Democrats Push Left, but Need Moderate Swing States - Seib

[question everything]

Most would agree that the four most important states in President Trump’s victory were Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. In those four states, the share of voters who said in exit polls that they considered themselves liberals were 27%, 27%, 25% and 25%, respectively. In each state, the share of voters who called themselves moderates was at least 10 percentage points higher. And in the three of those states where voters were asked about health care, the share who said Obamacare went too far was significantly higher—more than 10 percentage points—than the share saying Obamacare didn’t go far enough. So here is a question about the 2020 presidential race: Why do Democrats think they can win back such states with a more liberal agenda, one built in particular around going much further than Obamacare toward a Medicare-for-all, government-run health system?

That is the political puzzler that emerges after last week’s initial Democratic Party debates. In those debates, two camps emerged: a majority of the candidates seemed to fit into a progressive camp that would move the party to the left, and a minority of candidates fit into a more-moderate mold, who would root the party more in the center. It’s still way early in the nominating process, but first impressions matter. And the first impression from the debates was of a dominant progressive wing, and a party moving to the left on the economy, health care and immigration. That road is at least a risky one.

As a purely political matter, there are a few reasons to think a push to the left might work better than this initial appearance suggests. The first is the possibility that the whole country has shifted to the left over the past four years. The second is the theory that 2020 is going to be purely a base election, in which victory will be determined not by winning over undecided voters in the middle but by exciting and turning out your base. In that case, liberals exciting other liberals is a way to offset Mr. Trump pumping up his base. And the third is that, health care aside, liberals may resonate with their broader argument that the economy has stopped treating average Americans fairly and needs a broad reset. In Michigan, for example, voters by more than two-to-one said in 2016 exit polls that the economy favors the wealthy more than is fair to most Americans.

(snip)

If Mr. Biden proves not to be the standard-bearer for the moderate camp, who could be? Sen. Amy Klobuchar delivered a solid debate performance, and has an attractive political profile: woman from the industrial Midwest with a Biden-like history of working in the political middle. She may emerge as the most attractive alternative moderate voice. Beyond her, Rep. Tim Ryan and former Rep. John Delaney both gave forceful voice to moderate positions in the debates, but they are basically footnotes in the campaign at this point. Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg both have shown some ability to keep a foot in both the progressive and moderate camps.

As big as the Democratic field is, it actually feels the absence of two significant figures with a proven ability to speak to moderates and traditional, working-class voters. Both Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe chose not to run, presumably at least in part because they thought Mr. Biden would dominate the moderate lane in the race, leaving little room for them. Their absence now seems conspicuous.

More..

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-push-left-but-need-moderate-swing-states-11561987679 (paid subscription)

Seib is the political commentator of the WSJ and is not rabid

[Skittles]

1. strange

we never see Republicans push Right, but Need Moderate Swing States

[Indygram]

2. To win those moderate states Democrats just need an inspirational candidate who can

sell progressive values in conservative places...just like Beto did in Texas.

[Skittles]

3. Beto would be great

[Honeycombe8]

5. You can't fool a moderate into thinking a progressive is the middle of the pack.

He will know, of course. Whether he'll go ahead and vote for one is unknown. He may have concerns of high taxes to pay for all those student loans, and the reparation payments, and the free health care to illegal immigrants (as one candidate supports in his/her state). A lot of free stuff was promised during the two nights of debates.

There wasn't much talk of what matters to most people, like jobs. Inflation. Retirement. Trade agreements that they think take away American jobs.

There was some talk of fairer taxes, but it was to tax rich people to pay for those progressive plans...not about lowering taxes for anyone. There was talk about climate change. There was talk about health care, but they were huge plans that would mean tax increases...and there was talk of taking away private insurance. (On the plus side, at least the Democrats are grappling with the difficult issue of health care. The Repubs won't even admit there's a problem.) But there was no talk, I think, of tackling the high cost of prescription meds.

Things like that will be noticed by moderates.

Will there be a candidate for moderates in either party to vote for? Repub moderates won't want to vote for Trump. Independents who are moderates won't want to vote for Trump. Liberal moderates won't vote for Trump. Will those people have choices? It's an interesting situation.

