The Establishment media's mission seems to be protecting the status quo, the moderate.
The status quo is not working .
The US is becoming a glitter-topped cesspool of violence, with unaffordable healthcare for many, mediocre education for most, and with a huge number of families stagnating in despair.
The US could be a better country, but real change is necessary.
If the status quo supporting moderates are afraid of change,
the US will continue on its downward drift while its already colossal income/wealth inequality worsens.
Now, the richest .1 percent take more income than the bottom 90 percent...
The only hope for a healthier, better educated, thriving society and sustainable planet are the bold ideas and straight talk of Sanders.
Sanders has the integrity, courage, bold ideas and vision that America needs now.
While Warren has similar rhetoric, healthcare is not mentioned in her issues.
Also, Warren has little world history/foreign policy knowledge, her advisors come from the Washington foreign policy establishment, a staunch enforcer of the regime change/ militaristic foreign policy.
While for forty years Sanders has worked to better the lives of working families and railed against corporations and
billionaires buying US democracy, Sanders has cared about the world and foreign policy.
Sanders has the courage and vision to deliver a demilitarized foreign policy, making the US a better example to the world, resolving conflict through diplomacy, not violence.
18
Moderate Democratic candidates are corporate candidates.
Dan McCready is this kind of candidate; he’s a Marine Corps veteran who has shown loyalty to the same institutional power as his polar peers. Vowing not to support Nancy Pelosi for House Speaker is a cultural marker for the voters who have been subjected to endless propaganda she is a dreaded liberal, which is ridiculous. Pelosi is also a Democratic moderate, but one who, as a House leader, has to pose as oppositional to the immoderate demands of her neoliberal peers.
Dan McCready's opposition to “Medicare for all” and an assault weapons ban does not make him a moderate. Dan McCready is an opportunist tapping into the subjective themes wealth inundates voters with on a continuous basis. He is using his veteran status, the Democratic Party, and voter ignorance to become a member of the political elite in order to become as individually successful as Pelosi, who has not reached such a high level of success because of her liberalism.
11
As if any one district is capable of representing America as a whole. Even entire states barely represent what "average" America looks like, let alone a gerrymandered district that mixes urban liberals with rural conservatives.
2
Keep telling the public that Republican-lite is the answer and get 4 more years of Trump.
13
“He’s a Marine Corps veteran who vowed NOT to support Nancy Pelosi for House Speaker....” In running against Boss Pelosi was a winning argument for so many candidates running on the democratic ticket in 2018. Glad to see the Times publish that fact. Its a fact that has been hidden away since the last election. Pelosi is an albatross around the democratic neck. I would prefer that NoWhere Nancy
retire from office in great fanfare and style as she passes the torch to a new generation, but her ego and lust for power won’t allow change to happen. If she is on the ballot again and plans to hang on to her grip on power then the healthiest and wisest thing for a 2020 candidate to do is to run against the untrustworthy and undemocratic Pelosi.
Patronizing Pelosi and her generation of leadership is despised by the younger generation of democratic voters and candidates. There is no FUTURE with her at the helm. I’m not voting for one single democrat (and I have always voted a straight democrat line my entire adult life) from Pelosi’ generation. I’m like millions of other democrats that are tired of waiting for serious change and yearn for a whole new generation to lead and retake the party, the state houses, the congress, the senate and the Whitehouse. The FUTURE is key to winning not the past.
5
I too believe moderation and calm can get the Democrats 400 EV’s. But the moderate at the top better pick a minority veep. That needs to be enshrined in concrete at the DNC. Still the ticket of Kamala Harris & Sherrod Brown seems like a winner to me.
The ABC poll today (that Trump tweet raged and lied about...always a good sign that Trump is scared) shows a sinking incumbent. But I still am not sure if it’s the economy, the trade war, the unhinged nature of this administration, health care or a toxic stew of all 4 that’s killing him?
Either way, I don’t see him doing anything to enlarge the base. He’s pulling out the 2016 playbook but I kinda have a feeling that it isn’t what people want in 2020. The “held my nose & voted for him contingent” left him in 2018.
Also, isn’t the nomination road “play to the base, win the nomination. Move to the center. Win in November”?
Or is that just old school?
1
@RodA
Harris nothing more than political expediency wrapped in demographic allure.
If Democrats can't do any better than that, they deserve Trump.
14
Nate "80% chance of Hillary winning" Cohn is the person who learned the wrong lessons from 2016 and 2018. He talks like he spends way-y-y-y too much time in the Beltway talking to people like Neera Tanden of CAP.
A moderate, Biden, can't even electrify the Democratic primary voters. His candidacy is that of a sleepwalker. His policies are from another time.
The moderate, establishment Dems are over, toast, history. They gave us nearly a decade of losses - count 'em 1,000 seats - all over the country. The idea that they know how to win races (by only campaigning in blue states) is risible. To take their advice is political suicide.
21
Dear Mr. Cohn.
I appriciate your sober analysis--and making the inferences based on reason. Yet I feel it is a waste of time spending your time giving good-solid electoral advice to the raving mad Democrats, who have sadly fallen victims of Trump Derangement Syndrome. They are too, dogmatic and ideologically lost to appeal to sensible voters across America. Instead of having learned a lesson from their heartbreaking Presidential loss in 2016--they have gone in the wrong direction to embrace radical Socialism. And thus narrowing their chances even more. For example Mr. Dan McCready surely must feel an old man out. Like vegetarian in a steak-house. Has Mr. McCready apologized for being who heis ─ like his fellow Democrat like Beto O’Rourke? Mr. Dan McCready fate is ironic. If he really means what he says he is─ clearly he has no place in Democratic Party as we know it. He’s in the wrong party. The Democratic Party as it is now is minority centered, urban based and elite dominated, media-supported, radically anti-American and enthusiastically Socialist organization. I’m puzzled why does Mr. McCready pretends that he’s Democrat ─when he could easily be independent or a successful Republican?
