I think democrats have made the mistake of depending on good policy (perhaps)/Bad Politics for a long time and are generally defeated by candudates proposing bad policy/Good Politics.
People in both parties are pleased that Republicans just took out an additional $2 trillion loan ($2,000,000,000,000) on the backs if our kids and grandkids who can’t even vote, in irder to goose an economy running just fine. That’s nit brilliant policy. The dumbest person in America ciuod borrow way beyond their means and boost the economy. We did it under Bush
Trump has taken affordable heakth care fron 10 million Anericans and draws cheers. Terriblt policy/great politics amongst whites who only see lazy black people on welfare
Trump taunts and attacks allies and the Anerican people feel “exceptional” again. Horrible policy/ great politics
Democrats need a great politics response. Snd they do not have one. Sorry guys, republicans will gain seats in November because the right have better politicians
1
Really?
Read this
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/06/california-primary-election-results-...
Over one in ten colonial Americans left their farms and families, suffered through the harsh winter, and physically confronted the seemingly overpowering British Empire to win our freedom from Empire.
Or as Pat might have shouted out and encouraged if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his rallying cry, "Give me Liberty (from Empire) or Give me Death".
It seems almost shamefull to me today, that less than one in a hundred American citizen/'subjects' of this modern Emperor Trump, who is making our country "act like an Empire", do NOT even have the plain sence or courage to just publicly call-him-out as an Emperor by firing a loud, public, sustained, 'in the streets', but totally non-violent "Shout (not shot) heard round the world" in order to ignite a people's peaceful and patriotic Second American "Political Revolution Against Empire".
Dump
Emperor
Trump
"We can't be an Empire"
BTW, this message goes double for accepting this abuse of country by weak willed Democrats.
2
American took a detour on its course since fifties and sixties and became a rich and elitist club. The society changed from the vision of Concord Trios to a Charbok philosophy - self enjoyment is the driving force. Family disintegrated, education detoriated, crony capitalism flourished and inequality increased. We never tried to understand the root cause of this problem - always blamed one group to another, created a false narrative to confuse every one and praised cleverness over honesty. The final out come of this evil forces is Trumps and there are real danger of loosing our constitutional system of government.
Liberal adopted elitism and tried to camouflage it as meritocracy - accepted large number of immigrants from foreign culture without considering its implication, adopted global supply chain in the name of free trade to arbitrate on the global labour market for wealth creation. Today we have two cultures where elites and educated immigrants are moving towards a global culture of Yoga, vegetarian , education and holistic life style with gated community, on the other hand rural whites are moving to opioids, fast foods, credit card loans, body piercing, and promiscuous life style. Two groups can not relate to each other - it is not a conservative and liberal devide, it is a huge cultural divide - TV channels are separate. We are not addressing this issue and created a caricature of "deplorable" and "Sander's liberal" to woodwind the common masses. Let us be real.
A pro-greed, privatizing, anti-labour Democrat is a Republican.
1
Gun control and gay marriage? That's how Tomasky measures left and right in 2018?
The litmus test issue this year is universal healthcare. More and more, Democratic candidates across the country are expected to endorse Medicare for All. If candidates won in California who don't favor it, that would be news, and maybe a blow to the left. Otherwise, we've finally won the Democratic debate.
There is no bigger issue. Healthcare is 18% of the economy. We waste $1 trillion a year in profits and bureaucracy while condemning 50,000 Americans to die on a pyre of ideology, greed, and misogyny by refusing to treat treatable disease.
The only people who understand our healthcare system and like it are those who profit from it. They are a tiny minority. The rest of us have everything to gain from expanding Medicare to cover everyone 100%.
1
Hopefully, those on the far left will see that it is more important to vote in a Congress to put a check on Trump and future Supreme Court nominees than it is to make a statement. Our country depends on them.
1
How to define 'left' in our distorted politics? That's a column we need. The GOP manipulates the voters by demonizing govt itself as interfering with our freedoms. but elected govt's job is protection of the average citizen, not protection of the rich and the power elite.
Today President Eisenhower and Truman would be too 'left liberal'. Compare past generation's support of the citizen majority.
Unions were strong and helped raise the pay of all employees.
Jobs stayed here.
Our elections were not subsidized by corporate mega donors.
Taxes were much higher on the rich, and helped fund public services.
State taxes helped fund low cost tuition in state universities. Regulation on big business was more accepted.
This is what built the US middle class. Today, the positive examples are in other advanced democracies where it's centrist, not left wing, to have health care for all--regardless of income, job status or age.
So we have to clarify and re define what liberal means today. Is there a NY Times op ed writer who could do that, and start a comparative discussion in our news media?
7
This is actually bad for the Democrats.
The main thing that sunk them in 2016 was the party undermining what the grassroots wants, meaning the grassroots did not feel energized to show up for Hillary in sufficient numbers.
And here you go doing it again by buying the primaries for party-selected candidates.
We need to stop caring about winning the next election cycle. All of the problems we are facing are fundamental constitutional issues which are distorting the representation of the people's will in Congress through the a skewed and corrupt electoral system. It is better to boycott it to rob it of legitimacy.
