It would not be safe for Democrats to play it safe.
Many liberal Democrats vote for the more moderate candidates in primaries, because they think half a loaf is better than none. The claim is that to win in the USA (or any first past the post system) you have to capture the middle. This is based on silly theory which requires the assumption that the set of eligible voters and the set of people who actually vote are the same. The contrasting view is that the key issue is getting people who might or might not vote (read young people) to the polls. The safe nominee can be risky. I want to make two arguments (after the jump)
1) There aren’t many swing voters. There aren’t all that many whose vote can’t be predicted right now given demographic characteristics.
2) The median US adult has policy preferences on bread and butter issues which are classified as left wing in the elite discussion, so going to the left of Hillary Clinton on those issues is a way to win their votes.
But first note how Democrats have done when playing safe. Mondale was the safe choice, Dukakis presented himself as a technocrat, Clinton was a DLC new Democrat welfare reforming capital punisher, Gore was the safe candidate (clearly to the right of Bradley), Kerry was the safe electable candidate. Black freshman senator Barack Hussein Obama was … you have got to be kidding me. H Clinton was the safe choice,
The record is crazy dream 1 out of 1, play it safe 1 out of 6. The crudest analysis of hardly any data points sure doesn’t suggest that it is good strategy to play it safe.
1) few Swing voters. I got this idea (leaked) from Karl Rove who is evil but did manage to get W Bush re-elected so he might know a trick or two. The key point is that actual voting by independents who lean Democratic/Republican is similar to that of self declared Democrats/Republicans. The true independents are non leaners and about 10% to max 15% of the public.
The extreme stability of Trump approval ratings — from high thirties to low forties — suggests few people have minds open enough to be swayed by a little light treason. Obama’s approval ratings were also extraordinarily stable by 20th century standards. The huge correlation of voting for Romney and for Trump shows that a huge difference in the candidates lead to a tiny difference in voting.
In contrast there are huge swings in turnout. The Democratic candidate has won one out of 4 elections with youth turnout under 40% and 3 out of 4 with youth turnout over 40%. Mid term youth turnout varies even more (or maybe 2018 was an extreme anomalie and besides 2020 is a Presidential year). When young people vote, Democrats win. When they don’t, Democrats lose.
2) where is the center? The elite definition is somewhere in between the Democratic and Republican parties (which must move towards the center to win). But issue polls show majority support for leftist positions on bread and butter issues. The median US adult is fringe left on many issues by elite DC standards.
The famous example is tax fairness (search for fair). For as long as Gallup has asked the question solid majorities say high income people and corporations pay less than their fair share in taxes. But the GOP is 100% dedicated to making that share even lower. Yet few Democratic presidential candidates run on higher taxes on high incomes lower on all other incomes. I can name two — Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (notice the pattern).
But there are also lefty answers on
15$ minimum wage
paid family leave
free public college
more generous social security pensions
More generous Medicare
More generous Medicaid
C02 control
How to deal with
Wealth tax
The ideas which moderate pundits and campaign consultants warn are dangerous and all which have majority support.
I think you are absolutely right about turnout being the key and some woman had a pretty detailed analysis about that a few months ago looking at the midterms. Nobody liked Trump but nobody liked Hillary either and when all was said and done Republicans turned out a few more voters in a couple of Democratic states. So I absolutely subscribe to your notion that turnout is key but I think people turn out for people they like and who inspire them and that is what Obama and to a lesser extent Clinton had going for them. Clinton was a moderate Republican and Obama was center right Democrat—-their policies did not matter. I tend toward the left of center and I sort of like Warren as a person, but I really have questions about some of her policies including a wealth tax, free college and even Medicare for all. I will vote for her if she ends up as the nominee against Trump or Pence but I am not sure if the GOP comes up with a reasonable human being. On the other hand I would be all in for Mayor Pete or Cory Booker—Biden and Sanders are too old and Harris and Klobachar are not like able or inspirational and will not turn people out. So I think the policy argument does not carry the day even if a majority of people subscribe to them—it is not what controls their vote or even if they vote. Do you really think that Trump’s base really think that the rich pay too much in taxes? Yet they will vote for an unstable, incompetent, racist, moron who appears to be a Russian asset and talk about starting a civil war if he is impeached and convicted. And they are backed up people who would vote for Hitler as long as he was a Republican. So the Dems need a rock star IMHO. Maybe that is Warren but it will not be because of her policies
Clinton’s struggle with black males in urban areas and democratic leaning indies in rural areas effected by the commodity bust were well known. Warren ain’t it. 2016 was the first election since 1948 the underdog won. Sometimes a upset is just a upset. Play it safe or not, I don’t think matters. You need better Black male and rural indie support. Warren is a mess and MFA is falling in popularity.due to the contradictions.