6
I just cannot believe this. The winning Dem power brokers who chose JFK and FDR and Harry Truman would never have chosen ANY of the triumvirate now on top - or most of the rest. Americans want a VIRILE president, a classic leader, with charisma brains health and ideas. Darn it none of the current choices have that. And never will. Remember the Dukakis loss? The Kerrey? The Gore? Are we doin that again? Andrew Cuomo is the only mainstream Dem I know who can beat Him. There may be some business guy but most seem way too effete. You afraid of Andy’s skeletons? The competition will immunize him in spades. Americans are now INURED to skeletons. Probably for the good. Marilyn Monroe comes to mind. Run Andrew. (PS My history may be a little off but I think the point is clear.)
2
I live in the 10th congressional district abutting the 11th now voting in North Carolina. The 10th as the 11th are red red republican. The latter one has Fort Bragg so a large military voting bloc of U.S. Army. Mc Cready is a marine so it is hoped this will carry him over the finish line. Once he gets there then what does he do w madam Pelosi whom he pledged not to support? I agree Medicare for all works against the dems but for me he needs to support the assault weapons ban which I am sure he knows was designed for marines to kill the so-called enemy!
2
Yeah, whatever. A Socialist won in Orange County. Democrats should focus on getting out the vote and rather than embracing compromised policies.
8
praying today for great turnout in NC 9
1
We have exactly ONE CHANCE to defeat Trump and to save the country. If we win, even with a moderate presidential candidate, we will still do something about climate change, repeal the tax cut for huge corporations, and make medical care more accessible for millions. If we lose, democracy in the U.S. goes down the drain, and the rest of the world will be in a much worse place. Trump is still popular in Midwestern and western states with lots of moderate and independent voters, and with lots of electoral college votes. The final tally in 2020 could be very, very close.
So don’t we want EVERY percentage point of advantage we can get in 2020, and if a moderate Democrat can get those extra points for us, wouldn’t it be ordinary prudence to nominate a moderate? Remember, the line between salvation and damnation in 2020 could be very, very thin.
6
The presidential candidates discussed how they will curb presidential power.
As in
"In my first day in office I'll ban fracking"
Transforming the whole energy sector and the economy of the US.
Are these the Marx Brothers? Or more likely Karl Marx...
2
Ideologically extreme conservatives have been winning house elections for years. Donald Trump might be ideologically heterodox, but his campaign focused on his extreme positions on immigration, race, trade and women’s rights. This electorate is an extreme electorate that is why they rejected Hillary.
1
Being against an assault weapons ban is a moderate stance? Says who? It is extreme to me.
5
In listing Trump's advantages no one mentions he has his own television network available to him 24/7. If we can believe the recent bio- series, "The Loudest Voice", it appears FoxNews put Trump in the White House.
1
This endless dithering about the electoral college is tiresome. Trump didn't win because of uncanny skills manipulating the electoral college. He won because the DNC put their thumbs on the scale and annointed Hilary, who believed her own press to such an extent that she decided to stop campaigning in the states where she needed to be the most. That's what happens when you sleepwalk through a campaign. 2020 can be won by any Democrat, moderate or otherwise, that does the work. Period. Sleepwalkers (looking at you Joe Biden) need to stop wasting our time.
6
It's a shame that not more is written about the NC race. And here is another example. Most of this article is about the presidential race a year a way.
1
Moderate Democrats were not the ones that got moderate Democrats elected. They were elected in 2018 to check Trump. They have not done their jobs.
2
Nuts.
There may still be a few centrist members of Congress, but extremists seem to prevail as the fight goes on, with the unfortunate results we are seeing today.
There are few, if any, members with the integrity of Senators like Democrat Sam Nunn or Republican John McCain.
The disastrous result of the 2016 election has exacerbated an already alarming power-focus in our government, creating an increasingly stagnated dissension.
Such a situation may be corrected only by some radical and as yet undetermined process, or, worse, something more dire.
2
The problem is, too many “progressives,” ignore realities with all the fury of Trump and his supporters. And they’re smug about it, too.
Cohn’s probably right about the numbers. He generally is. And I’ll tell ya for a fact that people who think everybody’ll agree with them if they just bellow loud enough need to think about how they might as well be Trump.
4
Democrats goal should be to Beat Trump! Beat Trump! Beat Trump!
I really like Warren and Buttigeg but will not be voting for either bc I don't think they can beat Trump. Biden has my vote for this reason.
Bottomline: Beat Trump. Never Again should we have a Trumpie in the White House no matter what party.
6
Sorry Nate, you are now a "card carrying member" of the corporate/establishment and if we are to assume anything from your statistics before and after 2016, you will also be WRONG!
2
Analyses like this one tend to get picked up by my friends who like to argue that ideological moderation or "electability" is the only important factor when picking a presidential candidate.
I particularly dislike viewing every policy position through an ideological frame. To respond to an example from this article, opposition to Speaker Pelosi is not a one-sided issue. She is opposed by some on both the left and the right.
Is it quaint for me to want to nominate the person who would make the best President? Here's an analytical dimension to compare the candidates: perceived effectiveness at making policy to produce actual outcomes for constituents. The argument for moderation was particularly salient in the 90's when Congress actually cooperated to pass legislation, but with today's environment, an effective president will need to demonstrate they are willing to try new things to get things done. This is why I am paying attention in particular to candidates that are focusing on changing rules in Congress, making pro-democratic voting reforms, and sharing which executive actions they would make.
4
This is the wrong take away from 2018. The right take away is that choosing the right candidate for the district they are running in is successful. No one should be surprised that moderate candidates did better in historically red leaning districts, however, that doesn't mean that the party or country as a whole is yearning for moderate candidates (whatever moderate means in 2019).
