Regarding centrist Dems and the poisoning of the well by the fringe left.

[DanTex]

In principle it's a good idea to move the Dems to the left, at least in states in districts that can support progressives. But a big problem is that a lot of the groups supporting primary challenges and pushing "progressive" candidates in primaries (quotes because many times these "progressives" want to fold on social issues and focus only on economics) are constituted of the same people who consistently aid the GOP by pushing the "both parties are the same" lie.

And so, because we've had groups like the Greens actively throwing elections to the GOP for the last two decades by fomenting discord on the far left, it is unavoidable to view some of these primary efforts with caution if not suspicion. Do these new candidates actually want to help the Democratic Party? If they lose their primary, are they going to turn around and work to elect Republicans out of revenge? Or, even worse, do they subscribe to the Sarandon/Stein ideology, whereby it's better to have Republicans win to bring about the "revolution"?

Sadly, in many cases, these suspicions may not be fair to primary candidates who just want to try and make a difference. But, fair or not, thanks to repeated efforts by Naderites to brainwash the far left into supporting the GOP, this is the reality. So I would suggest, to anyone supporting primary challenges or advocating moving the party to the left, it is essential to make utterly clear that electing Dems over Reps is of paramount importance, regardless of how any primaries turn out. Particularly now that we know Russian troll farms are aiding the efforts of the Green Party. We just can't play around with the "both parties are the same stuff", it's cost too many elections already.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Agreed and THANK you for this OP

Can the Democratic Party overcome voter suppression, Putin and these alleged progressive
groups that promote primarying sitting democrats or voting for candidates who demographically are far less likely to win?

I am not asking the people who are engaged in primarying sitting democrats or supporting opponents who are far less likely to win than the mainstream democrat they are running against, I know what they think.



I am sincerely curious what the liberals here think, the democrats here, the ones who understand our system is a numbers game purely and simply. What do YOU think?

My opinion is we can survive it if we can protect the counting of the votes, but based on what happened in 2016, and that we know trump and putin are at it again, I dont know if we can.



Oh yeah, just saw this video of who now controls America.

Watch it and then maybe it will make sense how the TWO party system works, and which PARTY you should want OUT of power NO MATTER what it takes!



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/going-burn-store-trump-supporters-caught-camera-threatening-california-book-shop/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=100&v=bWS2tHGmVmw



The Nazis in this video are exactly who trump caters to. In fact it is who the GOP now caters to. Get THEM out of power FIRST!

[redstatebluegirl]

3. Yes, we have to make sure the votes are there and they are counted.

We also have to have candidates who can win, not just the small percentage of people on the fringe, but enough votes to win an election. The system is purely a numbers game, and as much as I wish we could have a viable third party, right now we cannot and win. If we split our party we are looking at 40 years of Republican rule, if the country lasts that long under their care. Winning is everything right now, we might have to suck it up and vote for some people who don't mirror our own policies, but any Democrat is better than any Republican.

[Wounded Bear]

2. The "left" and the "right" are pretty well entrenched...

We won't win many elections by scaring away decent centrist candidates in areas where a real fear of "evil leftists" exists, justified or not. The fact is that many millions of people have been poisoned by the RW media to hate us. A centrist might get elected there, but probably not a far left progressive.

We need to attract and motivate the vast middle of America that usually skips elections and get them to the polls, in addition to our "base."

[mcar]

4. K&R

[ck4829]

5. Yeah, except we keep seeing the goalposts being moved on what "fringe left" is

Decades ago it was “COMMUNISM!” then it was “All Americans regardless of race should be equal” then it was “Everyone should have health care” now it is “Saying that getting shot at school is a bad thing and you are a far left crisis actor if you are against Adam Lanza twerps getting guns”... What is “Fringe Left” going to be tomorrow, “Don’t want to throw Muslims into camps” and/or “Some freethinker who thinks throwing virgins into a volcano to appease the Dow/job creators is ‘silly’”?

Look, I plan to vote for the Democrat. Every. Single. Time. But I have seen nothing to resist and reverse this thing I have described, this goalpost moving.

[el_bryanto]

6. I think that if we are having discussions we should support the policies we actually

support. While it is imperative to defeat Republicans and Trumpites - I'm not as excited about doing that at the expense of fighting for better policies.

Bryant

[YessirAtsaFact]

15. Policy only matters if you win the election

As a very young man, I was thrilled that McGovern won the democratic nomination for president in 1972.

I loved his position regarding Vietnam.

One of my HS teachers warned me that this wasn’t such a good thing.

Years later I realized that Nixon sabotaged Ed Muskie because he preferred to run against McGovern.

McGovern’s anti-war credentials didn’t make much difference when he lost 49 states.

