Do we mobilize the base or build bridges to moderate leaning conservatives who are appalled by the tone of Donald Trump, as a winning strategy in 2020?
Three days ago Politico asked Did Beto Below it? foreshadowing his lose and second guessing the strategy that plowed his $70 million in campaign funds–raised from the grassroots across the US–into tactics to motivate the left base, at the expense of resources and messaging that would appeal to the moderate leaning conservatives that don’t like the unlikeable Ted Cruz. Had the Beto campaign found 150,000 voters (out of 4.2 million Cruz voters) to vote for him with messages that were less blistering than Medicare for All and other issues that fire up the base, Beto would be Senator-elect today.
Florida’s Governor’s race is another disappointing result. Granted Gillum, like Beto, fired up many people who would not have voted in this midterm and Gillum made the Senate race competitive for the Democrats. But in the end, the “firing up the base” fell short in Florida. Again, had only 50,000 moderate conservatives been persuaded with a bit more of a centralist message (not centralists policy, but message) Gillum could have been Governor.
Now contrast this with the many Democratic victories in the House. The college educated suburban women voted for Democrats with a strong message about health care and other bread and butter issues. They may have even voted for a Democrat that was a veteran. This critical group of disenchanted Republicans voted for and provided the winning margin for Democrats with a more moderate tone, in contrast to the fire and brimstone rhetoric.
So looking ahead to the 2020 Presidential race (John Kasich will be up in New Hampshire next week) and there will be plenty of Democratic candidates to choose from. Like the GOP field in 2016, there will be so many of them, that they will be bunched in lanes: The “base” candidates like Warren, Sanders or Tom Steyer the center lane candidates like Bloomberg and Delaney (who?) and the billionaires Bloomberg or Steyer (they can buy more than one lane). As author of the post, “If you Wrestle with a Pig” I am not a fan of nominating someone who wants to out insult the undisputed insult king in the world, when it come to tone. I’ll be looking for someone that can speak to the Democratic base passionately, without alienating the significant slice of Trump voters who aren’t racists and are disturbed by the rhetoric and actions of Trump. But won’t support a Democrat whose tone cuts them the wrong way.
So what do you say…do we need a candidate that fires up the base, or one that tries to build a bridge in 202?
Beto was stabbed in the back by Chuck Schumer, who allowed Ted Cruz to leave Washington and go back to Texas for some last minute campaigning at the critical moment. Did I say “allowed”? Schumer bargained away 15 right wing judicial appointments for the chance to benefit Cruz.. Schumer’s blend of wishful thinking, incumbent protection and sheer incompetence will be hard to equal.
Are you seriously suggesting that Schumer hoped Cruz would be re-elected?
No, I’m not. And I’m not suggesting that Schumer wants more GOP judges approved on voice votes. But the stupid deal he made with Mitch Mcconnell achieved both things. Fred has the quote somewhere, about stupidity being worse than evil , or something like that., I’ll add a quote from George Higgins. “Life is hard, but it’s harder if you’re stupid.”
I agree with this criticism of Schumer. The judges were going to be confirmed anyway, but by acquiescing in the way that he did, Schumer released all of the Senators, including Cruz, to go home and campaign. I don’t understand why you don’t fight it out, so that the Republicans need all hands on deck, but send the McCaskills and Heitkamps home anyway. So what you miss their votes; you were going to lose anyway.
It always seems like he is afraid of the next moralizing “civility” column from David Brooks, and so flinches.
So Schumer should have kept the 7 or 8 incumbent dem senators running in tight elections, trapped in DC so that Cruz is trapped with them??? Talk about self defeating.
No. All the Dems could go home. The Republicans would need to come up with the 50 votes to approve the judges. They would all have to have stayed to vote. All it would have taken would be one Dem Senator to be on the floor and not acquiesce. It could have been Schumer himself.
A quorum is a majority and the GOP has it. One Dem is powerless to stop them from voting.
I reject the premise that this is an either/or question.
On the face of yet, sure. but in practice, easier said than done. Can you cite an example of a candidate/campaign that both motivates the base and appeals to swing voters?
Are you limiting my options to presidential candidates? If not I might say Deval Patrick….