We need to provoke a constitutional crisis to get these issues actually addressed and the centrist democrats do not seem keen on actually changing any of this at all to be frank. Because the reality is, they are conservative neoliberals pretending to be progressives, bribed with Wall Street money, and the status quo suits them just fine because they've been bought out of their values.
6
That's almost exactly right.
So correct, it's pointless to bandy about differences too small to matter.
1
No, no, no! The Democrats first must regain the House, to stop the worst of Trump’s damage to the environment and the rule of law. And regain state houses so people don’t lose their right to vote. Time to have a center vs. left debate then, after we’ve saved the Republic and the planet.
1
no
NYT, your recent article disparaging moderates using statistics from Europe I thought displayed questionable insight, but it was an interesting read. Most voters want common sense policies that reflect their values. It shouldn't be seen as shocking when Democrats want good schools, safe streets, strong military and productive employment. Most also understand that health care costs won't improve by giving things away for free, nor will a free education guarantee job growth. There are far more moderate Democrats than the media reports,and voting Republican isn't a viable option. Not thrilled with Bernie or Elizabeth, because I've worked far too long to codify folks who don't think they need to work hard to get the American dream.
4
A pro gun, anti same sex marriage Democrat wins his district. Moderate, middle of the road? And when he gets to Congress, I’m sure Democrats will have a good reason to tell all those Parkland survivors...just wait a few more years for...change.
He may have won, but you’ve pretty much lost me. Why bother to vote Dem, when you end up with Repubs. Again.
5
Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2010 Jungle Primaries almost succeeded in splitting the Democratic Party leaving the races open for Republicans to win. That was the real reason for his proposal. And the stupid Democrats went along with it. Democrats are a bunch of dopes. It looks like we narrowly averted a disaster similar to Trump's election where he lost the popular vote by 3,000,000.
The Republicans got it right in Texas. The Democrats are still in school.
1
It simply means there aren’t enough liberal voters.
There are many liberal activists, there are many liberal websites, , there are many liberal media, there are many liberals on social media ... but they don't vote even for Democratic primaries because they believe their ideas are bigger than democracy.
You can call them pure or stupid.
3
Good news for the world that the Democrats have a good chance of winning control over the House of Representatives. If this happens, they can unleash the gates of hell the following spring. We will learn so much about Donald Trump and his tax returns and probably everything that he has been involved in for decades. I think decades is right. I don't think they will subpoena his report cards, although it would be relevant to learn why he was expelled from the Kew Forest Academy when he was 13 and his father was on the board of trustees. Relevant with respect to his mental pathology, unless you assume as he does that he is the most extraordinary physical specimen ever to have occupied the oval office. But then there are those tax returns all of those very wealthy Russians who seemed to have transversed Trump properties. Then there are the Central Asians and the Gulf region connections. We do have the emoluments clause issues and what not. All of this will be available or should be if the House flips giving Democrats unlimited subpoena powers.
The articles of impeachment may be quite lengthy and powerful testaments to the investigatory powers of the Congress as they nail their very wealthy quarry, itemizing obstruction (most certainly), collusion (maybe) and official corruption (certainty) and then other items from the past related to various crimes that may have been committed including tax evasion, money laundering and other potential felonies. Lord protect us.
2
The DNC showering Republican lite candidates with resources at the expense of grassroots favorites? If I recall correctly the end results of such strategy two years ago were less than satisfactory.
I suppose I'll check back in 6 months to see the centrist apologists bemoaning third party candidates and stupidity of the voting public with no sense of irony.
7
We've been surprised before by elected candidates, Mr. Tomasky. Those campaigning in poetry have often turned out to be quite prosaic in the aftermath.
The days of a Nixon & an EPA are over. Vote Democratic and we'll rehash the details as they present themselves & come to agreement. Republicans are to be shunned across the board.
4
During the 2016 campaign Hillary and Bernie agreed on over 90 percent of the issues. Over 90 percent. That gets you an A anywhere. Don't let the other side divide us. You don't have to like everything about a candidate to know who is the better candidate. You don't get a perfect spouse, you don't get a perfect friend and you don't get a perfect candidate.
6
More than four decades is enough of moderate, neoliberal Democrats at the helm of the Party. What did it bring us? A crippled labor movement, economic inequality, half-measures on the environment, and an abandonment of the most vulnerable. Democrats who speak in poetic and prophetic phrases but position themselves just slightly to the right of Republicans have fooled us once too often. BTW, they NEVER tack to the left once they are elected.
10
We don't need Democrats to normalize Trump's behavior. We're afflicted with plenty of Republicans who do that.
We don't need Democrats to speak against abortion, or for guns -- the people who want their president to take those positions have already chosen Trump, and nothing will change their votes.
We need Democrats to stand for our beliefs, not to pretend to be Republicans. We need to know what they think about the issues we care about, not the ones only the ultra-rich care about.
The GOP is already tottering and irrelevant. Why emulate them, unless we seek the same future for the Democrats?