[el_bryanto]

18. Elections matter - but if you are fighting for centrist politicians constantly

You will get centrist policies - and realistic, Center Right position.

More to the point we aren't talking about specific candidates - we are talking generalities - if we bring up a specific candidate many people around here will vote the same way - I doubt anybody is unaware of the danger our government faces just now. What this feels like is centrist posters telling more liberal posters to shut up preemptively and i'm not in favor of that.

Bryant

[DanTex]

20. I don't see how defeating Trump is "at the expense" of fighting for anything.

Defeating Trump and the GOP is the only way accomplishing anything, policywise, because elected officials make policy. People claiming to be fighting for certain policies without focusing efforts on defeating Trump are simply making useless noise. The Greens are a case and point: they talk about certain policies, but they aren't "fighting" for them, in fact they are fighting against everything they talk about because their actual involvement in electoral politics is geared towards helping people like Trump win elections by attacking Democrats and peeling off lefty votes.

[el_bryanto]

21. nods - thanks for that - so if I am going to say some that makes a centrist democrat

uncomfortable i should maybe hold it in or go post it on a fringe website?

Bryant

[DanTex]

23. Umm, say whatever you want. I am not a centrist, and I am disappointed, for example,

by the Dems that voted for the latest weakening of Dodd Frank.

I don't see how anything I said can be construed as telling people not to criticize centrist policies or push for more progressive policies.

[el_bryanto]

24. Thank you for clarifying nt

[angrychair]

7. The sentiment is understood and I get it

It’s not about what flavor of Democrat you are, it’s about your voting record and/or public policy positions and what you as a candidate advocate and support.
My position has always been unequivocal and unwavering. I do not care what state or county or city you are running for office in, if your position is one that expresses a desire to deny or restrict or control basic human rights to people of color, LGBTQ or women, you will not get my vote and while I won’t campaign against you as a Democrat, I won’t campaign for you either.

Examples: if you express a anti-abortion/abstinence only/anti-BC stance/any position that would or could limit reproductive healthcare for women, even just as a personally held belief you claim you would not act on, you will not get my vote.

If you would/could seek to limit or degrade marriage or adoption rights of LGBTQ couples, even as a personally held belief you claim you would not act on, you will not get my vote.

If you seek, vote or advocate for a position that promotes or allows institutional racism to fester, from fair reporting of home loan practices (see weaking of Dodd-Frank Bill) to full accountability of police in their interactions with people of color, you will not get my vote.

I have to take a stand. A line has to be drawn somewhere and this is the hill I choose to die on.

What makes us Democrats if we are willing to compromise on these principles?

Am I my brother and sister’s keeper? Yes I am.

[Leith]

25. Rigid Thinking Is Not the Way to Go

My pragmatism is kicking in again and I'm grumpy from a high pollen count today.

If a candidate supports 90% of what you do, are you really going to quibble about the other 10%? Refusing to vote for the Democratic / liberal candidate moves the rethug that much closer to winning and none of what you want will happen. That's the way Susan Sarandon thinks - and where did that get us?

Yes, I will vote for the Democrat even if those policies I feel strongly about and will affect me most are put on the back burner for the next few years. I've never agreed with any candidate 100% of the time. I've even refused to vote for the candidate that most closely matched my beliefs because of other factors (I'm talking about Dennis Kucinich here) because the whole package is more important than some of the parts.

Politics is the art of compromise. Do you really prefer nothing to most?

[angrychair]

28. Thats part of the problem

Do you really prefer nothing to most?

What do we have if we have a candidate that is willing to “compromise” on human rights issues like a women’s access to reproductive healthcare?

If enough people, in enough red/purple areas of the country takes the position “it’s one issue out of 99 it doesn’t matter” and those people make it into office, that issue matters all of a sudden. In the case of the Senate they normally only need a couple to be willing to compromise their way on restricting reproductive healthcare and in a stroke of a pen, women are sent back to the dark ages.

I get your point, I do. But to many people have suffered and to much blood, sweat and tears have soaked the ground to dismiss how incredibly important the gains that have been made are and just how fragile they really are to not choose the candidate that gets your precious vote with care.

I’m not saying I would sit idle and let another republican majority sit in Congress, I’m saying we should demand more of our candidates and only support and encourage candidates that will never compromise on human rights.

[TheBlackAdder]

8. As long as the centrists aren't part of the Koch-funded 3rd Way, meant to water down Democrat positions

[Martin Eden]

9. "electing Dems over Reps is of paramount importance"

Agreed.

And I truly believe we don't win elections by becoming Republican lite.

We win elections by crafting a strong consistent message in support of effective policies which benefit the vast majority of voters.

We win elections by putting forth candidates who speak the truth and gain the trust of the people, inspiring them to get out and vote.