If it were not for Tim Cahill, Patrick might not have been re-elected Governor in this bluest if states. I do not see the national appeal our mediocre at best former governor may hold. The lefties won’t like him because of Bain, and the moderates will not like him because of his managerial incompetence as governor. He seems to be recognizing this, inching away from a run in recent interviews.
Mediocre? Best Governor we’ve had since at least Dukakis IMO. I also don’t share your idea that Cahill kept him Governor.
I don’t think this slice is significant, and will be less so by 2020.
I think that anyone who is disturbed by the rhetoric and actions of Mr. Trump has already fled the GOP. I think the voters who still support Mr. Trump are implicitly or explicitly racist, misogynist, xenophobic, or some combination thereof.
I think the bridge you describe is a bridge to nowhere.
I also agree with Christopher that you have constructed a false dichotomy.
I want a candidate who shares my values and who eloquently and forcefully articulates those values. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama each epitomize what I mean. I think I could make an argument that FDR was among the greatest presidents and greatest campaigners in our history. FDR did not worry about alienating anybody, and he was particularly forceful in his contempt for the bankers who did so much harm during the Great Depression.
The argument you’re making here is exactly why I’ve been saying for some years now that we have to build for the future and resist the temptation to attempt to seduce the despicables who still support Mr. Trump.
The voters who share our values will support our candidates — if our candidates continue to be transparent and articulate about their and our values. If that is not enough to win elections, then the political system is to far gone too save.
The candidates you mention each did what I propose, and each ran a very close race. I think our best way forward is to stop looking over our shoulder and instead redouble our commitment to our values.
So of the 133 million people who voted for Trump in 2016, how small of a slice of these voters are racist and full Trumpers? I’m not aware of anyway yo find that out. Perhaps I’m naive, but my sense a significant amount of those people are not racists and we can draw enough of them to win in 2020. What is you guess as to how many of them are full Trumpers.
First, before we go any further, I think you’ve incorrectly cited the number of Donald Trump voters in the 2016 election. Various sources like this report that the final tally of the 2016 general election was:
Hillarly Clinton: 65,853,625
Donald Trump: 62,985,106
So what I think you meant to say was perhaps “… of the 63 million people who voted for Trump in 2016”.
We’ve gone over this ground a gazillion times before, I suppose another round won’t hurt.
I remind you that my words were “the voters who still support Mr. Trump “. 538 reports two recent polls, one of likely voters and the other of registered voters, that place the support for Mr. Trump at 43% and 45% respectively. In the absence of other data, I apply 44% to the 2016 vote total (0.44 * 128,838,731) and get 56,689,042.
I suggest that about 6.3 million voters abandoned their support for Mr. Trump between 2016 and today. I think that 6.3 million voters are the lion’s share of people we might draw in 2020. We didn’t need to betray our values to drive them from Mr. Trump, and I suggest that we don’t need to betray our values to attract them to us.
I think pretty much all of the 56.7 million current supporters of Mr. Trump are racist, bigoted, or intentionally ignorant. I say that because I think Mr. Trump spent the last two years making sure that he drove away everyone except his base.
As far as “full Trumpers”? I don’t know and I don’t care. I suspect that a large number of those voters will happily vote for Mr. Pence or any other racist, bigoted, xenophobic, superstitious, or intentionally ignorant thug that the GOP puts up if Mr. Trump is somehow removed from the process. I don’t care because they won’t vote for us anyway, unless we betray our values.
Winning is meaningless if we betray our values to do so. I think it’s better to lose the 2020 election than to win it by reinforcing the cancer of Trumpism.
Thanks for pointing out my mental lapse.
I didn’t intend to insult you, I make similar mistakes as well.
I do think, though, that since the number of Donald Trump supporters is relatively central to your argument, it’s therefore important to pay at least some attention to the numbers we’re talking about.
You asked for a number, and I attempted to provide one — about 6.3 M.
I think that delta would have swayed the 2016 election, and I think it’s enough to sway the 2020 election.
We don’t need to change any more Trumpist votes to win.
That dealt is in range of Larry Sabato’s estimate (his was higher, ranging from 6.6 m to about 9m). But we need to convince those people that they were wrong. I saw one chart showing the GOP Congress got about 46% of the vote, which is the floor that Trump got to to f’ing win in 2016. Sure it was by a whisker and he’s done noting to expand his base. I just think it’s risky to think we can make it a base vs base contest. See my reposes to Conway about candidates.