3
Gee I wonder why progressives didn't do as well as establishment supported Democratic candidates? Could it be the party deliberately sabotaged their campaigns from the beginning? Surprisingly, Democratic funds were spent on negative ads and publicity directed toward Bernie supported progressives. No campaign money from the party went to the banished upstart progressives, which certainly could have had an affect on their campaigns. I wonder if progressive donors realized that their donations did not reach their intended candidates? Maybe this time they will get the message. The DNC really is not that into you progressives.
5
" I wonder if progressive donors realized that their donations did not reach their intended candidates?"
Any progressive dumb enough to donate to the DNC or the DCCC who expects that their money will be directed towards a progressive candidate deserves to lose it. Want to support progressive candidates, donate directly to the candidate's campaign.
Bernie single-handedly pushed the Democratic party back toward the left, which is where it used to be before Reagan. Even Diane Feinstein was robo-calling me last week with "vote for me because I'll push for single-payer healthcare." I never heard that from her before Bernie came along.
Give Bernie credit for shoving the Democratic party back on to the correct track. Hopefully he can inspire Millennials, minorities, women, the poor, and everyone else who has traditionally benefitted from Democratic policies to show up and vote this fall.
7
All this talk of the Left and Right. What about the Middle? We are reasonable people that evaluate, think, challenge and search for the truth. We will vote for qualified candidate of either party as long as they promise to honor their commitment to their districts above that of their party. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that in the Republican Party, the extremists will vote for the party candidates in spite of not agreeing with them where the Left will sit at home and pout. Bernie and his constituency basically gave the Presidency to Trump (well the Russians did help quite a bit). I think that the difference in the upcoming election will be that those in the middle who voted for Trump are now a bit wiser.
3
The center doesn't stand for anything, though. What was the moderate position on slavery? What is the moderate position on police brutality toward black people--continuing to tell them to comply, even though they get killed while complying?
That you cling to the Russia narrative and insist that Bernie people stayed home and pouted gives us all the information we need to not vote center. Those two items are not true, nor are they the full story.
The center is a watery abyss that perpetuates policy that benefits everyone but the average American and that's why people have grown tired of it.
4
me - the center stands for IT's positions. The moderate.
It's what most people believe in - not a middle between slavery and no slavery (nice strawman) - but one that might say that police brutality is a problem and should not be tolerated, police racism is a problem and should not be tolerated, but when a suspect is NOT complying and is a valid REAL threat, police have a right to defend themselves, and that there is a problem when people resist arrest, that that is not ok to do either - not a capital crime, but not right.
The middle is where the reasonable solutions live. It's where the supreme court is on abortion - not abortion anytime for any reason, nor abortion never - it's abortion in the first trimester for any reason, second trimester with some reason, third trimester for severe reasons.
The center is a good place.
2
Evidence, please. Evidence progressives stayed home in 2016. Evidence centrists didn't flip for Trump. Evidence Clinton wasn't an even worse candidate than Trump. Evidence only centrists think, challenge, and evaluate.
I dint know what "moderate" means when it comes to healthcare. Some tweak to the lousy so-called system we have, with its expense, inequity, and pathetic outcomes? Any thinking person knows universal Medicare would save money and lives. I challenge any neoliberal to think about that, and explain why we shouldn't enact it as soon as possible.
Looking at the numbers and the future of the USA: 75% of Democratic-voters under age 50 wanted Senator Bernie Sanders, and said they would never vote for former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton because she supports the US war machine and cheap foreign labor manufacturing. She would not take a stand on improved and expanded Medicare for everyone -- and thought $12 an hour was the biggest increase in the minimum wage was the most we could hope for... she sat on the board of Walmart and thought giving more tax-break subsidies to Walmart and other low-wage employees to encourage them to hire more inner city youth was a solution to high unemployment upward towards 50% in inner city neighborhoods, even though Walmart encourages their workers to apply for welfare as the working poor, passing on the burden of low wages to the tax payers. To me, that is the definition of a Republican not a Democrat. And when you add the 40% plus of Independent voters, who lean heavily left from this "centralist" policy, you would clearly see a win for "progressive" candidates.
6
So, 75% bought into a pack of lies sold by Sanders. One of the really HUGE problems with him. The fact that he and Clinton were very nearly perfectly aligned on political positions and votes meant nothing - he fought dirty and told lies to try to take her down.
3
I once took the time to calculate how much money Sanders' tax on stock transactions over $100 would generate v. how much was apparently needed to give free college tuition to everyone, and concluded that Sanders was off by a few tens of billions of dollars (several, actually).
The problem with Sanders and his supporters, as Clinton spelled out in her book, is that it's easy to promise the sky. The problem is paying for it. People don't mind paying taxes; they just don't like paying and paying and paying taxes.
8
www.fixithealthcare.com explains why our broken healthcare system is so expensive, inefficient, and ineffective. We're paying for it through lost wages, claims denials, co-pays, skipped medication, and by avoiding the doctor. Each year, 50,000 Americans pay for it with their lives. That's as many names as on the Vietnam memorial, a whole war's toll, every year.