I'm a standard liberal, which would be called moderate these days. I've watched with dismay as people get all excited about all the wonderful choices in the lineup of candidates, because that's not what I see. I have liked Pete from the start, and I like Klobuchar (so the article was spot on about her...moderates would go for her). Two candidates who have almost no chance of getting the nomination.

[Indygram]

8. There are over half a million Texas Republicans who voted for Abbot AND Beto who disagree

eom

[Honeycombe8]

10. I don't know who Abbot is, but Beto is a moderate.

Beto is definitely a liberal....of the moderate variety. Look at his congressional record.

It seems easier to fool a progressive that a moderate is a progressive, than the opposite. Progressives also were upset to discover that Obama was ultimately more moderate than progressive, but I knew he was from the start.

[Indygram]

11. I'm a moderate

Beto is more progressive than I am. He's sort of mid way between progressive and moderate, which is why he is the best option...he can unite the left.

[Honeycombe8]

13. There's a spectrum, for sure.

I wish Beto had done better. It would be nice to have him as a choice. Or Pete (which is who I'm going with until he drops out). Pete is another moderate. Klobuchar is a moderate.

I guess Biden is a moderate, but I just don't think he's the right one. And he's actually more to the right than a moderate.

[Indygram]

15. Beto is doing fine on the ground...the polls mean very little this early

His campaign has had people canvassing all across the country within a couple of weeks of him announcing. Much of his support is with young voters and many first time voters. Those people don't get polled but he proved his ability to get them to the polls in Texas, where ironically, canvassers are seeing strong support for Beto with Republicans. In at least one DEEP RED district he's even beating Trump in Texas. I suspect that his fund raising totals are going to really surprise people. Of course the media will likely ignore it again...like how he pulled in over 9 million dollars in contributions in only 18 days, lol.

[Honeycombe8]

18. Beto has lost some of his confidence, seemed to me.

He's not speaking as confidently as he did in 2018. It's no wonder, since the wind was knocked out of him after he entered the Presidential race.

Things may change quite a bit, once the also-rans start dropping out.

[Demsrule86]

20. This is true...I think Biden is the only one who can win...we need three states...

Florida would be great but MI, WI and PA would get the job done.

[Turin_C3PO]

23. Polls show

that a majority of people agree with several progressive ideas including gun control, universal healthcare, a wealth tax, etc. I’ll go dig around for the article if you want.

What I’m saying is that while I think Joe Biden has the best shot to demolish Trump, I also think Warren, Harris, O’Rourke, and Buttigieg would beat him also. Especially Warren, she has a way of explaining her plans that is very persuasive and would play well to Rust Belt voters’ needs and concerns, IMO.

[Demsrule86]

27. Only Biden will beat Trump...I live in the rust belt in Ohio...close enough to walk to PA

You will not win on the issue of gun control, universal healthcare or a wealth tax...this is a manufacturing area and was lost because Trump promised help in this area...Trump lied and we have a shot...but not with a progressive candidate that has spent the primary calling for reparations, MFA,busing or gun control etc. Joe Biden has ties to this area and can win. He visited extensively in 08 and 12 and connected with folks. I do not believe any of the others have a shot especially after they have essentially run left during the primary.

[question everything]

49. Well said. Thank you

We heard about that millionaire who promised to pay the student loans of the graduating class. But then there were the students who graduated last year and wondered about their loans.

I've hears some said that there are not enough Jeff Bezos to pay for all the "freebies" offered by Sanders and others.

And, I think, that moderates and independents like the self responsibility. We already hear about people who did not go to college, or who did pay their student loans wonder why we, the tax payers should shoulder these payments.

[Turin_C3PO]

53. So it's an "I got mine, fuck you" mentality?

Because that’s what your post reads like. I paid my student loans myself but I have no problem with debt relief for current loan payers. College is ridiculously expensive and students shouldn’t be saddled with crippling debt their whole life.

Democrats can win with a progressive agenda. Polls show it. Higher income taxes on the wealthy, a wealth tax, gun control, universal healthcare, and more are all very popular with the public. The key is to convince them to vote on those issues rather than on their fears and hatred.

PS: I never hear that Republicans need to appeal to moderates. And yet they win often. I wonder why that is..

[emmaverybo]

54. Good post. Serious considerations. NT

[shanny]

16. Why would anyone think a progressive

economic message would not resonate in the "moderate" states, particularly the rust belt?