The only way to remove the cancer of Trumpism is to win the 2020 election. I agree Trump-Lite won’t be the ticket to doing that, but I do think a progressive populist campaign can be quite effective.
Framing this as a “Trump-lite” candidate is completely unfair. Is Sherrod Brown Trump-lite? Amy Klobuchar or Tim Ryan Trump=lite? I assume they fit your progressive populist model. They don’t run base only strategies (and if Brown did, would he have gotten reelected?
None of those three are going to play on a national stage. All fine people, but Senate/Governor is their ceiling. We see the same thing on the opposite end of the aisle. Scott Walker and Tim Pawlenty never caught a spark even though they were supposed to be the perfect flavor of vanilla.
I have already agreed with you that these candidates, especially Brown, are exactly the kind of candidates we need going forward. People who are progressive enough to excite the base and populist enough to attract the new swing voter.
I would not call the new swing voter, or even the hesitant voter (maybe they will, maybe they won’t), populist. For instance, Trump’s not offering populism. He isn’t doing squat for regular folks. He’s offering arena politics. It’s a spectacle. Come see the show.
Bernie went full populism and only got 43.1% of the vote in the 2016 primaries. We all love a good stemwinder of a speech, but populism often strikes me as imagined swing/non-voter service designed to impress the mostly comfortable.
Bernie won primaries in the midwestern states that Trump carried. I think there is salience to a truly fair trade, union made, and living wage agenda in that part of the country. Union households defecting to Trump in 2016 helped him win the Upper Midwest. They came back this midterm to vote against the likes of Scott Walker. Is there someone who can appeal to those voters as well as blacks, Hispanics. and the suburban white women who delivered the midterms? I’m not sure. It certainly isn’t Bernie but it’s gotta be somebody.
I don’t want a nominee who appeals to voters that support Donald Trump. Period.
I’ll say one more time that many of those union households defecting to Donald Trump in Wisconsin did so BECAUSE OF his attacks against blacks, Hispanics and women. Those households did not turn out for John McCain or for Mitt Romney. The turned out for Mr. Trump because of, not despite, his abhorrent attitudes.
So long as American-made products SUCK, it doesn’t matter whether they are union-made or not. Working class families are less able to throw away a refrigerator after 3 years than the “elite”.
What I want to see more than anything else is a Democratic congress that actually WORKS. I want tax bills passed that reverse the Trumpist giveaways to the wealthy. If those bills are blocked by the Trumpists, I want that front and center in the 2020 election. The same for health care, environmental regulation, worker protection, consumer protection, etc., etc., etc.
I want the detention centers closed and dismantled. I want an end to the Gestapo tactics of the ICE.
I suggest that actually DOING those things is the easiest and most effective way to increase the likelihood that our nominee will appeal to “blacks, Hispanics. and the suburban white women”.
I know several people who voted for Trump based on his populist message who now know they were conned.
You don’t want their votes?
Why not?
That’s what they are telling you, anyway.
It’s what they are telling exit pollsters in WI, AZ, IA, and NV. I think our successful candidates did appeal to these voters. I think being snobbish towards them is a recipe for another electoral disaster.
Please reread my phrase that you quoted.
Do they support Donald Trump now (I intentionally used the present tense)?
You’ve already said that they now know they were conned (I’ll resist the temptation to ask how any person with room-temperature IQ could be conned by Mr. Trump). If they now do not support Mr. Trump, then they are presumably either looking for someone they do support or they’ll stay home in 2020.
If they share our values and priorities, then they will be happy to vote for our candidate. If not, then they’ll stay home.
Either is fine with me.
Yeah, not so much. The third option, and to my mind, the much more likelier than ‘vote our way or stay home’, is that they will be conned again, only by someone like Paul Ryan or Rand Paul or even Bernie Sanders, whose anger is only slightly more cuddly and only slightly less deranged than that of Donald Trump.
These are some of the same people who got conned about Hillary, not only the most qualified, but also, perhaps the most examined and scrutinized person in all of recorded history. These are the same people who were conned by Dick (can’t find anybody suitable for VP, so I’ll do it) Cheney and George W Bush. These are the same people who believed unbelievable lies in support of George W Bush and unbelievable lies about John Kerry. These are the same people who said, in 2003 ‘Anybody but Bush’ and then voted for Bush. These are the same people who cheered Sarah Palin and believed Mitt (47%) Romney and probably still go to sleep thinking about Benghazi. The GOP playbook is one long con and, regardless of the actual players on the field, it works again and again to tickle the dissonance in the cognitive on the Right.