14
But the democrats path to winning in 2020 is a very narrow one and it will ultimately depend on a democratic candidate who can win back at least 2 of the midwestern states that Trump won in 2016. States that tend to favor moderation.
7
@Kyle
If those states favor moderation, why didn't they go for Hillary? Perhaps what Democrats need is a candidate who will inspire high levels of voter turnout, and do so by giving people a bold progressive platform to inspire hope and enthusiasm...
12
Lots of voters didn’t believe her positions were genuine. Centrist one day progressive the next depending on which way the wind was blowing. Also it didn’t help that she didn’t bother to make many appearances in these states. All in all I don’t believe she was a good candidate. Personally I supported her and believe she was a better alternative to Trump, but she was still a bad candidate. I don’t think for a second it was her policy positions that cost her these states, but her political baggage and inability to get voters to trust her
4
So it's beyond the capability of Democrats to convince the public to move left? And why even bother to try?
If only Republicans had listened to this advice, and the party looked in 2019 just like it did 1975.
OTOH, Republicans circa 1975 look like moderate 2019 Democrats, so I guess it worked out okay.
9
@jrd
Ever feel like our elections are a like a dirty casino rat race where we obviously know the House is betting on all the rats but they keep stuffing everyone with alcohol and oxycontin so there’s no one to help us shut the scam down?
2
'Medicare for all' is not just a symbolic marker, it's a shambolic one. Medicare is run through insurance companies, so eliminating them to scale five times larger is oxymoronic. I'm floored that Warren & Sanders adopt this position, since I'm sure they know these facts too. All I can think is that they're pandering.
Most Americans don't grasp all the facts, but they do detect pandering. Right now many Democrat candidates are falling over themselves pandering to the left. Presumably this is a strategy to challenge Biden, but it weakens the Democrats.
Ideology matters a lot. It's often ignored that Hillary Clinton was farther left than Obama. Because the Sanders campaign pilloried her, many on the left forgot. But not in the general. Her lack of appeal was in large part because she had plans, well-meaning liberal plans, and a lot of people don't like liberal planning.
I wish things were different. They're not. The world works on second-best options, because what you see as the best isn't what I see.
5
All that insurance is good for is billing. Without bills, why would medicare need to go through insurance companies?
2
@Notanidiot They don't bill, they pay. Pay the millions of doctors, staff, others, pay for equipment, medication, and of course hospitals. Medicare serves 65 million, the same number as the universal health care programs in the UK, France, Italy. It does so with only 4 thousand administrators, instead outsourcing all to insurance co's.
We can argue whether this can work for 325 million. We can have different opinions about insurance. But we can't have different facts. When Warren & Sanders say Medicare for All without insurance co's, they're promoting the idea that Medicare doesn't need them, when it's built on them.
1
@Brian
You don't sound as though you understand Sanders's position, or Warren's. No one is planning to eliminate insurance companies. They are planning to bar insurance companies from covering items covered under their plans, and with good reason. That prevents insurance companies from poaching the healthiest consumers, and makes sure every doctor is in-network, among other huge benefits.
But even so, insurance companies will be free to provide extended coverage, and whatever subcontracting is currently necessary under Medicare would likely continue under Medicare for all.
1
After winning the primaries, candidates ttrack to the center for the general election. Their present positions don't matter.
@Jack I don't think that's true any longer. There's too much video, and too much money motivated to remind people what someone said six months ago or in front of a different audience.
Remember when Mitt Romney's campaign manager said they'd just shake an Etch-a-Sketch, start fresh in the fall, and leave behind all the spring right-wing craziness they had to say to win the nomination? It didn't work for him, and it's even less doable now.
If someone has already come out for reparations for slavery, or healthcare for undocumented immigrants, or busing to achieve integrated schools, every single voter in America is going to know it by November 2020. Trump and the Republicans will make sure of it.
12
Naysayers fall into various groups:
Probably most numerous are those who learned the wrong lesson from 2016, to wit that we ran a status-quo middle of the roader in 2016 and that's why we lost, when in fact we ran an (unfairly) broadly and deeply despised candidate who was lousy on the stump, incompetent strategically, and while economically moderate (or worse), had never met a "progressive" social trope she didn't embrace.
Then there is the "excite the base thus increasing turnout" contingent. It strikes me that they have an arguable position and I'm agnostic as to whether or not the increased turnout would offset the loss of waffling "centrist" voters. And the upside if they're right is higher than the upside if the "run a moderate" crowd prevail in the nominating process and *they* turn out to be right.
Kind of a sub-set of the above is the "win or lose, we need to stand up; what's the point of winning with a Biden - he's almost as bad as the Republicans".
Lastly, there's the club I belong to, the "have your cake and eat it too-ers". We reject the unitary notion of progressiveism as a long list of positions which must be embraced in toto. And we reject as stupidity and futility as electoral tactics the idea that every item on that long list is equally popular, should receive equal emphasis, and we should sit still helplessly while others decide what we get to talk about most.
5
What would Mr. Cohn have said about Mr. Trump's chances at this point in 2015?
3
@Jeff Atkinson
We know what he said about Hillary's chance right up to the election, slam dunk, 80% chance of winning.
I could do that well with an old 8 Ball.
A moderate democrat in populist times?
5
@Mathias He's not moderate Democrat, he's a moderate to right wing Republican. Against universal healthcare, against assault weapons ban. With "friends" like these, who needs enemies?
2
Where the candidate claims to stand on issues and how they actually vote when elected are far too often different. Republican or Democrat- all are devious and disingenuous. Republicans however by and large are mean spirited and spineless and too often down right stupid (See Louie Gomert, Steve King, Devin Nunes and multiple others)
8
Activist left? Because people see health care as a human right? Who writes this stuff? Insurance agents?
