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.
Call me a cynic, but I think there’s a reason why they didn’t include the data, and that’s because it would have told a different story than the one they wanted to tell
Yeah, I noted and commented, as have several others, on the way NYT downplayed the recent 7 Million 'No Kings' protest. Including a nerdy article about why it was 'wrong to count'. Kevin Kruse the Historian remembered though the boost they gave to the then Astro Turf Tea Party movement back in the say: that had a few hundred protestors in New York for example... MSM? I am beginning to wonder...
Has anybody looked at how various ideologically coded ballot initiatives have done recently? I am no expert, but it seems like the relative success of 'liberal' issues votes tells a different story...and helps see beyond how candidates happen to be (unfairly) defined by their opponents.
You’re too polite to say this, but I will: the NYT starts with a priori assumptions about what they want (a world in which progressives are doomed), and works backwards from those, cherry picking the data to justify their arguments. It’s a consistent pattern from them, and is driven by their preferences and has nothing to do with journalism, which is supposed to focus on facts. They’ve become a parody of themselves.
I lol’d hard at the part of the article that said (paraphrasing) “capitalism is still popular than socialism” while linking to a gallop survey that showed a decreasing trend in the favorability of capitalism.
The wonderful thing about an anti-corruption platform is that in unites Democrats, and unites Americans. Regardless of candidate ideology! Moderates like the rule of law and democracy at least as much.
Plus there is this $14 billion a year propaganda operation called Fox News streaming through multiple channels into millions of homes daily. They don't do polling to find out what the agenda should be...they set the agenda.
Another narrative argument that I think is on point: why would a voter choose a Republican Lite when they can vote for a Republican. Democrats need to paint a clear Difference between themselves and Republicans. That can motivate a choice For some Ideas. Moderation is just muddying the water and not giving a Choice.
He says the really important thing loud and clear. A positive vision on policies shaping a better Future for all of America is required NOT a return to the pre-Trump status quo.
The standard formula of post WWII politics has always been to focus on one’s base during the primaries and then essentially disregard that same base during the general elections to curry favor with “moderates”.
What has become more clear as the Democratic Party has devolved from a supposed party of labor and the Working Class, is that the Democrats have simply acknowledged their actual “base” to be the Donor Class for both primaries and generals.
Sure, gratuitous campaign references are offered as ornamentation to vaguely remind voters of what that party has traditionally / historically stood for. Though who, among those of us who have been watching for any period prior to the 1990’s, can now claim to recognize the modern iteration of either party?
The “What Can We Do?” shrug that has become the default pose of modern Democratic leadership is not simply a result of pragmatic resignation forced by systemic failures but is tool to signal to their donors that the economic Status Quo will not ever be challenged, at least not by them.
It’s the ultimate acknowledgment that they have grown weary of the ruse that requires they pretend to be concerned about issues such as wealth inequality, healthcare, etc. and can simply “dance with them what brung ‘em”.
There’s no use waiting for the big reveal where Shrugmaster Hakeem, Schumer, Pelosi, et al. dramatically peel back their skins to reveal the monsters underneath.
They’ve been clear about showing you who they actually are for decades. We have, unfortunately, consistently, almost religiously, insisted upon fooling ourselves into believing they offer the only alternative to the monsters on the other side.
Great piece. I disagree that there is a viable path forward for the Dems since that path requires to reform the Democratic Party. They are fundamentally a pro-business, pro-capitalist party. They will never develop a platform that doesn’t simply “accommodate to the terrain” of our broken political system. They are our broken political system, and we need a new party that actually represents the working class.
Check out the recent developments around Your Party in the U.K. as well as Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative’s tenure in the Seattle City Council for 10 years. I am of course well acquainted with the concept of FPTP and the stranglehold of the duopoly in the US.
Beyond that, all I’d encourage you to do is broaden your political imagination and not to equate difficulty with impossibility.
Categorisation of candidates in disUSA politics illustrated/explained (?) in this post is bizarre in language terms. To be progressive is not to be moderate therefore to be moderate is not to progress. No wonder the polity of disUSA is such a hopeless mess facing the rising tide of evil when lauguage and the naming of parts is twisted into contradictory nonsense detached from dictionary definition rendering it largely meaningless. This seems to represent well the hopeless spinning maelstrom into fascism seen daily there with no effective opposition beyond meaningless chatter.
Call me a cynic, but I think there’s a reason why they didn’t include the data, and that’s because it would have told a different story than the one they wanted to tell
Yeah, I noted and commented, as have several others, on the way NYT downplayed the recent 7 Million 'No Kings' protest. Including a nerdy article about why it was 'wrong to count'. Kevin Kruse the Historian remembered though the boost they gave to the then Astro Turf Tea Party movement back in the say: that had a few hundred protestors in New York for example... MSM? I am beginning to wonder...
100%
Has anybody looked at how various ideologically coded ballot initiatives have done recently? I am no expert, but it seems like the relative success of 'liberal' issues votes tells a different story...and helps see beyond how candidates happen to be (unfairly) defined by their opponents.