Medicare for All would cost 2/3 of the current system, but it would double the size of Medicare. Taxes would go up. Tell me: would those be taxes people don't mind paying, or taxes the don't like to pay and pay?
Republicans can be counted on to lie and scream about death panels, government takeover, freedom to choose, and huge expense. A tax hike! Yes, dammit, a tax hike. Taxes are the price of civilization. Medicare for All will get us out of this train wreck. It will save lives and money, and bring security to every American family.
Well, it's obvious to some why there aren't "enough liberals" to win the House of Representatives. Democrats are delusional when it comes to campaigning.
1) Democrats are enamored of Tip O'Neil's tired old wheeze that "All politics is local." In the internet/social media age. Right! You might as well buy a horse and buggy while you're at it.
2) Like 1 above, Democrats simply refuse to lay out a national agenda. What will you DO if you get elected?
3) Identity politics rots. You claim the GOP is doing everything to divide this country -- so does identity politics. And just think, you might actually win a few races if some white people vote for your candidates.
4) Stop playing "safe." It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of principle. I live in a "safe" California district. You'd barely know there was a primary going on. By ignoring energized Democrats in "safe" seats you're wasting the amount of time and money we could be contributing by including us in more campaign activity. And no, badgering me with daily requests for money is NOT the same thing.
If you want to generate excitement, this is critical. I am easily excited about November, people in swing districts much less so -- but I can HELP you excite them in ways you can't, they're MY friends, coworkers, and family.
5) And finally, buy more bunting, much more. The heyday of American electoral politics and times when America was at her greatest was virtually ALL under Democrats. It's your strongest message!
2
In a representative republic, where states have every power not specifically enumerated to the federal government, all politics ARE local.
5
I mostly agree with you, but not on identity politics. As a Puerto Rican woman, my life, and now that of my family's on the island, is less consequential, and more of an uphill battle, than a white person's. Black women (black people) have it even harder than me and have had it like that for centuries.
That the Democrats mostly give lip service to minorities (see: Doug Jones, The Clintons) is a problem, but that doesn't mean that the situation doesn't need attention. You need it all--social, racial and economic justice.
6
I once saw a young man stand up in the middle of a plaza and proclaim, "If everyone believed in me, there would be world peace." He was right. If such a scenario came about, the world would be aligned, all would be as one, etc. etc. The poor man wandered about muttering, "I only want what's right for everyone. I bring love."
And thus, Bernistas complain that if only we all voted for what we knew what was right, Bernie would be President, and the era of cynical "at least the moderate has a chance" voting will come to an end.
Such idealistic thinking gave us Trump, and if reality is finally, finally intruding on such dreamers, it's about time.
9
No wonder, when the DNC plowed 8 million dollars into promoting their Republican light candidates. Shame on them, they will loose in the midterm as that strategy has already failed in 2016.
6
Democrats give away too much of my hard earned money to every social program they can make up including the ones already on the books. They also put illegals ahead of anything else. This is why they are not going to take back anything.
I am voting for Francis Crozier and James Fitzjames!
2
Not a L/R issue- 90% of US citizens want $ out of politics. Congress is broken not because Rs and Ds can’t get along- it’s because they are voting for the interests of their big donors- and allowing industry lobbyists to write the language on the laws our congress then votes on! I’ll vote for an R or D if they run their campaign w/out special interest money, and offer a plan to move to publicly funded elections. Many candidates are- check the winners from yesterday.
Remember- Senator Sanders closed clinton’s 60 pt lead in the primaries without special interest $. He won 23 of 50 states- without the benefit of a neutral national committee. He had 0 name recognition when he announced his run and he didn’t get a fraction of the TV time that Sen. Clinton and Trump got. Sen. Sanders out performed Senator Clinton in every head-head poll conducted against Trump- often by double digits.
And - as Donna Brazil found out- Clinton had financially bailed out the DNC and arranged to have financial and decision making authority before the primary even started!
DNC/DCCC needs to reform themselves - back into a democratic process- rather than continue to “anoint” prechosen ‘moderate’ candidates they pray will beat a republican. DCCC is doing in 2018 what the DNC did in 2016. STOP that if you want to win!
https://www.sentinelcolorado.com/1gridoped/levi-tillemann-the-swamp-come...
7
Comments here that suggest perfectionism from Democrats. An all or nothing mentality. Most Americans know this is not how the world works best because they know it does not work that well in their own families. It interesting to note how we are now getting a better picture about how Russia affected our election through social media and so wonder now even here in these comments who is here now sowing the flames for another election? Attempting to get America fired up when we are just all exhausted and want someone in the White House that is not a stooge for Russia. We need a good guy that can think about things from different points of view.
6
What "Left"? There hasn't been such a thing since 1919 when it was suppressed by the Wilson regime. Sheesh.
3
There isn't any real left in the Democratic party.
2
Don't you mean "Given that" or "In light of the fact that," or anything better than "insofar as?" So far in this case is 100%, right?.....