42
People like insurance agents, who know the numbers—as you refuse to do, apparently.
2
@Robert
You are right. Insurance agent and others like then do know the numbers.... that affect THEM - Not the majority of us. So, I'm guessing you suggest their perspective is what matters ?
2
In the presidential candidate poll of their thoughts on XYZ, WHERE IS ANDREW YANG??
He’s polling higher than Mayor Pete and Beto!
The bias makes me sick. Is it anti-Asian American racism?? What is it?
(Commenting here because comments are not open for the other article)
3
@S: I would have to say no, it's not anti-Asian racism. Yang and a few others did not respond. As it says in the other article:
"Several other candidates were also invited to participate but have not yet answered the questions, including Bill de Blasio, Julian Castro, John Delaney, Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang. The Times will update this graphic if and when any of them provide answers."
So where is Yang? Where are the rest of them?
Not a politician.
@S
It could be an anti-absurd policy from people with no government experience bias.
Moderation will not save us from climate change. Moderation will not save us from income inequality. It will not help college graduates aspire to a better life, under the tremendous burden of college debt. Moderation will not solve the corruption/graft/grifter crisis in our government. It ill not provide wuality healthcare for EVERY person. It will not get non-tax-paying corporations out of our lives and government. Moderation will not require reasonable tax responsibility from the rich. DRASTIC measures must be taken, at every level, and they must be taken ASAP. Moderation serves no one. It is fence sitting, nearly as useless as doing nothing. Learn the shocking truth about these crises, and the candidates who are willing to slow walk the solutions. Pick your side, and get busy. Move left.
30
@ChesBay
It would be nice if a candidate subscribing to those positions could get elected. But even if elected, such a candidate will not be able to do those things without a Democratic senate. It's nice to be a purist if you are willing to risk Trump getting reelected or being frustrated by the public which is not willing to go along with your agenda. Thus far few candidates espousing all of those positions have been elected. Until we can convince the public of the urgency of the issues you listed, the electoral realities are likely to thwart getting them done.
5
@ChesBay. Moderation will, however, win elections.
2
@ChesBay
Actually, moderation is the best course for fighting waste, fraud and abuse.
One of the best arguments for avoiding abrupt, ideologically-driven policy shifts is they often invite shocking misuse of public funds. This is particularly true of, but not limited to, environmental programs.
For just one example, we are subsidizing purchases of $70,000 cars that in the end run on fossil fuels. Some people might call that a scam.
2
There are two groups that have undying hatred of moderate Democrats: Republicans and progressive. Both will get deeply offended at the idea that moderates might win, but the latter will be particularly loud on this comment thread.
While I am far to the left myself, I am glad to work with all groups to defeat Trump. I hope my fellow left-leaning activists will tone down the demonization of moderates and do what's necessary not only to beat Trump but to demolish Trumpism.
25
@Rauldougou
And of course you are hoping that the moderates stop being condescending to the progressives, too, right?
Good luck with that one.
2
@nora m There are very few moderates in my neighborhood, or at least the only people who speak up are Progressives. I live in a Warren/Biden/Noam Chomsky area and we don't hear from moderates.
2
"Over all, moderate Democrats who disavowed Ms. Pelosi and Medicare for all fared better than those to the left of them, according to an Upshot analysis of the 2018 midterm results."
Might work against conservatives in rural districts BUT pushing the roght wing regressive agenda is doomed in blue states (they will stay home)
Let's not ALL become trump trogs!
2
@Dave
Maybe in a regular election. I can't buy into the argument that progressives won't get out to cast a vote against Trump. So much less time consuming and more effective than spelling out Resist with human bodies on a beach.
1
So you're saying a moderate Democratic candidate must support guns, ignore the massive wealth gap and permit Business As Usual?
4
Yes, we need moderate Democrats -- the kind which accomplish so little and aspire to so little, that the country is ripe to try a Republican 2 or 4 years later.
In moderation we have an effective means to preserve the center-right orthodoxy so dear to the Washington establishment. So what if the price is shocking levels of inequality and indigence, social despair and the occasional Donald Trump?
I mean, it's fine for my portfolio....
8
@jrd Exactly. There's more insight in your two paragraphs than in the article itself.
And then there is this:
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/dccc-democratic-primaries-congress-progressives/
1
This is not surprising considering the nature of this gig economy. I really hope the Democratic candidate focuses on expanding the ACA by offering a public option and fixing anomalies in the laws implementation.
7
There are some districts where moderates will be stronger, and a smaller number where the Lefties can control the popular vote. AOC has a safe district. California Dems at the state level are far left of the nation, and North Cal is even further left. so let's not try to generalize who wins where, especially in traditionally conservative states, where a Leftie would be crucified and everybody knows it. In a battle of the bases, the center decides. And with the Left now promising pie in the sky, it's unlikely that they can win swing districts with Peter Pan Politics.
5
Mr. Cohn ignores a key fact: the number of Millennials who will be of voting age in 2020. There will be more Millennials eligible to vote than Boomers. And Millennials tend to be progressive.
3
@April
The oldest "Millennials" are currently pushing 40 and the youngest are 22. They do tend to be progressive, but so far haven't shown up to vote at the same rate as Boomers, and this isn't their first election.
1
@April
But millennials vote in lower numbers than boomers.
1
Thank you, Nate, for a NUANCED - i.e., treating NY Times readers like the intelligent individuals they are, rather than failing to mention that while "Who has the best shot?" is a fair question to ask, the answer is far from a slam dunk.
You are among the many - probably most thinking Democratic-leaning voters - who have wondered out loud about "how did Hillary manage to lose?"