The Senate Democrats who joined Republicans to advance the bank lobbyist bill have moved to the center.

To move in that direction is to be co-opted by the forces we are fighting against.

[DanTex]

16. In some states, centrism is necessary to win elections.

Call it "Republican lite" if you want, the terminology doesn't matter. The fact is that Elizabeth Warren can't win in West Virginia or Montana.

I disagree with the Dems who voted for the bank bill, and am particularly disappointed in the ones that come from blue states. If I were in, say, Delaware, and there was a viable primary candidate against a Senator who voted for this bill or other similar ones, I would be inclined to support that candidate, under certain conditions. And one of the conditions would be that said candidate must make it clear that, whether they win or lose the primary, they are never going to be peddling "both sides are the same" or toying with third parties or any such stupidity.

[Martin Eden]

26. Anyone who says "both sides are the same" is either a moron or working for the Repukes

"Left" and "Right" exist along a 2-dimensional axis, but there are too many issues to accurately measure a candidate on that scale.

Perception is not reality, even if it plays that way in politics. Among Warren's biggest issues are consumer protection against fraud & predatory loan practices and protecting our economy against another Wall Street meltdown.

Those issues should play well with every voter who does not stand to gain enormous short term wealth from dangerous financial deregulation.

No doubt some of Warren's positions on other issues don't play as well in certain states, but the reality is it's a waste of time trying to persuade diehard Trumpers & teabaggers. We need to strengthen the Democratic Party overall with a strong consistent message and policies.

The keys to victory are earning the trust of voters and motivating them to get out and vote.

In Democratic primaries we do have to consider who has the best chance of winning the general election, but for me personally there are disqualifiers. I have never in a primary supported a candidate who in 2002 voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq. But that didn't stop me from traveling to Ohio to get out the vote for John Kerry in 2004.

[alarimer]

10. What are you calling "fringe" left?

It used to be that socialists were the far left. Now it's anyone who wants Medicare for all or a living wage, all what used to be sensible, even centrist, policies.

Republicans have become so far right and the Democrats have bent over backwards to move towards them, that basic, fundamental decency to the least among us is now "far left".

Because there are Democrats that are so odious (Dan Lipinski) I could never bring myself to ever vote for them, should I find myself in their district.

[retread]

11. I read your entire piece, but really could have stopped at "fringe left". The use of that

phrase revealed your agenda.

[zipplewrath]

12. Interesting semantics

It is interesting to me the elevated status that centrists tend to have. Left leaning voters are expected to vote democratic, centrists have to be encouraged. Left wing that vote third party have "thrown away" their votes, but centrists that vote GOP are "lost". One can only win with centrists, but lefties are obstacles. We always have to "move to the center", but be "pulled" to the left.

Politics isn't a line running from left to right. It is a circle with centrists standing at the center. And they tend to look around themselves and see not a circle, but a hill, with themselves standing at the top. People around the perimeter on the other hand tend to see it as a canyon, into which one tends to slide.

[DanTex]

17. Interesting points, but I didn't use those semantics.

In fact, my first sentence I talked about "moving" the party to the left, not "pulling" it.

I disagree that centrists have elevated status, at least in the Democratic Party. The party leadership has not come from the centrist wing since the 90s. The centrists are people like Manchin and Heitkamp. They don't set the party agenda.

The reason left wingers that vote third party are throwing away their votes is that third party votes don't make any difference in deciding who wins office. "Throwing away" is exactly what they are doing. The same is true for people who vote libertarian.

The difference between centrist voters and leftist voters is that, on the basis of policy, from a leftist perspective the Democrat will always be closer to the ideal than the Republican, regardless of how close the D is to any particular leftist voter. So for a leftist to vote third party is truly irrational. A centrist voter, on the other hand, might have some D views and some R views, so if the D is further left, that centrist might rationally decide that the R is close to their views than the D. This is straight logic, it's not an attempt to elevate anyone over anyone else.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. At this point, let's hope the fringes have moved to the Greens or the Republicans, so they can....

leave us the hell alone. When I hear "third way", or "DLC" these days, it sets off my spide-y senses and I know exactly where the poster is coming from. Living in the South, I understand the strategy of Red State Dems. Whatever puts the gavel in the hands of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi is fine by me.

[BoneyardDem]

14. agreed.

Statements made on NPR over the last few days say the same thing regarding the Far Left screeching they have what a majority of the nation wants...the vocal minority is wrong and not representative, and are a turn off.

[JCanete]

19. wait a second, I don't actually think you are correct about folding on social issues. It may be a

mixed bag, just like the democratic party as a whole is a mixed bag on social issues, but for the most part, that just does not jive with the messaging I hear daily from those I listen to, from the candidates to say TYT, etc.

