Could the Democratic Party become a centrist majority party, and would that be a good thing?

[rogerashton]

Would it be a good thing? Most of my fellow lefties will probably disagree, but I think it would. After all, a dead-center majority party would have no more than 25% to its right, and that's less than Trump's lower limit of 1/3; and it would have something in the range of 20% or more to its left, and that's more than we on the left seem to put up now. The task of the left would then be -- as it already is -- to move the whole system leftward, I think that would be more promising in a 3-party system such as this.

But "you can't get there from here."

The NYT Sunday Review today had 4 op-ed pieces on how the Dems might win. It was the one entitled "Democrats can still seize the center" that proved to me that it really is impossible. When your opposition proves your point ...

This op-ed referenced mostly Republican sources. It said "Democrats cannot bank on the theory 'that non-Trump voters have "no place else to go" because in 2016 they did just that ... About eight million voters voted for third-party candidates in 2016 ....'"

Right. Of those eight million, 4.5 million voted Libertarian, 1.5 million Green, 200000 Constitution, and a bit less than 100000 for assorted socialist parties. Thus we have 4.7 million who voted against Trump because he wasn't conservative enough, as they understand conservative, and another 1.6 million who voted against the Democratic nominee because she wasn't far enough left, as they understand left. All we have to do to win a centrist majority is find a candidate and create a party platform that will bring Libertarians and Greens into our party, without losing the loyal Democratic left.

The 3/4 of a million who voted for McMullin might choose a moderate democratic candidate. (McMullin's candidacy was independent and so evidently did not count as "third party." ) But these are the ones who really do have no-where else to go, except to fail again. They will probably follow that other failure, Bill Weld, back into the Republican Party.

A further point made in favor of centrism is that voters who vote only in general elections -- not primaries -- prefer more moderate positions. Right, and they are also the ones most likely not to vote at all.

Building a center-left coalition won't be easy. But the notion of a centrist majority party is even harder, if not impossible. There just aren't many votes in the center.

[redstatebluegirl]

1. I agree but get ready to be hammered by the progressive purists who don't see us as one of them.

We all have to live with what happens in 2020. Some of us who have been here a little longer recognize that the country is not where a lot of people think it is. As someone said if we nominate a Sanders or Warren the ads write themselves. I wish we were more progressive but we are not.

I totally understand that climate change and gun reform are HUGE issues, but I also know that nothing happens to either of those things until we own all three House, Senate and White House. The thing nobody wants to talk about is the Supreme Court, that court he has put in place will make us miserable for 30 years not 4.

[wasupaloopa]

6. When the repubs lose the righties say it is because they did not go right enough, when Dems lose

the lefties say it was because we did not go left enough. When in reality the righties and lefties stay home and the vast majority of voters are middle of the road.

[brush]

29. It already is a centrist majority party. I dare say it always has...

been with progressives on he left trying to pull it left and blue dogs on the right doing he oppositel

Thank God progressives have had the most success.

The more pragmatic, left-of-center Dems like Clinton and Obama get the Dem nod not the right-of-center Dems.

[beastie boy]

2. Not only would it be a good thing, it is the only thing.

I don't see a path to victory for the Democrats, at least not in this election cycle, except through moving and consolidating toward the center.

[TwilightZone]

3. If one combines conservative and moderate Dems, it's already about 50/50 with liberals

Though, the party has been getting more liberal in recent years.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/246806/understanding-shifts-democratic-party-ideology.aspx

The party is more centrist/moderate than many people realize, especially those further to the left on the political scale.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. "...especially those further to the left on the political scale"

Perhaps those on the right who have, for the past forty years or so, and without equivocation, described Democrats as socialists, communists, and Marxists are somewhat less aware of the Democratic Party's centrist leanings.

But hey, never pass up that opportunity to pwn the libs, amirite?

[TwilightZone]

32. Everyone already knows that the Republicans don't have a clue what constitutes the Democratic Party

Liberals, on the other hand, should know better.

Amirite?

"Republicans are ignorant, too" isn't much of an argument. We were already aware of their ignorance. We shouldn't be trying to emulate it or use it to defend our own.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. The point is the assertion is unqualified.

And even after backpeddaling, remains so.

Your anecdotal experiences with "liberals" on the internet, while no doubt fascinating, do not provide valuable insight into how the group, broadly, understands their place within the Democratic party.

Personally, I'd wager no one is more keenly aware of their of overall representation than they are.

[beachbumbob]

4. the democratic party has always been a center-left party and not to the liking of the coastal

democrrats/progressives. What plays in NY or California doens't play in the middle and its the middle that actually ELECTS the presidents

[k2qb3]

5. The parties always move wherever they need to to get votes.

The farther left the Dems go the farther right the Reps can go and still win and vice versa.

I don't think a long term center large majority party is possible in this system of government.

That said, it's been my opinion for decades that if the Democratic party had never put itself in the position of spending enormous amounts of political capital on completely counterproductive attempts at gun control none of the other issues we're currently worried about would still be issues, we'd be on to completely different things by now.