Results have proven, time and time again, however, if the playing field is level, Democrats win. Many more people are immune to the con, than those who fall for it. We don’t need to kow-tow to anybody not presently in that fold. We need to end gerrymandering, get a clean census in 2020 and run solid candidates.
Bill and Hillary enjoyed the company of Donald Trump.
One wonders that the room temperature is at their bungalow in Chappaqua?
If those are the same values and priorities that have resulted in 40+ years of stagnant wages for the working class, well, no, I think Trump wins a second term, and why not?
@ johntmay:
Your Clinton Derangement Syndrome is showing again.
Never much cared for the Clintons. being a working class guy and all……
We’re talking about 2020 strategies here. The Clintons are irrelevant.
What do they say about history and those doomed to repeat it?
And Trump hasn’t been off the deep end all his life. I think he has even been a Democrat.
The sad news is that, like it or not, “populist” candidates have ALWAYS been more like Donald Trump and less like Sherrod Brown (or any other victorious Democratic candidate of 2018). That’s true throughout history and, so far as I know, in every democracy that has allowed “populist” candidates to run.
I get that we progressives are perhaps trying to win back or redefine a word (“populist”). Still, words mean something. George Wallace and Joseph McCarthy described themselves as populists long before Mr. Trump.
I think it’s time to discard “populist” as anything except shorthand for right-wing, authoritarian, racist, fear-mongering demagogue (cf Donald Trump).
My knock on populism is it’s non-directional. Mostly, it’s just a hammer looking for nail, and it attracts self-promotional types and authoritarians far more often than altruists.
FDR was our most populist President and delivered a New Deal to working America. LBJ was a populist and so was Tip O’Neil. Obama ran a very populist campaign against the free trader vulture capitalists Mitt Romney in 2012. Elizabeth Warren beat a fake populist by running as a real one in 2012.
Populism does not have to be nationalist to be valid, I think we make a fatal mistake when we associate populism with truck driving or immigrant bashing. It is like surrendering patriotism or family values to the GOP, there is another way. Rev. Barber is practicing Christian politics, Falwell Jr is not. I think we make a mistake when we let the other side have a monopoly on running against the elite or running with the flag or the cross.
One of the criticisms of the term “populist” is that it means next to nothing:
I don’t agree with your characterization of FDR, Tip O’Neill, or Barack Obama.
Since those being described as “populist” today are in fact themselves the “elite” then I suggest the easier path is to call them out and be done with it. If we’re going to fight to reclaim a word from the rabid right, I’m much more prepared to fight for “Liberal” than “Populist”.
I’m hopeful that the incoming Democratic majority in Congress will join Elizabeth Warren in fighting our obscene wealth and income concentration. I think FDR and Tip O’Neill would be leaders in that fight were either still alive.
I’d rather “surrender” the term “populist” and hang it in big bold letters around the neck of the Trumpists — and then use that word to absolutely CRUSH them.
What’s wrong with liberal populism? This is the tradition that won elections time and time again for progressive candidates. Watering down the party’s traditional commitment to working families was one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of the party.
On a state level, liberal populism won a state senate seat and tossed out Republican Richard Ross. from the seat once held by Scott Brown.
I see no evidence that Becca Rausch considers herself any sort of “populist”. An election-day piece in Politico characterizes Ms. Rausch as an anti-Trump candidate (emphasis mine):
Here’s a paragraph I like from the “About” page of her site (linked above):
That’s a great summary of a progressive agenda.
I’m glad Ms. Rausch won, and I welcome her to the State Senate. I see no evidence AT ALL that she embraces any sort of “populist” agenda.
She came across as one to me when I met her, but I’m just a working class guy who reads a lot. She did say that she was against the wage cuts for retail workers that many Democrats voted in favor of. So there’s that.
And here’s a pro tip, on the house: Trump ran on a populist agenda that he tossed into the trash can the moment he was elected.