Sadly - and this is probably something you would NOT say - "statistics" are only a little bit helpful when the sample size is so very small ... and one cannot "test" competing strategies.
That is, depending on whether you view Hillary as "profoundly flawed" (as I do) ... or simply say that she was poorly advised as to which states to emphasize ... or any of a dozen other reasonable statements [in a large number of combinations], the LESSON/prescription will be equally variable!
Was it the message (hers) or the messenger? Was she too liberal or not liberal enough?
Everybody with a brain points out that one party CAN do much better in a Presidential election than you'd imagine could possibly be the case in 435 Congressional Districts in the same election - averaged, somehow.
It's probably as simple as "Mississippi and Maine want very different things, and each votes for a Congressperson accordingly.... BUT they may be united in wanting the country to fight for democracy or just focus on the U.S."
In short, do not conflate Mr. McCready and Joe Biden!
2
I don't believe the state who's politicians signed into law the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act is well suited to be used as a template to gauge the "electability" of candidates for the rest of us.
2
Oh for god's sake.
This needs to be understood, so I'll say it slow for the people in the back:
Courting Republican voters is useless.They vote as a block, and they are loyal to party above all else.
If the Democrats want a demographic where they have an advantage like no other, they need to court Millennials and Gen Z.
15
Courting Pennsylvania voters is important..and I don’t believe my neighbors will vote for a progressive. They will, however, vote against trump.
3
@LSFoster
Millennials and Gen Z have no concern for the age of the candidate, so I guess the idea that it mattered came from the press. They LOVE Bernie. They volunteer for his campaign in droves and attend his rallies with enthusiasm. I went to one recently. He is a rock star for people under 45.
Who does not like him? The establishment folks who are afraid of loosing influence and the older crowd of voters who are afraid of change, period.
2
@LSFoster
They also need to court a demographic that actually turns up at the polls.
2
Your analysis is sadly limited. I respect that, as it stands, it was difficult and tedious work. But were I a college professor, I would have given the effort a C at best.
I know that it is difficult to describe multivariate regression analysis to your readers, but that is precisely the kind of analysis needed here.
Did moderate Democrats out-perform liberal Democrats in 2018 because of:
* Their Platform?
* Their fundraising?
* Their charm compared to the other candidate?
* The amount of PAC money spending on the campaign?
* The economic challenges in the district?
* Whether the opponent was incumbent?
* The popularity of the incumbent in the year prior to the election?
More complex? Yes. But if you only analyze win-loss in two dimensions, you’re not reporting the story, you’re promoting an agenda.
7
@Marshall
Add to that: tell me how the survey was worded and what the sampling strategy was.
1
The handwriting has been on the wall since before 2018. It was on the wall when Democrats across the country began pouring money into moderates’ campaigns. And the investment paid off big. That anyone would think that this winning strategy for Democrats should be scrapped now is a testament to progressive tunnel vision and group think. That, and a burn-it-all-down attitude among some that letting (or helping) things get bad enough will lead to a reawakening of Democracy, instead of an ever tightening noose of oligarchy and even fascism.
6
While I actually agree with this article, I wonder why the analysis is not also done for Republicans who have been driving hard right for over a decade now.
2
Why is anybody still listening to anything incremental Democratic centrists have to say? Ever since Obama's first election in 2008, centrists have been pushing neoliberal "Republican-lite" candidates -- the result was the loss of a thousand legislative seats at the federal and state levels in ten years, culminating in the 2016 electoral debacle, the party's worst overall showing since 1928. Even after last year's mini-wave (remember that Dems actually lost a net two seats in the Senate), Democrats still control just 18 state legislatures.
And now, after wasting two precious years leading us down the "Russian collusion" rabbit hole, the end result being to gift Trump with a solid shot of actually winning re-election, the centrists still presume to counsel us on what it takes to win? On this record, centrists are STILL depicting themselves as the hard-headed pragmatists and progressives as the pie-in-the-sky dreamers? Neoliberals like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer and the Clintons have literally driven the Democratic Party, and this country, right into the ditch!
The formerly reliable Rust Belt grew sick of decades of Democratic double talk and sell-out to donors and in 2016 decided to see what Trump might do for them. Bernie's and other progressives's great crime in the eyes of the party establishment has been in their forcefully pointing that out. Only a progressive candidate who doesn't dismiss them as "deplorables" will bring them back, not yet another neoliberal.
7
For openers, the Senate map was heavily tilted against Democrats in 2016. Only losing two seats was a minor miracle—and both were lost in reddish states.
After that, we get into a lovely illustration of why nominating St. Bernie would be an absolute debacle.
Your contempt for your own side means more to you than beating Trump.
2
Let me get this straight. A “moderate Democrat“ is a person who believes people should have access to deadly military weapons, views health care as a privilege not a right and who opposes the house leadership. Silly me. I thought such people were called Republicans.
18
Moderate Democrats are the reason the 111th Congress had such huge Democratic majorities, and moderate Democrats are the reason Nancy Pelosi is currently the Speaker of the House. If progressives want to convince the rest of us that their platform is a winner, they should start winning outside the bluest of the blue districts. Friendly reminder that Justice Democrats flipped zero seats in Congress in 2018.
14
Y'all really don't want Sanders, huh. That's okay. We're going to elect him anyway. Nothing but respect for MY president.
3
@Charlie If you do elect him, more power to you. It would mean you've mobilized a voting majority for radical change that has rarely existed throughout American history, and one that many people don't believe exists today. That would be an awesome achievement; you would prove many doubters wrong.
But if by some chance you don't succeed, please don't blame everyone else.
8
@Bill Camarda It seems that following the 2016 debacle everyone was blamed but the candidate herself. Hopefully we learn from the Republicans and unite.
1
A fact that Mr. Cohn ignores is that Millennials will be the biggest generational bloc of voters in 2020, and they tend to be progressive.