And why should we think that even a non-rabid WSJ contributor would have good advice for Democrats?

[Honeycombe8]

19. The rust belt is historically a Democratic stronghold.

There's something wrong, I think, when we fail to get those states. We need them to win, or we have to get OH and FL (and we know the likelihood of that).

The question is not how do we convince the rust belt voters to change to suit the party's needs, the question is...why isn't the party addressing the needs of the rust belt Democrats? They're Americans and Democrats every bit as much as any other. Our party is a big tent party.

To appeal to one group does not mean to diss another. But one end of the spectrum shouldn't be catered to, to the exclusion of the other groups.

[shanny]

24. Very true.

Those states ARE historically a Democratic stronghold, so we need to examine why they abandoned* us, and how to bring them back. We need to re-assert our identity as the party of the people.

*to the extent that they did, absent banana republicans' and Russian interference.

[Demsrule86]

25. +1000 well said.

[Demsrule86]

21. The point is with an electoral college win being needed...we have to take three out of four of those

states or we lose. A progressive won't win. It has been my message for a couple of months now.

[shanny]

26. And I think your message is 180 degrees off course.

Just my two cents. tRump "won" those states by running to the left: inexpensive health care for all, ending trade deals--which, rightly or wrongly, are credited with loss of jobs--etc. I don't think you can claim that the 8 million Obama-to-tRump voters were racist in their motivation. They took a flyer on a liar but I doubt they will again. And a progressive economic message (Hope and Change!) is exactly what we need to bring them home.

[Demsrule86]

32. No he didn't run left.. being a populist is very different and he promised to help with

manufacturing and provide good jobs ending bad trade deals and better health care...we have largely not recovered from 08. He lied. But this is a moderate/conservative area Voters are not 'woke' and we will lose with a progressive candidate...especially one of the top four who have with the exception of Biden run left.

Biden convinced the rustbelt including Ohio to give Obama a chance...he was great. We are going to lose if we nominate Harris or Warren...we just are. I do think Sanders would have a better chance but would lose in the end because of MFA. Now Trump is saying, 'things will better give me time'...a lie. However, if we offer them things they don't give a crap about,it will resonate and they will choose Trump. What have they got to lose from there prospective?

[question everything]

50. And, I don't think they want a typcal "coastie."

Kamala Harris won the debate, but can she really appeal to middle America? "A liberal from San Francisco?"

[Demsrule86]

52. Amy would have a better shot that Kamala.

The answer is not ...she won't appeal to middle America.

[Demsrule86]

37. So we can change them...in less than a year...it won't happen. It has been tried before and we lost.

Better to pick a candidate they like.

[Honeycombe8]

4. Yes, there were those issues a while back.

When the Tea Party started emerging. Establishment fought back. Years later, and the far right is still there, going by the name Freedom Caucus in the House, now. Establishment Republicans have started registering as Independents, particularly because of Trump. But that started back with the Bush-Cheney administration.

McCain was their moderate candidate. George Bush was considered moderate at the time, just as his father had been. Reagan was establishment Republican (he even granted amnesty to illegal immigrants).

So the Republicans deal with this issue, as well.

[Honeycombe8]

6. Reminder: Obama was charismatic, brilliant, & exciting. And a moderate.

Obama was a moderate, except for his health care reform plan.

That would be one way to go: moderation, except for one big issue.

[tishaLA]

22. the ACA was moderate, though

I mean, it started at the Heritage Foundation.

[shanny]

28. lol that the ACA was a moderate plan.

c'mon, man!

including a public option would have been a moderate plan with, you know, public and private options.

[Turin_C3PO]

31. The ACA was moderate.

In fact, love of the ACA is what flipped those red districts blue in 2018. Healthcare was the number issue in the Blue Wave.

Even adding a public option would still be moderate.

Progressive would be Medicare for All, and you’re right about it not being as popular due to the elimination of private insurance.

[Honeycombe8]

33. The ACA, as modified...is what is popular w/moderates and middle class.

Mandate gone. Choice to buy a more appropriate ins. policy for less money (particularly for older middle class insureds).