“1) There aren’t many swing voters. There aren’t all that many whose vote can’t be predicted right now given demographic characteristics.”
Before the 2016 general election, polling generated very accurate predictions. But predictions from polling in the Republican primaries were not accurate. And polling in the 2008 general election was also inaccurate.
I have been a registered Independent since the late 1970’s. I have voted for third party candidates during most of the Presidential elections that occurred since. I view my vote as “None of the Above”. When “None of the Above” reaches a certain percentage of the electorate, one of the two major parties will blink and move back toward the center. The reason that we don’t have a viable Independent party is because in the past, one of the two major political parties has ALWAYS swung back toward the middle.
I was surprised by the number of Independents who voted in those 5 rust belt states which went for Candidate Trump. That is a growing problem for both of the major political parties.
Here is a part of my comment in January 2017:
———————————————————
“But I did take a look at the CNN exit polling data for the states. (Links were in the article)
My first impression is that the independents in those states voted more for Donald Trump. I am surprised by the number of independents polled.
State———————— Democrat ————- Republican —————Independents—— Independents % of total polled
Indiana—————C=84% T=13%——- C=6% T=92%———— C=36% T=53%———— 28%
Michigan———— C=88% T=9%—-—- C=7% T=90%————C=36% T=52%———— 29%
Ohio—————— C=87% T=12%——- C=7% T=90%———— C=37% T=51%————- 29%
Pennsylvania -—- C=87% T=11%——- C=9% T=89%———— C=41% T=48%————- 20%
Wisconsin——— C=91% T=7%——— C=6% T=90%———-— C=40% T=50%————— 30%
Donald Trump got the majority of the polled earning $30,000 and over in Michigan, Ohio, and a tie in Wisconsin. In Indiana he got the majority of the polled earning ANY THING UNDER $200,000. In Pennsylvania he got the majority of the polled earning over $50,000.
———————————————————
From JimH comment at 8:16AM: http://angrybearblog.com/2017/01/nafta-and-manufacturing-employment.html
At the time of my comment it was obvious that C was for Clinton, T was for Trump.
Keep in mind that Candidate Trump’s supporters had not been telling the pollsters that they would vote for him in the primaries or in the general election. So it seems reasonable to assume that they were just as unwilling to tell the pollsters that they had voted for him afterwards. The Independents would seem to be the most likely hidden voters since 53% of them admitted to voting for Candidate Trump.
The best advice that anyone can give Democratic candidates is to move back toward the middle. There is no other political party for liberal voters to adopt and the Republicans abandoned the middle segment of the electorate to satisfy the Tea Party Republicans. But I expect the Democratic candidates to alienate the middle and create even more Independents.
Moving back towards the middle is a recipe for disaster. Meanwhile, the number of really Independent voters is too minuscule to even consider.
This post has it correct, though I think it overestimates the number of swing voters.
For this country to move forward, the Dem Party needs to go further left, and equipped with the knowledge that any of their policies will be dragged to the center by Reps and/or our political reality.
In terms of why the failure of a third party is inevitable, it is simple math. It cannot happen. Such a party will either split the Dem votes or the Rep votes and there is no possibility of a third party win.
The closest was Wallace, and he had the racism issue on his side. Course, then the GOP picked it up and ran with it until it led to trump. And will lead to his policies being the norm on the racist front. Until the old people die.
Can’t happen fast enough for me.
The Democrats can not steal ANY significant number of voters from ANY political party on their left! If they exist at all, those voters are of an insignificant number.
And the Republicans have moved so far to the right that only insignificant numbers of voters are further to their right.