A language prude
2
If I listen to Fox News, Obama is a far left socialist.
But Obama is about the same as Angela Merkel who is center-right.
6
I wish that Obama were the same as a center right German politician. The Germans do have affordable health care for all, low cost post secondary education, great public transportation, essentially no gun violence, strong recycling programs, all from their "center right" prospective.
1
@Steve C Boise, Idaho
I agree completely.
But I blame Republicans 100 times more than Obama for the US not having these things.
The bernie wing didn't do so good. Bernie why we are stuck the Dotard as POTUS.
6
The Times coverage of this is quite biased. Most people who saw the same results found them quite mixed, the Democrats perhaps averting disaster, but not doing all that impressively. The Times appears to be cheerleading and not reporting.
3
When asked, Pat Paulson said he was middle of the bird. Too much left wing or too much right wing means you fly around in circles. All my Republican friends call me the office commie. The fact is that I have actually gotten slightly more conservative than I was 20 years ago. It is the Republicans who have flapped so hard with the right that they are swirling in a spiral ever losing altitude.
3
i just wonder how hard trump will fight to save his monarchy once real Americans are in the house ? Trump is a dirty fighter. will the supreme court follow in the footsteps of royalists or patriots ? only justice kennedy knows for sure.
Ryan plays nice now so he will be picked as VP once trump is gone. i am sure he and pence will pardon the fat man in the oval office.
stay tuned for season 2 and find out what happens to ivanka and jarod... sarah and rudi. same bat time same bats in the white tower.
3
Pretty much what more than 65 million Hillary Clinton voters have been telling the NYT and other media outlets since Nov. of 2016. Bernie lost then. His candidates lose all the time. They are delusional, and no one EVER calls them out.
8
With so much of the Republican Party drinking the Trumpist koolaide, the Democrats need to be a big tent party.
Maybe much of the national dialog we need with each other can take place under that tent.
10
The Dems should have one slogan, and one slogan only in the fall, and it's the same as our national motto: E Pluribus Unum. The country has gone down a very dark and divided road with the election of Donald Trump, and I believe we are at a crisis point similar to the Soviet Union in the early 90s. (Not to be too much of a conspiracy theorist, but I have considered a theory that Putin's support of Trump could be sabotage and payback for the breakup of the Soviet Union and subsequent invasion of Russian markets and culture by the West. If the United States disintegrates under Trump, this theory may be validated). E Pluribus Unum, one of our fundamental founding principles, and one that everyone who has ever handled a US coin should recall, is more important right now than economics, foreign policy, or any other single political issue. I truly believe the fate of the republic is at stake in this next election, and only the strong and repeated articulation of this most fundamental principle of our nation might possibly save us.
1
Moderate, liberal, centrist, Bernie-wing or not; this time is different, and so simple, who EVER the democrat is facing whatever republican in November get out and vote the Dem (and NOT a third party). The ship is going down, deck chair colors are irrelevant.
7
White liberals who have been to college don't get to define the "left" all by themselves. Sorry, but it's true. That voice should be coming from the non-white portions of the Democratic base, the people who have the most to lose under the kind of administration we have now.
What we need now is not a fight between different groups of upscale white Democrats with different philosophical preferences. It's a way to unite anti-Trump white people and all the people of color in the Democratic coalition.
2
(1) Isn't it funny how ALL the calls to unify are ALWAYS to support the establishment candidate? And "shame on you if you don't." What a terrific motivational message!
(2) You all need to stop with this Left vs Right dichotomy. Nearly 50% of the population doesn't play that game (are registered Independent). If anything it's elites vs non-elites. What are you going to do for the "common man", the typical worker? Sell _that_ message and you won't need to worry about where the votes are coming from.
7
I learned I was the liberal elite in the Bush election of 2000.
I grew up in a blue collar family, first generation in my family to go to college.
I started working at ten years old, got a job paying taxes at 15 (you could do that back then) and have been working and paying taxes ever since.
I worked my way through high school and college, going to a state university in math and computers which I paid for myself. Saved my money and got a masters in engineering which I paid for myself.
But Bush was the regular guy even though he is third generation multi-millionaire, whose family paid for him to go to Yale and then to Harvard.
And what makes Republicans call me a liberal is that I want to help people less fortunate than myself.
Kind of sounds like a Christian but so many Christians I know go to church on Sunday and say buyer beware Monday through Friday.
I want to pay more taxes to help those factory workers with retraining and health care.
But for them, I am the liberal elite and the bad guy.
Go figure.
Obviously, the Republicans have great marketing. In fact, it is Orwellian.
11
Not *liberal elite*, but simple *the elite*. The donor class. The ones who've bought both political parties. The ones whom both parties serve.
Check the Princeton study that shows that what the non-wealthy want has Zero impact on policy.
Start catering to those of us in the majority -- dare I say, the 99% -- and victories will follow.
The mantle of "The Party of the People" is up for grabs. The Dems need to reclaim it if they want to remain relevant.
1
@Rusty Shackleford
I agree with everything you say.
