Democrats Are Not Moving Further to the Left After All

[CajunBlazer]

This question hovers over the primaries.

http://www.cajunscomments.com/democrats-are-not-moving-further-to-the-left-after-all/

[CentralMass]

1. The link brought up a blank page.. Who is this sage and how did he or she come to that conclusion ?

[watoos]

5. Some blogger,

who cited a right wing Gallup poll. Democrats move to the right at their own peril. All politics are local so there are certain areas of the country where Democrats have to be closer to the middle, but overall, we won in 2018 by going back to our FDR Democratic roots.

Move back to the right and bye bye young voters.

[CajunBlazer]

12. Actually your post is totally misleading

First Gallup is not a "right wing" polling organization. Real Clear Politics (538) which analyzes polls and polling organizations gives Gallup a "B" (a very good rating on their scale of A to F). They found that their polls do bias very slightly towards Republicans by 0.09%. So if you want to correct the Gallup poll sited for "bias" change the numbers in that poll by 1%. Doesn't make much difference does it?

Your statement that "we won in 2018 by going back to our FDR Democratic roots" is pure BS. While there are few loud exceptions such as AOC, the vast majority of new members who now allow us to control the House are Democratic moderates who beat Republicans in purple House districts. And by the way, we really need them to be reelected in 2020 if we want to maintain control of the House going forward.

Our chances of retaking the Senate don't look good at this point, but in order to do so we are going to need moderate Democratic candidates to beat Republicans in purple states.

So actually we won the House in 2018 by nominating moderates, not progressives to run in purple House districts and we will need to do the same in Senate and House races in purple districts and states in 2020.

[WeekiWater]

6. Link worked for me. NT

[LongtimeAZDem]

2. "Random thoughts of opinionated Cajun"

Wow.

[jalan48]

3. Woo Hoo! We need more income inequality-that will solve the problem!

[WeekiWater]

4. Not a long article and good information.

Thanks for sharing it.

We always go through this. It's really nothing new. It is often the case that the further left elements in the party garner a good amount of air time. It plays well to the media and helps them to set up fights. The media really plays the biggest role of the false identity, IMO.

That said, the party has shifted to the left over the last decade. It hasn't been overly dramatic but is noticeable. Centrists will still win the day. But the shift does influence the center of the party. Cinton ran on a solidly progressive platform. These platforms set the tone for future elections. That is a good thing. One thing has always held true since the beginning of our country; we slowly keep moving leftward. A step back here and there but the trend is obvious. It's unfortunate that the step back on the economic side has now lasted four or so decades. Even with that we have still had some solid victories. But the trend overall is leftward.

[watoos]

7. We just passed the biggest tax giveaway to the rich

in our nation's history, 1.5 trillion dollars. We just cut taxes for the rich, cut taxes for corporations, did away with the estate tax. These tax cuts for the rich are permanent cuts, forever, into infinity.

As far as the courts go, they are being packed with right wing fascists who will guarantee that the rich rule the roost.

As far as social and environmental issues go, with the Nazis controlling the courts we are getting closer to the repeal of Roe v Wade, our environment is a playground for the fossil fuel industry, there is more poison in our food supply and water than ever. We withdrew from the Paris climate accord.

As far as foreign policy goes, Putin pulls the strings of our president. Bibi pulls the strings of our president. MBS pulls the strings of our president. Trump pulled us out of the Iran peace agreement, Trump is doing everything to weaken NATO and the EU.

I could write a book. We are so far to the right it will take decades to get us back.

[LiberalLovinLug]

17. +1000

[CajunBlazer]

8. Some people are misssing the obvious

Just look at the new Democratic House members. It is not only Congressional leadership which is moderate. Sure there are a few loud exceptions like AOC, but the vast majority of the new Democratic House members are moderates who beat Republicans in purple districts. They are the reason we now control the House. And we need to get them reelected in 2020 if we want to retain control of the of the lower chamber of Congress. We are not in good shape to retake control of the Senate in 2020, but if we do it will be because moderate Democrats can manage to beat Republicans in purple states.

Yes the Democratic progressives have loud voices, but they lack in numbers. The average voters in this country are moderates that might even lean a bit to the right. To get anything done in this country we must control both houses of Congress and the White House. The only way we will be able to control both house of Congress is to elect moderate Democrats in purple House districts and States.

For instance Senator Doug Jones of Alabama is a moderate Democrat; does anyone here want him to lose in his reelection bid in 2020?

And by the way, moderate Democrats in purple states and House districts cannot afford to support progressive proposals which the voters back home would consider "radical", regardless of how much they would like to vote for them.

It is much more important to take and maintain Democratic control of the House and the Senate then it is to try to pass expansive progressive proposals which the country is not ready for. Young people are more progressive than their elders and as they become more reliable voters, our time will come.