8
Candidates like Mr. Dan McCreedy has no place unfortunately in the current left leaning, urban elite dominated and media supported, minority centered, radically socialist Democratic Party. What I don't understand is why he's running against his own party-- he could run as an Independent or a Republican...
1
@ChandraPrince For the same reason I am not a Republican: they sucker the poor to get their votes while enacting policies that increase the wealth of their big donors.
Market research is fuzzy math. One can skew it any which way you want to see it. What McCready offers is a solid resume of moral and professional competence. If he is judged by the electorate as a person who will earnestly represent their district he will win. If Trump and Pence sway the electorate the partisans may win. As to the national elections the Democrats need to show that the GOP has morphed from the party of Honest Abe to that of Dishonest Don. Pelosi is no longer the culprit in chief. It is Moscow Mitch. Let's see how the chips fall
16
Why is opposition to an assault weapons ban a sign of moderation when a majority of Americans support such a ban?
55
It seems to me thay smart hardworking Democrats with integrity who reflected the electorate in their district and addressed the concerns of voters who they inspired to vote fared best in 2018. It's not about moderate vs progressive. It's about who fits the district. ACO and Sharice Davids won for the same reason.
58
@brockse47
AOC won in a reliably Democratic district. If you look at the House results, progressives won mostly in that kind of district. But what shifted control of the House was moderates like Conor Lamb taking previously Republican seats.
4
@C Wolfe -- The race to take control of the US House and even the US Senate still boils down to candidates that are the most genuinely in touch with the people they are being elected to serve. I believe voters are much more aligned these days around issues like healthcare, gun violence and student loan debt/ college tuition. An estimated 80% of all voters (including 51% of Republican voters) want some form of Medicare For All (as a public option buy-in or as a single-payer administrative system.) Gun owners agree with everyone else that we need stricter gun laws and a real test of that may be the former NRA members, who are organizing state gun safety clubs to weaken the political power of the NRA. An estimated 42% of all registered voters identify as Independents, claiming no loyalty to either the Democrats or Republicans. What is obvious to me is that the era of "identity" politics is OVER. We need people, who can stand up to corporations and the billionaire class and lead this country to make real changes.
3
@mjpezzi
I completely agree that the ideal House candidate depends on the representing the people of the district. I am happy to see progressives win in safely Democratic districts; I am happy to see moderate Democrats win seats from extremist Republicans.
7
It seems to me that smart hardworking Democrats with integrity who reflected the electorate in their district and addressed the concerns of voters who they inspired to vote fared best. It's not about moderate vs progressive. It's about who fits the district. ACO and Sharice Davids won for the same reason. And if this moderate Democrat loses today, it does not mean a progressive would have won.
5
That is unfair framing of the question. If McCready wins, we are supposed to think that the moderate Dems are better than progressive, if he loses, we are supposed to think there is no chance for Dems, even for moderate ones. Such set up, automatically exclude left-leaning candidates from consideration.
33
@yulia I agree, I've donated twice to his campaign from Colorado, am I now to be counted as a pro-gun far right centrist?
1
It might also be noted that often the candidate on the right is politically and ethically compromised while the candidate on the left is either not as compromised or not known to be compromised. Take a look at the redo of the tainted NC election: which side was shown to be cheating but still managed to come up with only the slightest margin of “victory”?Americans far from the more liberal coasts may be disposed to more centrist candidates, but conservatives run crooked campaigns and often dragoon extraneous elements, such as fundamentalist religion, to throw a secular election off balance.
10
Bernie nearly won the nomination in 2018 despite the fact that the media and the DNC had an organized and concerted effort to shut him out. I see signs that they are pushing Biden on us the same way. He's just another problematic "centrist" candidate, meaning no one is enthusiastic about him or his policies, and many of us cannot support him at all.
15
@Elisabeth
First of all, the primary was in 2016, not 2018.
Second of all, losing by 12 percentage points in the popular vote and losing 34 out of 57 primaries/caucuses is not "nearly winning." Any evidence of a "concerted effort" to shut Bernie out is circumstantial at best, and it is time to put this beaten-to-death narrative to bed.
13
@David
David, my man, you can't argue with these people. They are as deaf to the facts as any die-hard Trumper. They see conspiracies just like Trumpers do. It doesn't surprise me that a substantial number of Bernie supporters voted for Trump in the general election.
It's scary. I'm seeing comments that flatly say that if we can't have Sanders or Warren or whoever, anybody except Biden, we'd rather have Trump. These folks are not persuadable. All we can do i hope that they aren't many of them.
Looking at comments of this nature, I take comfort in this. Almost off of them are from deep blue states that will go for Biden in the primaries, and then vote for him again in the general election by huge margins. In effect, their votes don't count, and I doubt they can contribute much monetarily. They are, like Bernie, noisy and feckless. But when I see such comments from Michigan or Florida, I start to worry again.
1
@Elisabeth Some of Bernie's policies are too far left and scaring away independent voters. Without independent voters' supports, Bernie will not be able to beat trump. Period. -- An independent voter.
1
As long as the national party organizations (DCCC etc.) endorse centrist candidates before primaries, providing them with resources unavailable to progressive candidates and threatening consultants with loss of patronage, how could the results be any different?
No one doubts that constituencies have diverse political tendencies. But let Democratic voters in primaries decide their nominees without interference, and then have the DCCC support the winner.
And, as an addendum, stop making the Democratic legislative program in Congress conform to the lowest-common-denominator swing voter. Education of your constituents is part of the job!
27
The issue of electability is so much more complicated than this article suggests. Local polling and focus groups give more nuanced data. The result is often a selected set of positions that appeal and sometimes masking the positions that need to move the needle.
