pragmatic candidates had a slap fight over bussing, an issue that's already been settled.

To her credit, she had a point more than once.

That's a lot more than some folks had.

[Mister Mets]

If moderates are always the way to go, why didn't Clinton win in 2016? Heck, why didn't Kerry win in 2004? Pragmatism should be a means, not an end and it shouldn't an excuse to elect someone like Biden, who is just a moderate Republican.

The reason why Warren and Sanders kicked everyone else's butt at the first debate this month because they offered real solutions to real problems and everyone else offered pablum. These are popular policies, we should go with them over a bunch of meaningless pap. The Dems have ceded the economic debate to the GOP for so long, that they have become just as responsible for the hollowing out of the middle class and Trump was able to take left-wing arguments about trade and use them against Hilary Clinton because she is a center-right corporate Dem. He beat her because of that, if someone could make a better working-class argument then Trump did, then those arguments of his neutralized.

The right seems to get a lot of it wants all the time, Turtle Man Mitch stole a Supreme Court seat and managed to keep 106 judicial appointments during the Obama years, Brian Kemp was able to run a dirty election in Georgia, the GOP uses gerrymandering to maintain their power base, how exactly are they being they are being punished for their actions? The Democrats are so weak, they let the GOP walk all over them, why did Obama appoint a Republican like Comey to run the FBI? If Comey was not in that position, maybe he wouldn't have resurrected the e-mail thing so late in the 2016 election? How often do the Republicans return the favor and appointment Democrats to such positions? The Republicans are not going to play nice, why should we? Being nice to people who want to dominate you is foolish.

The Republicans come off as stronger then the Dems, because they present an image where they will fight as hard as they can as long as they can for their base, while Dems have just ceded half the ground to the GOP right away and come off as people who often just cave in with a little pressure from the other side?

Frankly, Obama was the last chance to show that this type of Clinton era neo-liberal, center-right policy agenda to work and the GOP did every to scuttle it, doing that again is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Moderates consistently outperform those on the edges. This doesn't mean they'll always win, and you can think particular policy goals are worth an added risk of losing, but they'll usually do better.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/2067765...remism-penalty
http://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com/Hall_APSR.pdf
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/politics...bility_NYU.pdf

We can see examples of this, like Keith Ellison underperforming the rest of the Democratic party in his statewide race in Minnesota.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...59630111322112

As for Hillary Clinton, she did have unique flaws as an individual who had been in the public eye for decades, and as someone who had recently been under investigation as of the 2016 election. She also did run with arguably the most progressive major party campaign in American political history, which suggest she wasn't all that moderate.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...0SN/story.html

[aja_christopher]

Put simply, the fact that Dems lost a lot of elections is no more an indicator of how things will be going forward than the number of elections that progressives win in the here and now.

Spare me the rhetoric and show me the wins.

[aja_christopher]

One take on the issue -- I'd add race had something to do with it as well, as the "birther in Chief" now in the White House can attest to personally.

Definitely wasn't about "moderates" being less viable than progressives in the midterms, regardless.

-------
"When Obama took office, there were 60 Democratic senators; now there are 46. The number of House seats held by Democrats has shrunk from 257 to 188.

There are now nine fewer Democratic governors than in 2009. Democrats currently hold fewer elected offices nationwide than at any time since the 1920s.

How did this happen?

1. There are two different electorates in America

There is Presidential Election America, where turnout is diverse. The electorate is younger, browner, more single, more secular — more Democratic. Then there's Midterm Election America, where the electorate is older, whiter, more rural, more church-going — in other words, more Republican. What's great for Republicans and bad for Democrats is that the vast majority of the governorships and state legislative seats are elected in the midterms.

And those positions are the seed corn for a party — they're the farm teams for higher-level offices. Right now the Democrats are at a very low ebb.