[peggysue2]

9. Well said, Cajun

[CajunBlazer]

22. Thank you

[honest.abe]

10. Excellent points.

[CajunBlazer]

23. Thank you Honest Abe!

[Drunken Irishman]

24. My Rep is a moderate Democrat who beat a Republican in November...

Ben McAdams.

[BlueFlorida]

26. It is lost on some people

who are allergic to reality.

[elleng]

28. Right, and let's not forget it.

[JI7]

32. the Russian Trolls are going after Doug Jones

[hurl]

11. "Representative Alexandria Ocasio says stuff like the rich should be subject to 70% tax rate"

This mischaracterization just plays into right-wing, low-information hands. She went to great pains to explain what a marginal tax rate after a high income-threshold is.

Overall, the problem is that the Overton window has been pulled so far to the right that moderate proposals now only sound liberal.

[justhanginon]

13. Agree!

[LiberalLovinLug]

14. It is the framing of the question and the shifting interpretations of "moderate" that's the problem

In your blog, an excerpt:

A recent Gallup poll, described in the article “Democrats Favor More Moderate Party; GOP – More Conservative” , got to the heart of the matter recently by asking Democrats and Dem-leaning independents this question:

“If you had to choose, would rather see the Democratic Party become more liberal or become more moderate?”

The poll found that solid majority, 54% to 41%, responded that they would prefer that the Democratic party would move toward the middle.


In their dividing Democrats into camps, every line there somewhat contradicts and confuses the issue.

First the title states:
Democrats Favor More Moderate Party; GOP, More Conservative

pitting "moderate" vs. "conservative"

Then the very first paragraph they frame it as the "center" vs. "left".

Given a choice, 54% of rank-and-file Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer that their party move closer to the center, and 41% would rather it shift further left.

Then they conclude with:

Democrats have become more likely to describe their political views as liberal, while most Republicans continue to think of themselves as conservative. A majority of Democrats favor a shift toward the middle, while Republicans prefer a more conservative shift for their party.

"Moving to the middle". From where? In that paragraph it seems like they interpret "a shift toward the middle" as shifting left. (if the counter is conservative)

The opening statement in that article says:
Given a choice, 54% of rank-and-file Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer that their party move closer to the center, and 41% would rather it shift further left.

Implying that "the center" or moderate, is being more conservative. So by that logic they conclude Democrats want to move to the right.

But the actual polling data they summarize as:

Thus, 69% of liberal Democrats prefer that the Democratic Party become more liberal and 73% of moderate and conservative Democrats favor it becoming more moderate.

suggesting that even 'conservative' Democrats want the party to be more moderate. For conservatives, "moderate" means shifting left.





IMO, the party has been shifting right for a couple of decades at least now. They used to be more left of center, and then during Clinton's administration moved right with their "third way", and "triangulation" starting up the DLC and becoming more corporate friendly, and enacting things like "three strikes" laws, to appease law and order conservatives.

Is this what they mean by "moderate"? Because I would describe it as right of center. And that if the majority of Democrats want a shift to the "center", it means they want them to shift away from right of center, leftwards back towards the middle.

But they seem to conclude the opposite is true. Very confusing.

I think many asked in the poll don't even know what that word means anymore.

[CajunBlazer]

15. I think that might be the most confusing analysis I have read in a long time.

[LiberalLovinLug]

16. Whose, their's or mine? I'm confused.

Which is my point.

Is it Democrats choosing between left or liberal vs. "moderate" defined as more conservative?

Or is it Democrats choosing between right, or conservative vs. "moderate" defined as more left?


Because at different points they conclude it one way, then in another line as the other. Which is it?

[CajunBlazer]

21. This is clear . . .

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2019, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

If the majority of Democratic voters and voters who lean Democratic would prefer that the party (where ever the hell it may be now in their perceptions) want the party to move more to the center, they want it to be a more moderate party.

Since the minority of Democratic voters and voters who lean Democratic would prefer that the party (where ever the hell it may be now in their perceptions) want the party to move more to the left, they want it to be a more progressive party.

Those points are not hard to understand. More Democratic voters and voters who lean to the Democrats want the party to be more moderate (regardless where ever the hell it may be in now their perceptions).

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. "(regardless where ever the hell it may be in now their perceptions)"

But that is not a "regardless" point. It very much depends on what is defined in the mind as "moderate".

How can you even be clear from that article that "the minority of Democratic voters and voters who lean Democratic would prefer that the party (where ever the hell it may be now in their perceptions) want the party to move more to the left" I read it as the exact opposite.

At some point the author seems to say that, as I pointed out, but the conclusion is that

Thus, 69% of liberal Democrats prefer that the Democratic Party become more liberal and 73% of moderate and conservative Democrats favor it becoming more moderate.