9
Weak analysis. The United States is not a reflection of North Carolina’s ninth congressional district, nor is the electability of a candidate based solely on his (or her) position on the political ideological spectrum.
81
@Nyt reader
Actually, North Carolina is more politically aligned with the rest of the U.S. than Manhattan or downstate New York. It's a much more moderate/conservative country than we liberals care to admit. And while ideology may not be the sole criterion for selecting a candidate it sure has heck is the starting point. Like it or not, the Democratic party is a minority party without a substantial number of moderates. They need a minimum of 25 in the House and 5-7 in the Senate, depending upon how you define moderate/conservative.
18
@Laurence Bachmann
...and that's why we have to appeal outside just the party. Sanders and Warren bring in distinct voter groups not traditionally appealed to by Clinton, Kerry, etc., many of whom identify as independents, which is currently the largest voter alignment.
9
NC 9 is gerrymandered. Many of its residents are poor, of all races. Many residents are not well educated and have fallen for pie in the sky promises from a greasy salesman type candidate in the past. Sounds to me like a great microcosm of America under Trump.
4
Weak analysis. The United States is not a reflection of North Carolina’s ninth congressional district, nor is the electability of a candidate based solely on his (or her) position on the political ideological spectrum.
5
The assertion Progressive Democrats make : that there is a great silent cadre of previously uninvolved voters waiting for a unambiguously left wing candidate to support reminds me of the wishful thinking the Republican Right made in the early Sixties. They nominated Barry Goldwater with great confidence that this invisible army would magically materialise on election day, and I don't think NYT readers need to be told what happened, or, rather, what didn't.
18
@arthur peter - The fallacy is simple: a radical candidate will draw to the polls huge numbers of people who are determined to stop that candidate. This wave will overwhelm the new voters the candidate attracts.
7
@arthur peter It also reminds me of what I truly believed in 1972: that George McGovern could find a huge hidden "new politics" majority which started with young people. I walked precincts for McGovern, and when 49 states rejected him in favor of Richard Nixon, I learned a traumatic lesson that has never left me.
For somebody my age (63), the question is: which of the painful lessons you learned are still relevant? And which aren't?
Today's democratic left says the McGovern experience no longer applies. The world changes; demographics change; Trump has repelled millions, who are now more comfortable with aggressive government action to solve social problems, as well as immigration and diversity.
Maybe they're right. I'm certainly sympathetic to their goals and worldview. Still, I do see a whole lot of consistent voters out there who never miss an election, and seem at least as afraid of Sanders-type politics as they are of Trump.
6
@arthur peter
AOC.
2
The evidence for electing moderates seems pretty bare if you ask me. We have a white supremicist president. We have a senate made up of a majority white supremicist GOP-ers. And we have many, many GOP dominated state houses and governors who call for , for example, criminalizing women who have or have had abortions. Does not look like moderate America is any advantage at all. Elect people who are going to do successful things about the massive problems facing the mass of the American people. And that's it.
125
So, your proposal to win over the voters who elected these people is to run somebody on the far left?
8
@Ziggy
There is no far left worth mentioning in this country. The farthest left we get is the likes of Bernie Sanders, who wants to institute policies that are common, and considered moderate, throughout the western world.
10
@Ziggy
Relative to today's GOP, the far left is nothing more than moderate by traditional standards.
4
"A North Carolina election is also a chance to think about what kind of candidate might do best against President Trump." Wrong. North Carolina is not indicative of the entire country. To make assumptions based on one state would be ill-informed.
56
@marchfor sanity
The presidential election won't be decided in the "entire country". It will be decided in 2-4 swing states, which are NOT liberal bastions.
4
This is the way to beat Trump and the Republicans in 2020. Listen to the Bidens, Pelosis and even Warren who finally may have gotten it.
Stay away from the squad and identity politics and social engineering that was lethal to Hillary.
If they don't they will be giving Trump another term.
7
But that was Hillary did. She was very careful, and tried to woo conservatives. How did that work?
7
@Paul
Nominating the centrist didn't work in 2016, so let's do it again in 2020! That's some sound logic.
6
@Paul
Identity politics is working great for the right, but the left definitely shouldn't do it! Right.
1
No matter how far right or left a candidate is in the primary, they all move to the center for the general election
6
McCready sounds a lot like many midwestern democrats. The only problem is conservatives think all democrats are the same and brand all of them far left. They appear to be far left if you are already viewing them from the far right.
23
I’m not surprised as I count myself as one of the moderate democrats. Most folks in my circle are
5
Another Clintonian Republicrat. Better than a sharp stick in the eye. Maybe.
7
What Democrats really need in a presidential candidate, in order to beat Trump, is an experienced moderate younger than Joe Biden. Instead, we have Joe Biden and 2 progressives. It is an odd situation to say the least.
4
@Joe Runciter
The voters are not rushing to seeing the younger candidates. They aren't interested in them. Sure, a smattering here and there are, but several of the younger ones did not make it to this week's debate stage because they couldn't poll at 2%. That really should tell you something about where the people are and it is not with the candidates being pushed on us.
@nora m
Because Biden was Obama's VP, his name recognition, war chest, and media presence are way ahead of the rest. The other moderates could not compete with that. That is all it "tells you".
Mr. McCready will likely win today and create lots of enthusiasm on the left. The reality is that his positions on key issues would be more on line with a moderate Republican of a few years ago. Both parties should take notice.
33
@Johnny M
Mr. McCready has little hope of success now that the owners of that seat have had the opportunity to reboot.
Masters of Gerrymandering, seldom loose.
3
@Johnny M The fact that Trump visited and has spent two days tweeting in all caps for his opponent will of course make this at least feel good.
@Reality
So, everyone, what was so outrageous about my comment? They write the rules, decide who can vote, control the media, count the "votes" ,and have the cooperation of their opponents who put forward a candidate who opposes his party's platform and leadership. Did anyone expect Mr M to win?