Vs. Trump, I think people are going to want competent, dependable, honest, lawful, governance.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. The distribution of citizens on the political spectrum is no longer a perfectly bell-shaped curve

For those who vote it's more like cleavage with a skew to the right

[Celerity]

10. +10000

[YOHABLO]

8. Essentially we already have a D party that's centrist.

What ever 'centrist' might mean to you. I see the moderate Republicans and the R wing Dems are in unity as we speak.

[Celerity]

14. No, the OP is talking about a much bigger move into the right side of the centre, as only 10% of the

do not support Rump (which is crazy, I do admit). Imagine what we would have to do if we are talking a 'normal' Rethug, say a Romney type. A true centrist party (by its very definition, not just the occasional coming together on certain issues now, like the bi-partisan support for the war/surveillance/security state and also the slow but grinding move to roll back regulation such as the bi-partisan vote in 2018 to partially dismantle Dodd-Frank) would mean a complete cutting off of the farthest 25% to 50% of the left of centre spectrum.

I go into some detail here on what that would mean, and potential outcomes, here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287333823#post13

[Faux pas]

9. What the "center" mears to me:

No progress, everything stays the effing same. Might as well just let the rethugs have it all. They'd love it.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

12. Why are you letting Republicans define the word and claim the "center"? nt

[Demsrule86]

16. We need a big tent...only way we ever win...as for no progress...I would settle for that instead

of Trump making everything worse. What if a progressive can't get elected...will we continue to lose? I am not saying that is the case but you have to win elections to do anything.

[YOHABLO]

19. No way will I stop fighting these ridiculously greedy selfish human beings. They can all go to hell.

When push comes to shove we head to the streets. It's about our survival.

[Fresh_Start]

31. Voters who think like that enabled the current disaster

blowing things up in the faint hope that the system moves in the direction you want it to move, means blowing things up

and what we have seen time and again, is when you blow things up, you get a rightward result.

Center doesn't mean no progress, it means slow progress.
But slow progress is better than going in the reverse which is what the anti-hillary protest vote actually accomplished (albeit with Russia's help)

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

11. Isnt it already centrist..... depending on what one's definition of "center" is. The party of

NORMAL that's what we should present ourselves as - womens rights, racial justice, environmental protections, public services, national parks, public education, transparency in govt. These are all things the vast majority of Americans support, even if they call themselves a con or a republican.

Dang right Dem party better fight for these.

DONT LET REPUBLICANS DEFINE THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.

wE are not "LEFT". We are CENTER. The Repub party under Trump is far extremist , off the charts radical right wing.

Got that?

That I think is probably what people mean by "centrist majority."

[Celerity]

13. to make a 'true centrist' party, if it is going to be symmetrical in terms of ideological scope, you

Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2019, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)

are talking about 50% to the right of a so-called centre, and 50% to the left of the so-called centre.

As the centre has been sliding to the right for ages, this means moving deep into the right side of the spectrum.

Now, one could say, NO, we will only go 25% to the right of centre, and 75% to the left of centre, and thus cut off the far left.

Two problems with this, major problems.

I seriously doubt you can get even 25% of the right of centre IF you also have 75% to the left, which is pretty deep into the left (even with the centre having been slid to the right over the past several decades.) Even if they (the 25% to the right of centre) are not social issue radicals (meaning they are flexible on women's rights, abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, racial rights, etc etc, the typical wedge issues), they are simply NOT going to go for joining a party that is 75% of the entire left spectrum on some huge issues (one such area for sure is economic.) Especially as you are talking 3/4ers of this 'centrist' party we are building is pretty far left (it includes all but the really far left 25%.) The centre right voters just will not accept a 75% left of centre agenda.

The second issue is that 25% that is the far left. The 25% of the far right HAVE a home, they have a Rethug party that partially caters to them. At present, the farthest left 25% have no real representation, there is almost none of their agenda that is getting passed, YET they are demanded to vote for our party anyway. IF you make another lurch to the right (and to pick up 25% of the right, we will have to move to the right even more than we have) you not only HAVE to cut them them off (as that 25% of the right we are targeting will not countenance that far left at all) BUT the far left themselves will also say fuck it and bail on us overall, in large numbers, far larger than they do now. And that is at only trying to grab 25% of the right of centre. Imagine if we tried to grab 35%, 40%, even 50% (so back to my symmetrical 50/50 postulation). At that point we would start to lose many who are not even far far left, some who are simply left liberals, who have major issues with some of the positions we would have to take to start to grab a full third to a half of the right.

I know what some will say now. Well if we completely boot out the farthest left 25 or 30 % and we grab an equal amount of the right of centre, then who cares? Our system will render them powerless, as 25% cannot win shit. I answer that they may not be able to 'win' at 25%, but they can (and will) start to block us in certain types of districts, AND the farthest 50 to 75% on the right will NOT sit idly by and just capitulate to OUR new 'centre' party that just grabbed a tonne of their side of the spectrum.