And I agree with the wealthy vs the 99%.
But when Trump supporters and Republican voters hear elite, they hear "liberal elite."
On the other hand, when you look at what Republicans do, how could anyone think Republicans are for the 99%?
The Democrats are orders of magnitudes ahead of Republicans when it comes to "The Party of the People."
But Republicans and Fox News and Trump are much better at PR.
It is truly amazing there is even any comparison of Republicans vs. Democrats for the 99%.
1
The article is very sound; some of the comments that I read aren't. We have one person saying he's so glad he voted for Nader over Obama. Yet it was Jill Stein's voters who put Trump in the White House. Granted, the Democrats have to find a better candidate than Clinton, but the idea that a majority of this country's voters support Sanders-Warren leftism is simply ludicrous. The Left is a danger because its absurd economics and extreme political correctness turn off so many people. The far Left has been basically a fifth column for the GOP, helping Republicans gain power in 2000 and 2016. If Trump is reelected it will probably be because so many leftists either voted Green or stayed home.
7
The Democrats saw how Reagan crushed Carter in 1980 and have not had the courage to stand up to the Republicans catering to racial bigotry, promotion of drip-down economic policies that only serve the interests of those with the most wealth, evisceration of government which mitigates excesses in markets and keeps disparities from actually producing want and ineffective common challenges from infrastructure to assuring that all have the means to prosper. Bernie represents the desire of a huge proportion of the people to restore fairness and security to the lives of everyone, not just the most lucky. The Democrats need to make that their goal, too, and not to dismiss it as left wing silliness.
7
Every Democratic candidate better stop all this nonsense and instead LISTEN intently to their constituents and do whatever it takes to WIN their votes in November.
This country just will not survive another 2 years of Trump deconstructing our democracy while the cowering GOP Congressional majority just sits by and watches fearfully.
7
A majority of people do not vote for liberals or conservatives, they just do not vote.
It is a big majority, the primaries and even final general elections have that apathy toward politics as the background to work with.
A small movement in the non-voting population is gigantic in its effects. Trump is proof of that. The left and right aspect is not nearly as important as providing something. Even something as noxious as Trump and Republican crazy.
Establishment Democrats have nothing much to offer. They are boring and spiritless as porridge. I was an active Democrat for 20 years until the party just bored me to death. I still vote Democrat but we need a real challenge to Republican crazy not half measures.
5
The direction of many younger potentially-Democratic voters is left. Most of the young lean strongly towards socialism. And, they're not afraid of being called communists because they recognize it as being nonsense. How can the Democrats present themselves as anything but an uninspiring GOP-lite if they keep turning right? Why try to draw from conservative independents?
4
Because the young don't vote. The middle-aged and the elderly vote. The young turned out for Obama in 2008, but many of them stayed home in 2012. Most of them stayed home in 2016. You have to appeal to likely voters or you lose.
3
Being new to voting, the young *need a reason to vote*. Obama in 2008 was inspirational, so they voted. By 2012, he was exposed as just another establishment politician, so they didn't. In 2016 they had an inspirational figure who was cheated by the Dem establishment, and so again they didn't come out in force. (Thankfully they found Trump too odious, even though he espoused some populist notions.) Give people a reason to vote, and they will.
They will be socialist until they get their first paycheck and notice half their money missing. Or when they buy their first share of the S&P 500 or indeed buy their first home. Of course socialist will say thay will never happen but what they fail to realize is that Americans prefer enlarging the pie not dividing it. BTW I write this as a 'Millenial' from Queens.
2
I am heartily sick of the "true believer" purists, left or right.
For those on the left who decide that purity it more important than winning and will sit home, you've just become part of the problem and helped elect the Republicans.
Please, retreat to your corner and sulk --- quietly.
4
Progressives need to learn that all opinions matter. What's important is controlling Govt. and not letting the GOP destroy 'our' country. There is room for everybody and that is what the constitution is all about-negotiating compromises. It is the down fall of the GOP...remember that! Deems-Compromise and win!
4
I thought I was a Democrat until Bill De Blasio convinced me that if I support equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome, or support the sanctity of private property rights, or agree with the notion that free markets generally work, I am not welcome in the Democratic party. It is a shame, because Republicans are just plain crazy. Maybe I will vote for crazy in November, cause I know what the De Blasio wing of the Democratic party are all about.
3
"Democrats Did Well Last Night. The Left Didn’t."
That's okay. First things first. Win power, then govern. You can't do the latter without first doing the former.
But the blue collar Bernie style liberals should never let up their pressure to reform the establishment Democrats who, in the long run, are as much a hazard to the middle class, our government and way of life as the Republicans. The Democrat elites are simply more inclined to hand out a Band-Aid to the middle class while it bleeds to death, is all.
6
Livonian,
Right on the mark.
The first obligation of both the establishments of the Democratic and Republican parties is to their big money donors, ie, corporations and the rich.
