Confirmation bias and election results

[Recursion]

I've noticed this the past couple of midterms, so I thought I would do a poll to see DU's opinion.

Take two narratives of this election, which I will label as Penguin and Woodchuck.

Penguin narrative: The safest seats were the most liberal members of our caucus; the candidates who got into trouble were the ones who ran as moderates or conservatives and distanced themselves from the President. So, Democratic candidates should stop running as moderates or conservatives because it doesn't work (and anyways we don't want our caucus to get more conservative). Summary: Democratic candidates who move to the right lose.

Woodchuck narrative: The candidates who ran to the right did so because they are in states or districts that are much more conservative than the nation as a whole. Because the Democratic party is unpopular there, the candidates' only real chance is to downplay their party affiliation and run on particular issues, which may often involve specific positions that are not in line with the party at large. Summary: Democratic candidates who are less likely to win respond by moving to the right.

Which of the two narratives do you think is closer to the truth?

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Moderate/conservative Democratic candidates lose
	1 (25%)
	Democratic candidates facing tough elections run as moderates/conservatives
	3 (75%)
	Your summary of the narratives is wrong, and I'll tell you why...
	0 (0%)
	Manchester United are playing very badly this year
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Seeking Serenity]

1. Looking at my state, Arkansas,

it's been a Republican clean sweep. So Pryor had no choice but to run to the right of the party nationally. Had he run more to the left, his loss would have been even larger. It is what it is.

[Dont call me Shirley]

2. Dems need to stop supporting mic cia and nsa, legislate climate warming abatement, labor rights,

women's rights, food safety and health, pollution control, sane education, single payer healthcare, increase renewable energy, regulate regulate regulate banks and corporations, infrastructure renewal which would provide good jobs and do it fast!

[LeftInTX]

3. The Rs skewered Wendy Davis

Called her "Abortion Barbie" because she filibustered an abortion bill.

If she would have come for marijuana legalization they would have called her a pothead. Anything more liberal they would have attacked her more.

She basically ran on a pro-education platform. Her opponent ran anti-Obama everything.

She got 40% of the vote.

I live in a very red state.

[MFrohike]

4. Kay Hagan

She actually ran a campaign ad touting her credentials as a "moderate." She cited the National Journal, which named her the most moderate senator. The first time I saw it, I thought she'd lose. I didn't think she'd lose because people dislike moderates, I thought she'd lose because it was pandering. You can pander all day long to your base, but you don't pander to the unaffiliated and expect to win. Hell, that's the only thing W ever did that is worth learning. If you are seen to being true to your positions, nevermind whether you are, people will buy it all day, every day. That simple fact is why Democrats running to the middle or right in close races lose.

[Recursion]

5. Huh? W pandered to the center constantly

He oversaw the largest expansion of Medicare since its foundation, worked with Ted Kennedy to create the biggest Federal expansion in education ever, indicated he would sign a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban (which Congress didn't renew), and was willing to sign on with immigration reform (which, again, Congress didn't deliver). Hell, he even ran as a "compassionate conservative", which drove the right crazy.

[MFrohike]

6. You are partly right

He pandered in 2000 on the compassionate conservative thing. That being said, I didn't talk about pandering to the middle. I said pandering to the unaffiliated. It's often assumed that unaffiliated voters are in the middle, but every self-described independent I've ever met is right-wing as hell. I don't know how representative that is of the whole, but it's my experience.

The pandering I meant was his campaign in 2004. He ran on gay marriage, Iraq, and the economy. He stuck to his script on those issues and didn't try to pretend like he'd rethink his positions on anything. That isn't what Hagan did at all. She undercut herself by hyping her moderation, she actually appeared in the commercial, and talked about how proud she was to be named the most moderate senator. That was a clear message aimed directly at unaffiliated voters. She was busy telling them that she wasn't really a Democrat, she was a Moderate, whatever the hell that is. Don't get me wrong, this race was only close because Tillis and his paymasters ran the most dishonest campaign I have ever seen. That being said, she did herself no favors by trying to seem like some nebulous centrist.