They will fight like hell to get pull many back. That may result in a seemingly great thing, I do grant (ie the RW moderating and doing what we tried to do, that is make a 50 to 75% right party, and grab the middle and and the least left of centre 25 to 50%) BUT that is not going to be a pure cleavage, all neat and tidy, and IF we move too far to the right in a desperate face to stop the moderating 50-75% of the right from grabbing 25 to 50% our share from our side of the centre, we MIGHT alienate enough on the left (the far left and now even the centre left) to truly ratfuck ourselves.

If they (the furthest left of the total electorate) grab the farthest left 35-40% of ALL the voters (due to attrition from the old Democratic coalition that happens due to too hard a move to the right, a move rightward that comes from chasing the 25 to 50% of the right of centre), they CAN not only block but can actually win as we are now have a 'centre' party' and a RW party spiting the 'bifurcated middle-and-expanded partially to the right and left of centre' vote, plus a FAR Right (albeit smaller than all the other 3) party as well. Those 3 entities are fighting over a reduced pie, only 60 to 65% of the total electorate. Even if you give just 10% to far right, then the 'centre party' and the moderate RW party, if they spit it equally, each end up roughly with only 25 to 30% of the total vote, which means the FAR LEFT, with just 35% to 40% of the total vote, wins a shit tonne of elections when the percentage cleavages break their way.

[crazytown]

30. The experience in Europe is that the center does not hold

although proportional representation makes the movements to left and right more viable.

[Demsrule86]

15. A majority is always a good thing...and if the progressive purists want a majority,I am all for it..

let's get out into red and purple states and win hearts and minds.

[YOHABLO]

20. Now you have to define what you mean by ''progressive purists''.

[Demsrule86]

24. I have no idea who the hell they are...they define themselves...I guess if you wanted Franken and

Hill to resign... Also the Governor of Virgina to resign,you might be a purist. If you have a criteria for all candidates and they can't deviate on any issue, you might be a purist. If you shudder at the thought of taking pac money and would rather lose, you might be a purist...I guess the bottom line is that those who are for purity would rather lose than compromise their ideals in any way...IE those who wanted to see the AC go down if there was no public option. Such folks are above political considerations and would rather lose (some might vote third party or not at all rather then vote for the Democratic candidate if he doesn't measure up to their standards) than compromise as I said before. That is the best I have...very idealistic but not practical.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. Define what the center is first.

Centerism means absolutely nothing when it remains undefined. I've seen policies that are outright fascistic being claimed by so called "Moderates" and "Centrists" so give some definitions or examples please.

What is the point of having a political party win elections when it stances are undefined?

[Demsrule86]

25. I don't consider Biden a moderate.He is progressive...but moderate means middle of the road...there

are far left (not all are Democrats either) and a far right...in the middle we have center left and center right...but personally I think it is a way for those who consider that only there ideas about policiy are progressive to define those who disagree with them in a negative manner...it really doesn't matter. The reality is we need someone who can appeal to the Mid West in order to win. I don't think Warren can do this. I would vote for her of course, but polls show she would be in much trouble.

[Polybius]

18. So who do you think we should nominate that's centrist?

Joe Manchin/Jim Webb 2020?

[Demsrule86]

27. We are fortunate to have Manchin and we must keep him in the Senate...how do you expect to

win a Senate majority without conservadems? Given, our system, we must win some red states or change the hearts of minds of their residents...a lengthy process. We had 60 votes in the senate until conservatdems like Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landreui were kicked out in 2010 and we finished the job in terms of the Senate in 2014. Are we better off now? No, not all. That being said the choice is between Biden and Warren IMHO and Biden has a better chance of winning and is not conservative in any way...certainly not like Manchin or Webb...you created a strawman here. A Biden ticket can win the Mid West.

[YOHABLO]

21. I like this quote from Jim Hightower and the title of his book:

There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos

That's pretty much how I see the center ... just a damn cop out. I'm tired of 'we can't do this because they won't let us'.

[redqueen]

22. Hello? Is that the DLC calling? Is it the 90's again?

Haven't we learned not to play this game by now?

People need to stop navel-gazing about labels and start focusing on the issues that most people care about.

[Demsrule86]

28. That is a very good point. It is how we won the mid terms.

[rogerashton]

23. centrist or center-left

A number of responders seem to have thought I was arguing in favor of a centrist strategy. Read the whole post, and the last line ion particular. Thanks to celerity for reinforcing the argument I did make, and to bucolic-frolic for the statistical point. Humanist-activist has a good point, but I was speaking to the argument for centrism that one hears, taking the vagueness of those ideas as it comes. It could be very important, though, that what is "left," "right," or "center" can vary from issue to issue. Is the social-libertarian point of view left or right? It is individualist and mostly rejects (or at least is independent of) class analysis -- isn't that rightward? But the political agents of the billionaire class, who define the political right in this country, can be quite collectivist on these social-libertarian ideas. I guess that's pretty obscure, but what I am saying is that there is no one spectrum.