Those establishments differ in that, after both make sure the big money folks are ok, the Republicans say there's nothing left for anybody else, while the Democrats say we'll look around to see if there's anything left for you less-than-rich folks. What's left is, as you say, a band-aid for gaping wounds on the poor, the working and middle classes, and, surprise, the less-than-rich bleed to death.
3
The wonderful thing about our marketplace of ideas is that the mainstream is always vetting ideas from the marketplace for incorporation into the mainstream.
Voting for women didn't use to be mainstream. Now it's expected. In the 90s, Bill Clinton was nervous about being photographed at the White House with anyone openly gay. That has so changed now. LBGTQ photo ops are sought after, not avoided like the plague, by the center.
Criminal justice reform? The mainstream right now is trying to fix what the mainstream of the 80s and 90s put in place.
If your idea is a good one and you can put up a good fight for many years, you can convince the mainstream to move even without winning elections.
On the whole, I have no problem with it. But I draw the line at any pro-gun anti-lgtbq candidate. First of all guns are a litmus test for me. And are you kidding me, anti gay rights? What century is this? I would never have voted for that guy. Why would any Democrat?
1
Define pro-gun? Is that anyone not in favor of banning every weapon - or is it someone who supports allowing gun rights, with true background checks, limits on rapid fire and large magazine size?
There's lots of room for nuanced views - any slogan that fits on a bumper sticker is almost certainly totally insufficient as a policy statement.
1
Many working class Trump supporters actually support Democratic programs.
They just don't know it.
They support Obama-care, higher minimum wage, unions, job training, higher taxes on the wealthy.
The list goes on.
But they listen to Fox News so they don't know.
8
The only thing uniting the Democrats. left or centrist or whatever, it seems, is hatred of Trump. They don't seem to want to propose anything that is actual policy because then they have to explain too many details, like who is affected and how it it paid for. So then, keep it simple. Take a page from the successful Republican 1994 Contract with America that stated goals and helped them win both the House and Senate - turn the midterms into a referendum on the President. Keep him, or boot him? All the Democrat House candidates can sign a pledge that they will vote to impeach that's step 1. Next the 33 Senate Democratic candidates need to sign a pledge that they will vote to convict (you need 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction, so starting from 49 you need at least another 18). Then everyone can turn out on Election Day across the land and cast their vote on this single issue, never mind the rest, too complicated. If Trump is basically the devil in disguise as it appears the commentators here think, then framing the midterms around this one issue should provide a bonanza win for the blue team, with the Evil One gone by January or February 2019. That is what you guys want, right? Or do you?
1
Well, it's definitely what I want. To flat out turn the 2018 midterms into an open referendum on Trump would be beautiful.
Of course, then there's Pence as Pres..........
Looking for perfection - or anything near to it - is just terminally stupid.
Let's pretend there's only 5 political issues you care about, pretend there's only two sides on each, that's 32 possible combinations - you won't find a political party, nor a candidate that you don't disagree with in some places.
This is a democracy. In a dictatorship, one person can push their point of view on all 5 issues - and 1 in 32 people will be quite happy. But here, we are looking for the will of the majority on each issue, and compromise, rather than being a dirty word, is the goal and the best way to let all of us live together.
3
The Democrats are the left. If they fight as they should they will take the house and senate and leave tdump with nothing but tweets.
2
time for the Bernie Bros. to throw another hissy fit and not go to the polls ... giving us Trump in 2016 wasn't enough for those whiners
8
What gave us Trump in 2016 was working class voters getting no attention from establishment, corporate Democrats. 6 to 8 million Obama voters and 29% (more than 1 in 4) of all Latinos voted for Trump. Why? It wasn't because they were racists or white supremacists. It was because a lot of them were working class who were hearing nothing from corporate Democrats, including Hillary. Trump lied to them, but at least he talked to them.
3
So in a system designed to favor moderates, moderates won? Quelle surprise. I don’ think that says much.
1
Leftist Democrats would have a hard pushing for a welfare state with current unemployed numbers. Next permanent unemployed folks will be coming back to work along with folks released from prison...it could be done..if border enforcement continues...increasing wages without leftist mandates.
1
Until the left gets its act together Democrat realists will sideline it until they eschew their more doctrinaire tendencies.
Stick with Bernie or his message.
Lose the identity politics.
Must win this time.
4
The headline, more than the article, does disservice to many (maybe most) on the 'left'; certainly those that continue to have some faith (even if that faith is tattered & bedraggled) in democracy.
I have been voting in school board, local, county, state, national elections since 1970. Majority of votes have been cast for independents or Dems. I identify as at least slightly to the left of Bernie Sanders & found Obama (certainly in his first couple of years) to be to the right of Eisenhower.
But if you are both Progressive and identify with goals designed to communally, cooperatively improve not merely the average quality of life of a polity (country, state, county, neighborhood) but individual lives as well you do not tend to vote for ideological purity (I'll leave that to those scammed by the hucksters). You try to vote a momentarily effective governance with a hope for a modicum of sustainability. (sustainability requires honesty)
I disagree with DNC on almost everything . . . for the last 2 decades specifically about mechanics of 'how' to win elections . . . but if Dems did well yesterday, I'll accept that as being better then a poke in the eye with a sharp stick (& keep hoping for journalists that improve, work diligently to relate the complexity of the narrative rather then consistently opting for the cheapest punchline!