[Turin_C3PO]

47. Yes.

What I’m saying is that the ACA right now, is associated with Democrats and is and was a winning issue. Trump and the Repubs may have been the ones to change the ACA but Democrats are still benefiting from it and it’s popularity and need to run on it in 2020.

Kitchen table issues ruled in 2018 and will rule again in 2020, provided Democrats don’t screw up royally.

[MarcA]

7. Joe Donnelly for VP ? n/t

[Demsrule86]

38. Donnelly would have a better chance in the rustbelt than Harris ... and in case you missed it...we

have one less Senator because of his loss...and that is a bad thing. I would say Warren would not win the rustbelt either...to be honest.

[Turin_C3PO]

9. Trump is a far right fascist.

If the people in the swing states choose him over ANY of our candidates then I doubt their claim as moderates and instead label them right-wing radicals.

[Honeycombe8]

34. For independents, establishment Repubs, and moderate Democrats...

the choice is not vote for Trump or vote for the Dem. The choice for some will likely be...vote for the Dem., or not vote, or vote third party.

We've been down this road before.

[Demsrule86]

40. It is not that simple and who cares what they claim if they give Trump four more years...maybe we

run a moderate who can gain their votes...that seems the best idea to me.

[Celerity]

12. this right here spells doom for even a public option IF this is indeed widespread

In each state, the share of voters who called themselves moderates was at least 10 percentage points higher. And in the three of those states where voters were asked about health care, the share who said Obamacare went too far was significantly higher—more than 10 percentage points—than the share saying Obamacare didn’t go far enough.

They think even the ACA, ffs, want too far.

[mr_lebowski]

14. Not 'the ACA' ... 'Obamacare' ... they're two different things to a whole bunch of dipshits ...

Along these lines 'a public option that anyone can buy into' is a shit-ton simpler than the ACA (or Obamacare), and an easier sell.

Terms like "Medicare for All" and "Free College" are DUMB political terms. As is raising your hand for 'covering illegals medical care'. There's no need for that, it's literally dumb.

Dems need to get WAAAAY smarter in their messaging.

Using terms like 'A Public Option you can BUY into', 'Tuition and Debt REFORM' will work WAY better than anything that screams out 'which we'll raise your taxes to pay for'.

[Celerity]

17. I absolutely agree on the messaging part, but I am very pessimistic on a public option

being passed.

these two previous replies of mine (they are interlocked on the subject) go a bit into the structural governance blockage I see

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212237047#post57

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212237047#post69




btw

yes:

As is raising your hand for 'covering illegals medical care'. There's no need for that, it's literally dumb.

Bullock said no the next morning after the 2nd debate, when Morning Joe gave hive a nice chunk of airtime

he says emergency treatment only, as if they get what even many Americans do not have (full stop insurance, whether public or private) it is a huge magnet, plus we will get smashed in the elections

[Honeycombe8]

44. Democrats cannot claim not to know this. I've been discussing this for years, and hearing about it.

As a middle class Democrat, Obama voter and donor, and ACA supporter...I ended up being very unhappy with what the ACA did to people like me. It was very unfair to the point that it sent me into a deep depression for a long time. There was no way out. I was trapped by the ACA. And without good ins. coverage, despite a very expensive policy.

The ACA used us, older middle class people, as "funders" for the ACA. So the ACA could take that money and give it to someone else...not so the someone else could get the same, terrible, bronze level HMO that I had. My money was used so that someone else would get GREAT insurance (that I could not afford) at far less cost. If you can follow the irony of that. I was paying a lot for a bad policy that I could barely use, if I could use it at all....so that someone else could get the kind of policy that I could never afford, for far less money.

Needless to say, many of those people voted for someone besides a Democrat in 2016, or they didn't vote. (I was going to qualify for Medicare in a couple of years, so it wasn't a pressing issue for me, any more. I was going without medical care entirely, having given up, and very lucky to be in excellent health. Except I did go to urgent care for a dog bite, and got blood work done one year in the 5 years I had it. I paid about $150 for those two things combined.)

It was so bad at one point...that my independent contracting employer sent me to the doctor because I was so sick. She wouldn't let me back to work w/o a doctor's release. I went to CVS clinic, but found out it would cost $100 to get checked out. (My policy had a $4,500 - $6k deductible.) I didn't want to pay that much for something I didn't think I needed. The nurse on staff felt sorry for me, when he saw how sad I was about the predicament I was in, caused by a bad ins policy and a bad boss. So he did the exam for free.