@johntmay:
Of course Mr. Trump was lying about his agenda. He has spent the last thirty years lying about virtually everything he’s been involved with — supplements, education-for-profit, gambling, apartments — everything.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for any voter foolish enough to believe him. That’s one reason why I am not surprised that the evidence shows that so many of his supporters LIKE his deplorable behavior.
We agree that Ms. Rausch is a winner.
So he lied? The Clintons lied and lied and so many still admire them today. That’s how they get into power. They know their audience..
Yes, we agree that Becca is a winner!
@ What’s wrong with liberal populism:
The name (“liberal populism”).
It leads to white males demanding that they stay at the front of the line (ahead of blacks, Hispanics, women, and so on) while they attack programs that express our core values and priorities (such as providing education funding to working-class families).
I don’t know whether or not we ever “watered down the party’s traditional commitment to working families”, but the name is toxic now.
The tradition is fine. That tradition needs a name that does not include “populist” or its variants.
????????????
At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite.
Ain’t nothing here ’bout white males and such…but hey, I’m just a working class dude who reads a lot. What do I know about populism…?
Since you read a lot, you no doubt already read the piece I cited upthread.
Here’s another excerpt from the same piece (emphasis mine):
Sound familiar?
The dictionary definition of “family values” is as innocuous as your above cite for “populist”. Our political discourse is filled with words and dog-whistles that convey meaning very different from whatever is in the dictionary.
Self-described “populists” elected Donald Trump. Self-described populists (who are almost always, like Mr. Trump, also self-described “nationalists”) are on the rise in Europe.
As the word is currently in use in America and around the world, it is a synonym for racist, prejudiced, ignorant nationalist. The phrase “liberal populist” has been rendered meaningless.
If you want to call yourself a “populist”, go for it
Dems mined rich suburbanites who voted in protest of the SALT deduction cap. Dems won these districts as tax cutters. Why not do it? Why not propose to work with Trump to restore those tax cuts? That way you get to keep your gold plated schools and your stately home.
This question assumes a “grand strategy” framework, proceeding from basic questions like base vs center, is the right framework.
Most voters make their choices based on other qualities—personality, outlook, experience, and such factors as quality of campaign.
I guess the assumption is, find a candidate who scores well on terms of those qualities that meets your strategic criteria, but it is not so simple. I don’ think any of the leading “base” candidates score very well, for example.
Patently ridiculous.
It’s a clear double standard and, as such, cannot possibly be true. It’s a story. It’s a fig leaf. It is a tale they tell themselves to make palatable the vote for Trump and to make palatable the refusal to vote Democratic. But it’s not true. It can’t possibly be true: It’s like saying they will vote for an actual rapist before they vote for the person who uses the word ‘rape.’ It’s ridiculous. They really do agree with Trump. They just don’t want to be seen publicly agreeing with Trump. It is more unpalatable to them to agree with Democratic principles than to agree with Trump…
And you want to curry that favor…??
You’re being played. If you could, somehow. magically summon this hypothetically inoffensive Democrat they’ll change up their tune in an instant and vote Trump for entirely different reasons. You can’t win on those terms because those terms are schizo-affective in the extreme. Stop trying to argue with the neurosis. It’s a strategy that is complete in its epic wrongness…
Amy Klobuchar, Tim Ryan, Jay Inslee are a few of the “patiently ridiculous” people off the top of my head. Basically you’re as binary as the pure Trumper’s. It’s a world filled with racists and open border advocates and nothing in between. Wow, talk about neurosis.
You’re as blind as the real Trumer’s…where do I say “curry favor”, no where. But that’s what your tribal language translates my post into. You don’t realize it, but just like a real Trumpesr, you think in simplistic blind stereotypes, all-be-it different ones, about the breath of diversity in this country.
I thought I was pretty clear about this (emphasis here):
Amy Klobuchar, Tim Ryan, Jay Inslee did just what I’m suggesting. They were clear about their and our values, and they won.
That was a response to Petr
You are asking me to believe something that is not possible to believe: that a person will vote for Trump, regardless of his ‘tone’ because they don’t like the ‘tone’ of the Democrats. It’s a ridiculous double standard. I can not possibly be true. It has nothing whatsoever to do with stereotypes but rather pivots on the utterly preposterous notion that ‘tone’ hurts the Democrats more than it does Trump. You would have to resort to advanced mathematics to define a double standard more clearly.