IN CASE YOU HAVEN’T NOTICED, AN AMATEUR BEAT ALL THE SEASONED POLITICIANS FROM BOTH MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES. AND HE BEAT THEM WHILE RUNNING FOR HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND!!!
Frankly I believe that a large segment of the electorate view Democrats and Republicans as two peas in a pod. They both promise what they can not deliver.
Yeah, an amateur who took the decades long racism of the GOP out of the closet and put it on his heart.
Losing by three million votes to a candidate who was attacked from both the left and the right and the DOJ for the entire election.
Anyone who thinks the GOP and the Dems are two peas in a pod is an idiot.
I’d suggest reviewing all of the votes from the Obama and trump era to see how insanely stupid that thought is.
“IN CASE YOU HAVEN’T NOTICED, AN AMATEUR BEAT ALL THE SEASONED POLITICIANS FROM BOTH MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES. AND HE BEAT THEM WHILE RUNNING FOR HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND!!!”
Writing in all caps doesn’t make you right. In fact, Trump *lost* the election by nearly 3 million votes (and the polls correctly predicted HRC’s victory). Trump was appointed POTUS by the electoral college, against the will of the voters.
Not to make too much of polls, but an article today makes the point that while Biden, Sanders and Warren all beat Trump in hypothetical matchups in Wisconsin, Biden wins by the largest margin because he does the best among “ moderates, independents and suburbanites” and does not lose by as much as the others among rural voters. Some of that may still be name recognition but Wisconsin voters are going to be leery of anybody who is calling for the kind of changes that Sanders and Warren are promoting and that is a state whose largest city was run by socialists for 50 years. You can whine about the electoral college but the fact is that is what our constitution set up a couple of hundred years ago and I do not think that just because Hillary ran up the score in California she should be declared the winner anymore than Trump running up the score in the Deep South and Great Plains should make him the victor. It all came down to Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and in at least one of those states the more centrist candidate is more competitive than the leftists. The other thing I would note is the most liberal parts of the electorate are not the most dependable voters—-that is especially true of young people.
Hi Terry:
You have a couple of topics going on here and maybe more. I have heard a lot about the Black vote not turning out. It is true; but even so, HRC could have won without a large turnout of black voters. Of the three states mentioned, WI had fewer voters turnup at the polls ~ 3% less or 72,000 less in 2016. MI and PA had larger turnouts when compared to 2012 The differences between the Dem and Repub total vote was less than 1% in each state for 2016. In 2012, Dems won each state by 6% or more votes in each of those states over Repubs. Since 1992, MI voted Dem and since 1988, PA and WI voted Dem. So what changed? With a high turnout of Black Voters, the results would have been different of course. Even so, this was not all which tipped the election to Repubs in those three states. In 2012, the turnout for other parties/candidates other than Repub or Dem was slightly greater than 1% in each state; while in 2016, it was anywhere from 3.5% to 6.3% and a historic turnout for Libertarian, Communist, Green, and other candidates. That was hundreds of thousands of votes compared to tens of thousands.
The EC? What changed was “Congress putting our government on the path to oligarchy by passing the ‘Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929’ which established that, henceforth, the size of the House would be permanently fixed at ‘the then existing number of Representatives.’ The ‘then existing number’ being a verbose and inconspicuous way to specify 435.” The House no longer represents by population and now the House and the Senate give greater power to smaller states with less population. 66% of the US population resides in the 15 largest states. If population continues to grow at its present rate, it will only worsen. If the 1929 Act was repealed, the House would go back to representing by population and be a greater balance between less populated and large populated states as it was intended to be et forth by the founders. “Will The Reign of Witches Pass?”
HRC would have still have lost; but, it would have been by a much closer EC margin. Two or maybe three things are at issue for her loss:
1. The numbers of people who voted for other candidates.
2. Comey’s comments, Repub’s malfeasance, lies, etc.
3. Black American voter turnout.
While #3 is important, I believe the first two are more important.
I use capital letters for emphasis.
I prefer to use bold type for emphasis but that is not available in the comments section.
I thought you could use bold or even italic in comments.