Sure though, give us primaries, quit trying to decide the outcome or steer the outcome before the voters learn about these candidates with the party apparatus, and on the other end of it nobody should have a beef with a democratically elected front-runner chosen by the voters. The problem is people feel like the deck is stacked, AND it really is. Money conquers all. So how do you combat people's disaffectedness?

First and foremost, the far left hardly has a platform compared to main-stream voices. They are influential at the fringes. Some may very well be profiteers who understand that shitting on the establishment is a good counter-programming business model, but others just want to see the Democratic Party be the beacon it is supposed to be. Some go out of their way to praise actions by those more mainstream politicians when they behave in a manner that feels consistent with liberal democratic values.

So is this really the source of the public's dissatisfaction? If you lean hard left, you go to find these voices because they more closely fit the way you see the world, but if you don't or if you simply checked out of politics because its painful, you may not be exposed to these voices at all aside from the occasional interview where somebody like Sarandon is brought on to talk about her perspective.

The issue as I see it, is that too often on significant legislation the Democrats fail to distinguish themselves from the GOP. A minority of protest votes does not count as a distinction when 2, 8, 17 democrats cross over. And sometimes when its one or two, the cynical voice in my head wonders if its just that person's turn to take the shit.

IF you could actually demonstrate that our strategy has been a winning one, or even that the only reason it hasn't been a winning one is because of those ungrateful conniving greens and other lefties, you might have a case, but greens aren't the reason we've lost a 1000 seats in 30 years. They aren't in all of those races.

And as far as I see it, if we didn't have a green party to give voice to those voters who have given up on the Democratic party then we would not have a democratic party that has had to adapt to court those more progressively aligned voters. A scale is not in balance if a certain voice speaks volumes with money and everybody else stays mum because pressure is bad.

By the way, you are giving us a hell of a narrative here. You want to trash the greens for being third party spoilers, but THEN caution everybody about primary challengers. What the ever loving fuck? Hey, if somebody runs in the primary and then runs 3rd party after losing i'll be right there with you. But until then you are suggesting people may not want to vote for these challengers in the primary because they may do something like this later if they dont' get voted for in the primary?

[DanTex]

22. I agree it's a mixed bag, but yeah, the "new progressives" (for lack of a better term)

are generally in favor of increasing the relative emphasis on economic versus social issues, which means reducing the relative emphasis on social issues. This is what people complaining about "identity politics" are talking about. Remember that Bernie, who basically every "new progressive" primary challenger cites as a model or inspiration, went to Liberty University to talk to social conservatives about economic issues, but it's virtually impossible to imagine him or candidates in his mold going to the Club for Growth to talk about abortion and gay rights.

You make an interesting point at the end about my trashing Greens and also cautioning against primary challengers. I'm not against all primary challengers, I'm just against primary challengers that come from the fringe part of the left that wants to burn the Dems down.

Like you said, if a primary candidate loses and then runs third party, then you'd agree with me. Well, what about a primary candidate that goes on, say, the Jimmy Dore show to bash the Democratic "establishment"? Jimmy Dore is effectively a GOP ally (the fantasy that helping the GOP win elections will eventually usher in a progressive "revolution" notwithstanding). Of course, going on the Dore show doesn't mean endorsing Dore's agenda, but it still means pandering to a certain group of fringe left conspiracy nuts that help the GOP win elections. And, yeah, I would be suspicious of anyone like that.

It's unfortunate that we have this situation at all. It would be much better if there weren't a suicidal third-party/both-parties-are-the-same thing going on on the fringe left. But the only people to blame for this are those that poisoned the well, Greens, Bernie-or-Busters, etc.

And because of that, it is a legitimate question to ask of some primary challengers, whether they actually want to help elect Dems and push progressive policies, or if they are just there to attack the Democratic Party and burn down the "establishment".

[tomp]

27. this crap again?

You have a choice: you can convince me that "The Party" represents my views or you can risk doing without my vote. It's really that simple.

Seems like you are simply giving lip service to the party moving left but you don't really want that to happen, and will always find an excuse for us not to actually go there. And certainly, the hierarchy of the democratic party absolutely does not want to go there, and has fought tooth and nail against moving left as long as I've been alive (age 64). Even that great progressive Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, laid it out pretty clearly (no "ponies," i.e., we're not moving left, get behind the hierarchy).

I also smell a straw man in your characterization of current trends.

Also, I think Ralph Nader is a true American hero. I like Sanders. I have no problem with the Greens.

Do you want my vote or not? I've held my nose so many times voting for dems that it's starting to lose circulation.

It may have escaped you, but we're running out of time. We don't just need to move in a progressive direction. We need to move radically in a progressive direction. The status quo is objectively not working.