2
Nationally, 42% of registered voters call themselves Independents, and are more aligned with issues than with either the Democrats or Republicans. Another reality check: 75% of all Democratic-voters under age 50 voted for Bernie Sanders NOT the "establishment" corporate-wing candidate, Hillary Clinton. We keep rotating between the two major parties, but wages for workers have remained stagnant for three decades that have allowed income to rise by 216% for the 1% global manufacturing and defense industry investments crowd (a group of people that are big-donors to both parties) and at a time, when corporations are receiving $93 billion in government subsidies and tax breaks and are paying ZERO taxes. The middle class has practically been erased. The ladder from working class to middle class no longer exists. I believe it was always going to be between the two anti-establishment candidates Sanders vs Trump and I really am disappointed that we did not get that debate because Trump more or less ran on a lot of Bernie's agenda, which he most likely did not have any ability or desire to push through the US Congress. Senator Sanders won many states in the rust belt because he and Trump both called NAFTA a "lousy trade deal" that did not protect American workers or American intellectual property. The #StopTPP movement was big in many "swing states." Trump also promised to end Obamacare and deliver something far better.... crickets on that. Medicare For All is the Sanders solution.
36
@mjpezzi
Trump simply had and has no compunctions about lying. "Tell them what they want to hear, and then do what most benefits yourself" was and is his working strategy.
16
@mjpezzi
Wow. All I can say is wow.
How close to the truth can you get.
This is why we have trump.
We really wanted Bernie.
And now they will give us Biden
Corporate States of America.
5
@Joe Runciter
We know that, can't we move on?
We need solutions.
2
If McCready wins or or does well in today's North Carolina redo congressional election, the wind will be turning in the direction of moderate and younger Democratic contenders for the Presidency next year. If Dan Bishop loses bigly tonight, McCready will be a bellwether for victory next year.
2020 Democrats must appeal (whether or not Dan McCready wins this last election of 2018) to voters in the House battleground districts, in the states which assured the Electoral College's presidency of Donald Trump despite the popular vote 3 years ago.
Race and gender (and age) of voters (and candidates) will matter more and ideology less next year. Electability is key to the Democrats winning the House, Senate and Presidency. Unless unforeseen upsets occur (such as Trump winning the 2016 presidential election).
10
@Nan Socolow I don't see McCready as moderate anything. He's a republican in democratic drag. The majority of Americans are for an assault weapons ban, he's not. So what is he? a Southerner-the bane of us all.
2
@Nan Socolow To my mind, this is a good argument for Beto O'Rourke. He's a young, eminently electable democrat who nearly turned Texas blue in Senate campaign. It's a shame he's not getting more national attention.
1
I wonder though whether the mood has changed over the past half decade or so, especially in national elections.
First, it seems that in 2016, many wanted a change from moderate establishment candidates ... Trump sounded progressive on healthcare and taxes and "won" with antiestablishment nationalism, despite serious flaws that were obvious to many.
Second, healthcare reached an all time crisis, only mildly buffered by Obamacare. It is possible that parts of the electorate sees that in international comparison, the current US system is the radical and dysfunctional outlier, not a beacon of well working moderation.
Maybe it depends on the way the agenda can be framed and what is emphasized. Identity politics and open borders are probably losers, while true health reform, basic good governance and human decency are winners.
59
@Roland - 42% of registered voters call themselves Independents, and are more aligned with issues than with either the Democrats or Republicans. Another reality check: 75% of all Democratic-voters under age 50 voted for Bernie Sanders NOT the "establishment" corporate-wing candidate, Hillary Clinton. We keep rotating between the two major parties, but wages for workers have remained stagnant for three decades that have allowed income to rise by 216% for the 1% global manufacturing and defense industry investments crowd (a group of people that are big-donors to both parties) and at a time, when corporations are receiving $93 billion in government subsidies and tax breaks and are paying ZERO taxes. The middle class has practically been erased. The ladder from working class to middle class no longer exists. I believe it was always going to be between the two anti-establishment candidates Sanders vs Trump and I really am disappointed that we did not get that debate because Trump more or less ran on a lot of Bernie's agenda, which he most likely did not have any ability or desire to push through the US Congress. Senator Sanders won many states in the rust belt because he and Trump both called NAFTA a "lousy trade deal" that did not protect American workers or American intellectual property. The #StopTPP movement was big in many "swing states." Trump also promised to end Obamacare and deliver something far better.... crickets on that. Medicare For All is the Sanders solution.
8
@mjpezzi
Write more!
Get the point across.
3
@Roland -- The "New Democrats" aka Clinton corporate-wing Democrats have done a lot of harm to both major parties by moving to the right to represent the big-donor investments crowd, which of course, forced Republican opponents to move farther to the right... which in turn, has caused both parties to keep moving farther to the right, ignoring the working class and allowing the middle class to flounder as well.
Look at the issue of healthcare. Obama learned very quickly that he did not have enough votes within the Democratic Party to give the people what they asked for, a public option. The USA via a mix of government, private-insurance and private-pay costs is spending $30 trillion; which could rise to over $50 trillion a year within a decade if we do nothing. Employers are looking at $20,000 and $30,000 per employee per year, causing them to ask employees to share more of the costs on top of high annual deductibles and copays. Insulin costs $240 in the USA, and people who need to use insulin a couple times a day are dying. Meanwhile, Insulin costs $24 in Canada, which negotiates and regulates prescription drugs. Our opioids crisis is a direct result of big pharma corporations flooding the markets, and telling doctors that oxycodone was not addictive: So they could skyrocket profits for themselves and investors. They spend millions upon millions of dollars on political campaigns and federal lobbyists. We NEED PROTECTION via Medicare For All.
2