Here's another warning: Trump listened to the cries for help, and he and Repubs answered the call. They did away w/the mandate, so at least someone could opt out and not have to pay thousands of dollars for a useless policy. And they reinstituted the ability to buy short term ins. policies. If the Dems want those middle class people back, they have to address this issue, and be aware of the two solutions that helped them...and who did it for them. The Repub goal was not just to mess up the ACA. They were directly addressing the predicament I describe above.

I don't know how many there are, and what party affiliations they all are. Maybe the Democratic leaders think there aren't enough of them to matter. But it will be interesting seeing what happens. Maybe a universal plan will address this issue (but I got the impression that most people just don't care about older middle class people, when I was trying to explain to people what was happening).

[BeyondGeography]

55. Read the above post, people

And thank you for adding some much needed realism and depth to the discussion.

[Mme. Defarge]

29. I like Klobuchar a lot.

If not at the top of the ticket, then a superb VP candidate.

[Demsrule86]

36. She would be great.

[Demsrule86]

35. We can't . Yestderday, I heard some excitedly talking about the party being as liberal as the 80's

But consider, we lost every presidential election in the 80's...it wasn't until Clinton created a big tent in the 90's that we won a presidential election...and Clinton never had a majority and would not have won either in 92 or 96 without third party spoilers. This desire to toss out moderates and ignore the fact we need their votes is nuts.

[Turin_C3PO]

58. Well, in the past

moderates were our nominee and progressives were asked to be team players and vote against the Republican. I think it’s only fair that moderates do the same if the tables are turned.

[Turin_C3PO]

60. I see far less

vitriol directed at moderates this cycle as opposed to 2016. I don’t agree with purity tests. You’ll notice I’m supporting Biden because I believe he’s most electable. But I do believe a progressive like Elizabeth Warren could win. She’s very friendly and good natured and tends to be very persuasive when explaining her plans. Plus polls show that on several issues, the public has moved leftward.

Either way, moderates and progressives must unite or we’re screwed. We have to turn out in large enough numbers to overcome Russian interference, Republican voter suppression, and the electoral college disadvantage.

[BeyondGeography]

39. The ones Trump won?

Yeah, they were looking for moderate solutions.

Factor out the haters and there is still a lot of desperation out there and people who want and need real change. They got scammed, but they aren’t coming back for just a little fine tuning around the edges.

It’s a great country where writers like this can be so clueless and still make good money.

[Demsrule86]

41. YOu do understand that we will lose if we don't win in WI, PA and MI...right?

[BeyondGeography]

43. Yeah, I understand how we lost them, too

Hence Warren 2020 for me.

[Demsrule86]

45. Warren will never win the rust belt...she has run to far left for the region.

[BeyondGeography]

46. We shall see

I think she’s running a great campaign and will play very well there. This is what primary season is for, right?

[Demsrule86]

42. Regardless of their politics...also. The writers are correct. take a look at the electoral map.

We are in a desperate situation here.

[MineralMan]

48. You're wasting your breath, or wearing out your fingers.

Your argument is correct, but the readers aren't paying any attention. They are so sure that a candidate from the left will win everywhere that they cannot hear anyone say anything else.

You're absolutely right - we must win those states. Joe Biden will win them against Trump. I can't say that about any other candidate and have any sense of certainty.

[Demsrule86]

51. You are correct, they will insist that any left leaning candidate can beat Trump,

and I spent a great deal of time on the varous electoral maps and the senate map...ah well. Let's hope that Biden is in fact the candidate because I agree I can't say with any certainty that any other candidate can beat Trump. Thanks.

[MineralMan]

57. And if they lost, they'd just say the candidate wasn't progressive ENOUGH.

It's a position that can't be disproved.

[Raven123]

56. What policies of the moderates appeal to the states concerned?

These commentaries perturb me because when they say “moderate” I hear status quo regards the policies that have for so long contributed to economic stagnation. When I hear the MSM report that midwestern Trump 2016 voters wanted someone who would clean out the swamp and upend the system, I can’t square that with a purported desire for a moderate. I am waiting on specifics regarding policy preferences that would support that argument.