And, in fact, I’ve argued the exact opposite: it was Bernie Sanders ‘tone’ in the primary that invited many people to defect to Trump in the general. That’s how tone works. That’s how people respond to tone: they don’t accept it in one candidate and reject it in another. They either reject it or accept it wholesale.
I disagree with your second paragraph Pogo, but am with you on the first. Those are three leaders I think could win a general election against Trump. They would do so by convincing Romney/Clinton and Obama/Trump voters to stick with the Democrats.
Can they do so while also expanding the electorate and bring in the youth vote and voters of color? That’s the hat trick our next nominee needs to hit. Both/and. Very few candidates on the horizon are capable of doing both. Beto was my man to do so, but Tuesday’s loss does not help him make that case.
Pairing up different leaders is another good strategy. Evers and Wilder won in WI and MI by bringing back Obama/Trump voters but they also selected black LG nominees and campaigned in Milwaukee and Detroit. Something not enough Democrats did in 2016. I think if our nominee is a white male our VP should be a woman and/or person of color or the inverse.
I was mostly responding to the comment that I’m trying to curry favor by suggesting a strategy the appeals to swing voters. It’s the same kinds of comments the fat right accuses supporters of a Kasich or Flake. Sorry, but in this day and age, we’ve got to stop behaving that way.
There are no swing voters of the type you describe. You are trying to curry a favor that cannot be fulfilled. It cannot possibly be the case that someone defaults to a vote of Trump because of the ‘tone’ of the Democrats.
The problem is there are,indeed, people who say that they voted for Trump because of the tone, or the purported tone, of the Democrats. And, maybe, even they believe it. But if they are not outright trying to fool you, they are outright fooling themselves.
Even though the Democrats bear no responsibility here, they are bending over backwards to say, ‘Trump is a disaster’ without saying, ‘You voted for a disaster.’ This is, also, a thing that is simply not possible to do. It was not possible when the it was the slightly more organized disaster of the second Bush administration, and it is not possible now. And, maybe if we had said so then, we’d not be in this parlous state now…. Instead we try to make the vote about this, that and t’other, so that we don’t have to say it and they don’t have to confront it. And, while it may be possible to be passive in that aggressive manner, it’s in no one’s real interest to do so: if we legitimize the disaster as just another facet of the electorates fickle nature, we invite them to cross that line next time.
pogo, your general argument strikes me as dated. It’s very Clintonian, and if there’s one thing we should have learned in 2016 it’s that we’re in a decidedly post-Clintonian world. Stop trying to be what you think Joe Average wants. Be the best version of what you stand for and invite Joe Average to get with the program.
A lot of people are jumping on Pogo, but I think there is some wisdom in what they are saying:
On Health care:
Democrats who ran in swing districts protecting ACA, fighting for folks with pre-existing conditions, and fighting to control costs did better than those in swing districts running on Medicare for All. This policy agenda was an implementation and electoral failure even in Bernie Sanders home state. We just got to a point where a majority of voters want to get Republican government off their Obamacare, it might be wise to wait a little until we push more.
I want to get to MFA as much as anyone here, but making it an opt in/buy in program (aka the public option) might be less scary to the folks on the fence. Midlife Medicare and Social Security Expansion (lowering eligibility for both to +55) are incredibly popular policies, even in Trump country. I think leading with those two as a caucus and a party makes a ton of sense. I think using MFA as a litmus rest in solidly blue districts (looking at you Lynch!) also makes sense.
MFA certainly did nothing to move the needle for Jay Gonzalez and MA voters do not even want government mandates for staffing ratios. So it might not even be a popular idea statewide.
People like their Obamacare and want to keep it. That’s the political reality we need to understand. Push for better, but there are ways to frame it that do not sound like socialized medicine to swing voters.
On Reaching Out to Trump Voters
I agree and disagree with Tom. I absolutely agree that people still sticking with Trump after Tuesday are most likely beyond the pale. People re-electing Steven King are beyond the pale. The 24% of the IL 3rd District that voted for an open Nazi are beyond the pale. People that are currently Trump 2020 are unlikely to be persuadable. These are the folks who are excited to see an accused assaulter on the court and happy he fired Sessions and told reporters to sit down yesterday.