Here is a workable tutorial on html formatting.
https://riptutorial.com/html/example/1715/bold–italic–and-underline
Arne,
Thanks for the link.
It looks like the bold or strong types both work even in quotation marks.
I really don’t like to read all caps. So I would rather not comment with them.
Thanks again.
Jim:
I guess I could have told you such Deleted your last comment.
I pay no attention to any of these polls considering that it splits the Dem votes between so many candidates as opposed to just trump.
One on one polls matter, not that I trust those much either. especially considering the amount of people who are too embarrassed to tell strangers they will vote for trump(they have no conscience, but they feel shame).
Particularly in the so called leftists Warren and Sanders. They are splitting the votes of a large number of Dems, and until it is just one of them, these polls make no sense to me.
I just cannot believe anyone really wants Biden as the candidate, and the Mayor is a totally mystery to why anyone would want him as the nominee. He is totally unqualified for the position, while his only difference from Biden is Biden’s past, non progressive history.
I remember Bill Maher(before he somehow got weirded out) saying something like, “I just wish the Dems could grow one ball, not a set, just one ball.”
I think it is time Dems grew a set, and this is not the guy to do it(btw, that is not a comment on his sexual orientation which means nothing to me at all).
“The general state of the race over the past couple of weeks has evinced the inevitable power of the back-to-normal narrative. There is a substantial portion of the electorate that just wants a break. Biden is that candidate, although Buttigieg is making a strong pitch for being the voice of that desire as well. It’s not showing up in any polls yet, but he’s clearly becoming the darling of the Morning Joe don’t-run-with-scissors crowd. Over the weekend in Iowa, he received considerable praise for comments that, on their own, are almost overpowering in their stunning banality.
The purpose of the presidency is not the glorification of the president, but the unification of the American people.
The purpose of the presidency is to see that the laws are faithfully executed, which includes obeying them yourself. Period. This is consultant-speak, West Wing pablum. And then there was this, on ABC on Sunday.
I think it [Medicare for All] could very well be the long-run destination, but I think there’s got to be some humility in our policy here.
No, I don’t know what “humility” has to do with anything, either. And, finally, there was this beauty, from a town hall in New Hampshire.
A new culture of belonging is the sort of thing that only the powers of the presidency can deliver. Not the legal powers; the symbolic, the cultural, the moral power of the office. Because the purpose of the presidency is not the glorification of the President, it is the unification and empowerment to the American people.
The presidency is meant to foster “a new culture of belonging”? And people say Marianne Williamson is the cosmic muffin of this campaign. But the people who follow such things, and who yearn for a return to the status quo of the days before Camp Runamuck, love this kind of thing, especially when dished out by a handsome young white man. If those NYT numbers get enough people a’skeered, then, Mayor Pete’s “moment” may well be upon us. Double digits, here he comes!”
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29685923/pete-buttigieg-back-to-normal-joe-biden-elizabeth-warren/
oops, the following are his quotes but I forgot to separate them.
‘The purpose of the presidency is not the glorification of the president, but the unification of the American people.’
The purpose of the presidency is to see that the laws are faithfully executed, which includes obeying them yourself. Period. This is consultant-speak, West Wing pablum. And then there was this, on ABC on Sunday.
‘I think it [Medicare for All] could very well be the long-run destination, but I think there’s got to be some humility in our policy here.’
No, I don’t know what “humility” has to do with anything, either. And, finally, there was this beauty, from a town hall in New Hampshire.
‘A new culture of belonging is the sort of thing that only the powers of the presidency can deliver. Not the legal powers; the symbolic, the cultural, the moral power of the office. Because the purpose of the presidency is not the glorification of the President, it is the unification and empowerment to the American people.’
These comments are beyond scary to me. Another guy bringing a knife to a gun fight.
” This is based on silly theory which requires the assumption that the set of eligible voters and the set of people who actually vote are the same. ”
Australia, compulsory voting (i.e. voting as a responsibility not a right) looks sensible doesn’t it. It is the toss up voters who really are important not the ideologues. Keeping it a toss up is a victory for democracy. People need to think much more about process and less about results. That Zen idea of every great journey starting with a single step is completely wrong.
oops …. NOT completely wrong.