What I get from that statement is that a majority, 69% of already self-proclaimed liberal Democrats want them to move even more to the left, while at the same time a majority 73% of self-proclaimed moderate/conservative Democrats, so leaning conservative, want the party to be more moderate. Which implies that if the self-identified conservative Democrats of that equation want the party to be more moderate, and if "moderate" means a balance between the two extremes, then that means they want a shift to the left of conservative, back to the middle.

So overall, in general, it seems Democrats want a shift to the left.

[question everything]

18. All you need to do is look at the new members of Congress

Most of them are centrists. Certainly the ones who flipped Republican districts. Yet, there are some newbies on the left that have been making a lot of noise and I am glad that Pelosi, so far, is holding strong.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Candidates or voters?

Just because a high profile centrist launched his campaign this week, doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of progressive candidates out of the 20 running, and plenty of progressive voters who will support them.

Also worth noting, is that a number of policies that were considered “far left” or “fringe” in 2016, are now supported by a majority of Americans, so maybe the country as a whole has moved left, making the centrists...conservatives.

[CajunBlazer]

20. Just because there are plenty fof progressive candidates running in the primaries . . .

. . . doesn't mean that the majority of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents are aren't aren't moderates. The fact that moderates do make up the majority of that voting group is the point of the article.

If you add that group of moderate Democrats to the 15% to 20% of the electorate who are moderate swing voters, you will understand why moderates still hold sway in the Democratic primaries and the general elections in this country and the progressives are in the minority of all voters.

If you don't believe that moderate swing voters are important, check out this statistic: 6.7 million Trump voters (11% of Trump voters) said they voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and 2.7 million Clinton voters (4% of Clinton voters) said they voted for Mitt Romney in 2016. https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17575768/swing-voters-exist

[NYMinute]

27. A perfectly reasonable viewpoint

Thank you for posting

[CajunBlazer]

31. Thanks NYMinute

[guillaumeb]

29. From the blog post:

As for the polls, the words “liberal” and “progressive” are imprecise because they mean different things to different people.

So the polls can be interpreted to support and refute the title.

But polls also show strong bi-partisan support for Medicare for All, a living wage, and many other positions far to the left of the GOP.

[CajunBlazer]

30. guillaumeb, you took that sentence out of context . . .

. . . the essay goes on to state:

"A recent Gallup poll, described in the article “Democrats Favor More Moderate Party; GOP – More Conservative” , got to the heart of the matter recently by asking Democrats and Dem-leaning independents this question:

'If you had to choose, would rather see the Democratic Party become more liberal or become more moderate?'

The poll found that solid majority, 54% to 41%, responded that they would prefer that the Democratic party would move toward the middle. (In the same poll Republicans and Republican leaning independents preferred 57% to 37% that the Republican Party would become more conservative.)"

This result strongly indicates that a majority of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents would rather the party move in a more moderate direction (meaning that they are themselves moderates) while a minority would opp to move the party to be more progressive direction. This approach to phrasing the question eliminates the the use of the imprecise terms of "liberal" and "progressive" to which everyone seems to ascribe different meanings.

[guillaumeb]

34. We are arguing over imprecise terms.

What one calls moderate another calls too far to the left, or to the right.

[Honeycombe8]

33. Excellent, insightful article. Here are excerpts about non-Dem. votes we need...

I haven’t chosen a favorite yet and I probably won’t until the field has been whittled down to fewer candidates. Then, since this time around my first, and really my only priority, is to get rid of Trump, I will vote for the candidate who I believe has the best chance of beating him. I don’t know who that will be yet – it might be a moderate or someone very progressive or someone in between. However, as part of the determination of who I will vote for in the primaries, I feel obliged to also consider the political positions of two sets of voters who do not identify as Democrats and who may not even vote in the Democratic primaries.

The first of these groups are the swing voters in key states who do not identify as being members of or leaning towards either of the major political parties. They are the independent moderates who decide nearly every close general election for president.

The second group of voters are the suburban women who have voted reliably for Republicans in the past but have now grown discontented with harsh polices and misogynist tendencies of the Republican party, and Donald Trump in particular.

Both groups are partially responsible for electing moderate House candidates in purple states in 2018. Neither group can be described as liberal or progressive and our nominee must appeal to them in the general election as well so I feel I must take their preferences into consideration as well as my own.

https://bgr.com/2018/03/31/comcast-net-neutrality-fast-lanes/

Very interesting author. She's nailed everything down. But look at how many different groups the Dem. candidate needs to appeal to...yikes! Af. American women, blue collar white males, independents, the far left, moderate Dems, and establishment Republicans (incl. suburban white women) who won't vote for Trump.