I do think that Democrats in midwestern swing states and districts like Sherrod Brown, Tom Evers, Gretchen Wilder, Tom Wolf, Sean Casten, and Lauren Underwood-not to mention 7 state legislatures that flipped-got elected by winning back Obama-Trump voters and winning over Romney/Clinton voters.
They did so by appealing to their middle class anxieties around health care and college costs, and lower wages and benefits for workers. They did not do so by calling them irredemably racist, calling for impeachment, or running against ICE.
We need a nominee resolutely committed to pushing social inclusion, social justice, and racial equity if they are elected President. In order to get elected, they will need to emphasize other issues. Low wages, high costs, fair trade, and a fair deal for the middle class.
I did not suggest that we do anything you enumerate in your penultimate paragraph. I instead suggest that we double-down on our values and on our commitment to expressing those values in government.
We don’t call anybody racist. We instead double-down on categorically rejecting the racist government attacks on immigrants and minorities. When one of our own is shown to be an abuser (such as Mr. Franken) then we insist that he (or she) step down. If one of our candidates body-slams a reporter, we immediately, publicly, and firmly drum him or her out of the party.
We continue to emphasize and lead on the issues you enumerate (we’ve been doing that for decades). That leadership on issues is not enough to sway the votes of current supporters of Mr. Trump — if it were, then they would not be supporters of Mr. Trump.
Like it or not, we are in a culture war that bears all the earmarks of turning into an actual hot civil war. We did not choose that, and if we care about our values we also cannot run away from or deny it.
The Barbarians are at the gate. It is our duty to resist them.
I actually really like the framing you just described Tom. Leading by example. I think that is a huge component of what worked on Tuesday.
I think a big question mark I have about any of the Senators running for President is how do they lead by example. Gillibrand is the only one who comes to mind as actually passing a major policy change (military assaults) and leading on that issue even if it meant bucking her party on Franken and Clinton.
Klobuchar is another dark horse to look at. She gets progressive things done while appealing to swing voters and she wisely used the Kavanaugh hearings to discover the truth and not just to grandstand. Warner or Schiffs methodical bipartisan approach to the Russian investigation is another.
I think what pogo and I disliked about Warrens responses to Trump is that they are reactive. They are hitting him back low blow for low blow rather than leading by example and showing America a better way.
Inslee is exactly the kind of hard charging blue state executive who has led on climate change and actually accomplished progressive priorities. He also has framed his progressive enrivonmental and economic policies as good for business. Same policy petri dish as Warren or Sanders, but with actual results and in a consensus oriented manner that does not alienate moderates. His substantive confrontation of Trump on guns stands in marked contrast to the mudslinging of a Warren or Avenatti.
He is a dark horse along with Hickenlooper and Bullock. Bullock has been especially populist with unions and clean elections. Bullock and Hickenlooper might be too centrist on climate and identity issues for the primary electorate. O’Malley deserves another look if he runs as well, a strong record as MD Governor undermined by his weaker record as a Baltimore Mayor and 2016 candidate.
Heh. I absolutely love the mud-slinging of Mr. Avenatti — as a warrior and general, not as a candidate.
I agree with you.
I am actually very excited about Avenatti as a candidate. It is exactly the kind of out of the box thinking we need right now to out fox Trump. His presence in debates will be quite welcome. I think he could occupy the same space Trump did-someone willing to dispense with the shibboleths of party and political doublespeak of the professional politician and call malarkey.
The big difference is that Avenatti calls out racists and sexists instead of acting like one, and he can also fight fire with fire without endangering the other potential nominees. I just am not sold on him actually being the nominee or being President. Better than the incumbent and more electable than most of the Senators thinking of running? Certainly, but I might want someone with more executive experience like a Governor or Mayor.
Ugh! Avenatti is not qualified to be POTUS and IMO has let all the attention go to his head. He is better cast in the role of someone to do our rhetorical dirty work while actual candidates offer solutions. The last thing I want is for our party to emulate the gleeful norm-shattering of Trump.
Some norms should be shattered. Bernie Sanders shattered a lot of norms and moved the political conversation in a productive direction. So did Bobby Kennedy during his unorthodox campaign in 1968. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was similarly norm shattering. To be totally clear, I do not think Avenatti is presently qualified to be President nor do I see him bringing the kind of radical optimism to the table those candidates did.