This is something President Obama lamented when he campaigned for Democrats in the midterm elections of 2010 and 2014. Republicans manage to turn out their voters every two years, but Democrats, for some reason, only turn their voters out every four. Maybe, Obama mused, because Democrats just don't think midterms are "sexy enough."

2. Bad luck

Democrats had one spectacularly bad piece of luck. The Republicans' Tea Party-fueled surge in 2010 was perfectly timed to coincide with the decennial census, after which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by governors and state legislatures. Republicans' huge gains in the 2010 midterms put them in the driver's seat when it came time to draw new congressional districts in 2011. Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell remembers what happened when Republicans took over the governor's mansion and the Legislature in his state:

"When I left office in January of 2011," says Rendell, "there were 13 Democratic congressman and six Republican congressman. As a result of redistricting in the 2010 election, that turned around and we now have 13 Republican congressmen and five Democratic congressman."

3. Democrats don't care

It's not only bad timing and gerrymandering that have hollowed out the Democratic Party. Mo Elleithee, a former Democratic National Committee official, says Democrats have never put enough effort and resources into state legislative races. Republicans, on the other hand, make those races a top priority.

4. Too many Democrats live in cities

This is another problem that makes it easier for Republicans to draw congressional and state legislative districts that disadvantage Democrats. Democratic voters are clumped together in urban areas. You could say that for the purposes of winning elections, Democratic voters are just not efficiently distributed.

Its why even in red states like Texas and Utah there are cities that are solidly Democratic — and why lesbian mayors were elected in Houston and Salt Lake City. When Democrats cluster in and around cities, they win local elections, but that doesn't help them win suburban or rural congressional seats."

https://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/46905...ency-heres-why

[numberthirty]

Spare me the rhetoric and show me the wins.

You could have said the exact same thing during the Obama administration.

So, "Show Me The Wins..." isn't worth much to me.

[InformationGeek]

Representative Will Hurd of Texas, one of four Republicans to call Trump out with the Democrats a few weeks back and the ONLY black Republican in the House... is not seeking re-election. He is leaving and, well, can't blame him.

I have made the decision to not seek reelection for the 23rd Congressional District of Texas in order to pursue opportunities outside the halls of Congress to solve problems at the nexus between technology and national security.

[Mister Mets]

Representative Will Hurd of Texas, one of four Republicans to call Trump out with the Democrats a few weeks back and the ONLY black Republican in the House... is not seeking re-election. He is leaving and, well, can't blame him.

This one's really bad for Republicans.

Someone just pointed out the number of seats that "Business As Usual..." Democrats lost while former President Obama was in office.

If we are going to rely on data and voting history, Let's. The idea that you can just shrug off those losses while you try to say "Progressives Are Less Likely To Win Elections..." is a suspect one.

The losses under Obama are largely explained by general trends when a party holds the White House.

Part of the problem in election comparisons is the idea that every election is the same (IE- that we should compare why Hillary lost in 2016 to why Obama won in 2012) when there are other reasons for headwinds including consistent political trends of the party in the White House typically losing seats in midterm elections, and voters eventually getting tired of the party in the White House.

[aja_christopher]

You could have said the exact same thing during the Obama administration.

So, "Show Me The Wins..." isn't worth much to me.

That's pretty obvious given the track record of your chosen "progressive" candidates on a national level.

[ed2962]

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.

I agree with you, being a moderate/centrist per se isn't evil.

Having said that, I think it's funny that John Delany went on FOX and Friends to complain about "the far left."

[numberthirty]

That's pretty obvious given the track record of your chosen "progressive" candidates on a national level.

It's pretty obvious if you have ever taken a look at politics, period.

Reagan/Bush holding the Executive office didn't really amount to "Data..." pointing to that Democrats would have any serious issues out into the future. If someone wanted to point to those years and say "Data!...", said "Data..." didn't amount to much in the long run. It wound up getting them about as many wins as losses.

So, yeah. "Show Me The Wins..." doesn't amount to much if you've ever actually taken a serious look at things.