You’re too polite to say this, but I will: the NYT starts with a priori assumptions about what they want (a world in which progressives are doomed), and works backwards from those, cherry picking the data to justify their arguments. It’s a consistent pattern from them, and is driven by their preferences and has nothing to do with journalism, which is supposed to focus on facts. They’ve become a parody of themselves.
I lol’d hard at the part of the article that said (paraphrasing) “capitalism is still popular than socialism” while linking to a gallop survey that showed a decreasing trend in the favorability of capitalism.
The wonderful thing about an anti-corruption platform is that in unites Democrats, and unites Americans. Regardless of candidate ideology! Moderates like the rule of law and democracy at least as much.
Plus there is this $14 billion a year propaganda operation called Fox News streaming through multiple channels into millions of homes daily. They don't do polling to find out what the agenda should be...they set the agenda.
Greed has so corrupted capitalism that the “center” is no longer a solution.
Greed is the core value of capitalism. Capitalism has corrupted humanity.
Another narrative argument that I think is on point: why would a voter choose a Republican Lite when they can vote for a Republican. Democrats need to paint a clear Difference between themselves and Republicans. That can motivate a choice For some Ideas. Moderation is just muddying the water and not giving a Choice.
All this is enabled by Corruption !
Corruption must be stopped by the Voters.
- Don't vote for Politicians kow towing to rich donors or super PACS.
- Unrig regulations providing the Rich with unfair advantages.
- Provide regulations improving the lives of the majority of the People.
- REFORM Government and the Courts.
People should turn out to vote. No matter what outcome they expect.
The future is fluid and there is no guarantee of things staying the same.
How Corruption works :
1. Corruption buys politicians.
2. Politicians create rigged policies.
3. Rigged policies create unfair market conditions.
4. Unfair market conditions create unfair profits for the worst participants in the economy.
5. The worst participants use their money to further corrupt politicians.
The cycle then continues ad nauseum. 🐍🇺🇸🐍
Proof is here :
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2014
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
Interview Senator Chris Murphy (D).
He says the really important thing loud and clear. A positive vision on policies shaping a better Future for all of America is required NOT a return to the pre-Trump status quo.
Transcript at 40:17
Full interview with Texas Tribune here :
https://youtu.be/MtE_1B1HgCg
The standard formula of post WWII politics has always been to focus on one’s base during the primaries and then essentially disregard that same base during the general elections to curry favor with “moderates”.
What has become more clear as the Democratic Party has devolved from a supposed party of labor and the Working Class, is that the Democrats have simply acknowledged their actual “base” to be the Donor Class for both primaries and generals.
Sure, gratuitous campaign references are offered as ornamentation to vaguely remind voters of what that party has traditionally / historically stood for. Though who, among those of us who have been watching for any period prior to the 1990’s, can now claim to recognize the modern iteration of either party?
The “What Can We Do?” shrug that has become the default pose of modern Democratic leadership is not simply a result of pragmatic resignation forced by systemic failures but is tool to signal to their donors that the economic Status Quo will not ever be challenged, at least not by them.
It’s the ultimate acknowledgment that they have grown weary of the ruse that requires they pretend to be concerned about issues such as wealth inequality, healthcare, etc. and can simply “dance with them what brung ‘em”.
There’s no use waiting for the big reveal where Shrugmaster Hakeem, Schumer, Pelosi, et al. dramatically peel back their skins to reveal the monsters underneath.
They’ve been clear about showing you who they actually are for decades. We have, unfortunately, consistently, almost religiously, insisted upon fooling ourselves into believing they offer the only alternative to the monsters on the other side.
Great piece. I disagree that there is a viable path forward for the Dems since that path requires to reform the Democratic Party. They are fundamentally a pro-business, pro-capitalist party. They will never develop a platform that doesn’t simply “accommodate to the terrain” of our broken political system. They are our broken political system, and we need a new party that actually represents the working class.
Do you realise how hard that is in an effective political duopoly due to First Past The Post ?
Oh shit no I had no idea! Thank god you let me know I’m just looking into this now for the very first time ever /s
Why you can only vote on two parties in the USA.
FPTP systemically ends in a political duopoly.
Select "The Voting System that lets Losers Win" from the playlist.
USA Republicans <> Democrats
UK Tories <> Labour
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqs5ohhass_RN57KWlJKLOc5xdD9_ktRg
Check out the recent developments around Your Party in the U.K. as well as Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative’s tenure in the Seattle City Council for 10 years. I am of course well acquainted with the concept of FPTP and the stranglehold of the duopoly in the US.
Beyond that, all I’d encourage you to do is broaden your political imagination and not to equate difficulty with impossibility.
The Gray Lady is committed to precisely the same project as the corporate Dems — that nothing must be allowed to change, ever.
Categorisation of candidates in disUSA politics illustrated/explained (?) in this post is bizarre in language terms. To be progressive is not to be moderate therefore to be moderate is not to progress. No wonder the polity of disUSA is such a hopeless mess facing the rising tide of evil when lauguage and the naming of parts is twisted into contradictory nonsense detached from dictionary definition rendering it largely meaningless. This seems to represent well the hopeless spinning maelstrom into fascism seen daily there with no effective opposition beyond meaningless chatter.
Why should we follow advice from the Trump enabling NY Times?