That said, I think he has an interesting take and should be welcomed in the debates. He is definitely polling well enough to qualify for the big kids table, more than some Governors or Senators. He’s also the only potential 2020 candidate who’s focused on all the petty corruption this White House is engaging in, something voters tuning out the Russian investigation or culture war issues might get engaged by.
Sanders came nowhere close to shattering norms in the way that I mean. He just raised issues that others didn’t. Had he been elected I’m confident that he would have been a perfectly normal President from an institutional standpoint.
There is a difference between warrior, candidate, and nominee.
It sounds as though you (Christopher) agree that Mr. Avenatti is well-qualified as a warrior. James likes him as a candidate, I suspect for similar reasons (I’m less enthusiastic about that).
I don’t think any of us want to see him as the nominee.
I remind us that Jesse Jackson ran for President in 1984 and 1988. Shirley Chisholm ran for President in 1972. Neither had a realistic chance of winning the nomination — the candidacy of each was hugely important for the party and for America.
There is LOTS of room for our party to shatter norms and break out of its paralysis without emulating Donald Trump.
We need more intermediate GOTV.
There are at least two elections between now and Nov 2020. Every district will have a presidential primary and a general primary. Some places will have a ’19 primary and general. Some will have local elections. Some will have special elections.
We as a party, we as advocacy groups, we as individuals need to focus on the unlikely voters and get them to vote once or twice or even thrice before November 5, 2020.
Habitual voters are more likely to vote in the next election, both because it is their own habit and because candidates target people with recent voting history. 11/2018 had big turnout. Turnout the next election too, and the next one, so that 11/5/2020 has a higher baseline.
Indeed. I invite us to pay attention to the nuance here.
Note the assumption of the thread-starter (emphasis mine):
Turning out 150,000 new progressive voters is significantly easier than changing the same number of Ted Cruz votes. Intermediate GOTV is crucial.
If the strategic goal is to turn out 150,000 new progressive voters in Texas, I suggest that the campaign tactics of Mr. O’Rourke are more likely to succeed than yet another centrist campaign that appeals to “moderate leaning conservatives”.
There’s an even better reason to take this approach — when we win, we provide the newly-elected legislator with a clear policy mandate.
At the end of the day, putting our agenda into practice is far more important than winning the election.
This is a smart point and it is hard to argue with the reality that Beto, Gillum, and Abrams did substantially better than their blander and whiter predecessors did as statewide nominees back in 2014. In fact, Wendy Davis did exactly what the Politico piece suggested O’Rourke do. She was a progressive darling who moved to the right on guns, abortion, and taxes to try and “win the middle” and ended up winning a much smaller vote share in 2014 than O’Rourke carried in 2018.
All three of the 2018 losses have strong electoral coattails. The anemic Nelson would have lost by five points without Gillum maximizing the black vote, and Nelson could still win his recount. Abrams could still go to a runoff, something neither the Nunn nor Carter progeny could do in 2014. She also helped lift progressive and black Mary McBath over Karen Handel-a feat the centrist and white Jon Ossoff failed to do with far more resources in an earlier special election.
These three campaigns are also rebuilding a grassrootd GOTV infrastructure that was previously non-existent in these states. Some no name Democrats held GOP incumbents to under 60% in two AL districts which we can thank Doug Jones for.
I do think this midterm shows that slowing down on MFA helps
keep the newly Dem leaning suburbanites in the coalition. Every successful Democrat ran on expanding Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and defendIng the ACA. Those are broadly popular policies. Single payer is more of a mixed bag right now and its advocates did worse on Election Day.
There seems to be no need to move to the right on social issues. This caucus is far more pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-marijuana reform, pro-criminal justice reform, and pro-gun safety than the 2006-2010 majority and still managed to win elections in deeply red states.
Build a bridge to where? What “middle”? to quote George Lakoff : Assume that most voters are in the middle imposed by the bell curve. Suggest that candidates and elected officials move to the middle. If their beliefs are on the left of the “middle,” they should still move to the right to be where the bell curve claims that most voters are. This will be helping conservatives, by supporting their beliefs. And your candidate may be saying things Democrats don’t believe. Your candidate will become Republican-lite. Voters at least some conservative values will go for real Republicans, not Repiblicans-lite.
Did Trump win by building a bridge, or did he fire up and expand his base by being bold?