3
The claim that Republicans can gain majorities with "only conservatives" is specious. Republicans have abandoned the majority of what once passed for "conservatism" in America in favor of an nationalist, isolationist, fundamentalist, protectionist, aging white identity politics that largely eschews core conservative principles.
That leaves the ideologic middle free for Democrats to colonize largely on their terms, while Republicans cope with one Roy Moore after another.
1
We are in save-the-country mode now.
The most important thing we can do is to get a Democratic majority in at least one house of Congress so that we can begin to restore a balance of power that the framers envisioned.
I am a devoted Leftist, but I will vote for any Democrat over any Republican at this point in history. The survival of the Republic rests upon the Democrats blocking this insanity toward fascism. I can live with moderately conservative Democrats if they can win general elections.
Please, fellow Leftists, let’s put victory above doctrine. We can fight the Left-Right battles once we have secured our democracy.
10
I supported Dave Min because he had well thought out positions and is moderate enough to attract independents and some Republicans. I attended a candidate forum and found Dave a very compelling candidate.
The same forum was attended by young women rooting for Katie. I fear many women voted for Katie because she's a woman.
I hope I am wrong but I think we'll end up with 2 more years of Mimi......
1
As a "socially liberal, financially conservative" voter (does that even exist any more), this trend is encouraging.
4
"The left" votes, unfortunately, along with the people who did not vote at all in the last election are what got trump elected. If ever there was a lessor of "evils" vote in my 66 year lifetime, 2016 was it. Look what we have now.
I'm no fan of what the mainstream Dems have done over the last while but the only way to incorporate some of the "Bernie" platform into the mainstream is to support the electable democrats and press them to make changes after they are in office. I sincerely hope that Bernie does not decide to run again but rather, work to unite his party in a way they are not now.
3
I would contend that the Republican strategy to ever increase the division between the uber rich and the 99% is working well to divide Democrats. I would contend that as long as Democrats allow them to succeed at this strategy, we will have more of Donald Trump's destruction of America and American values.
6
Destruction of America? Unemployment is lowest in decades, especially for black and latino citizens. The Korean war is likely to end after over 60 years. Peace on Korean peninsula is a real possibility. Trade imbalances that have persisted for decades are being addressed. China's cheating is being called out. The invasion by illegal immigrants is being addressed. In total for the first time in a very long while we have a president that is looking out for the interest of US citizens, I and millions of others find it to be refreshing change.
2
That all sounds great. However none of it is due in any way to Trump's bumbling "initiatives".
Destruction of America? Rape of the environment, and for what purposes? Denying the catastrophic climate changes both in environmental and financial terms. Propagation of corrupt business practices sponsored by Mulvaney. Pushing corrupt for profit "schools" with known track records of ripping off tax payers. Phony patriots who think that denigrating the parents of a heroic service member who died for this country is ok but kneeling respectfully at the anthem is somehow unpatriotic. Invasion of illegal immigrants? You mean the ones that work twice as hard for half the pay as citizens who don't want and can't do the jobs they do? You mean the president that tells blatant, irresponsible and rapidly corrupt lies at every turn? That's what jaco finds refreshing?
The biggest item Bernie is proposing is universal healthcare.
People say we can't afford universal healthcare but we are already paying for it. We just aren't getting it.
We pay about $10,000 / person in healthcare costs. Other first world countries pay about $4,500 to $5,500 per person.
What people don't realize is the money we are paying to insurance companies would instead be paid to Medicare or some other single provider.
Other than the insurance companies, you would think corporate America would like single payer. Their life would be so much easier not having to negotiate each year to figure out what to give or not give their employees.
Hospitals and doctors should like it because they will have a single set of rules and won't need near as many medical coders as they do with all the different plans they deal with today.
And we should like it because there will be no more surprises from our insurance companies and going round about what they covered and didn't cover.
But the right is much better at PR than the left and so Republicans (and insurance companies) spread fear at the idea of a single payer system.
Actually, they are the ones who are scared. They know as soon as one state gets it implemented and both corporations and people see it is better than what we have, there will be no going back.
19
PS
In addition to paying twice as much per person as the other first world countries, we have parts of America with infant mortality rates as high as Botswana.
And we are the richest industrial country GDP / capita on the planet.
Germany is known for manufacturing and they have faced the same globalization we have. The don't have the poverty we have. They have better education for the working class, training for the trades and high-tech manufacturing.
After 35 years of trickle-down Reaganomics, we got an opioid crisis.
7
Best check how much Democratic politicians get in donations from said Insur., Med., Pharma. etc.
There was a reason Pres. O. didn't push a Public Option.
8
@Dobby's sock
I agree. One of the culprits was Democrat Max Baucus who definitely took big Pharma and healthcare industry money.
And it is another reason to like Bernie because he didn't take any corporate money.
Having said that, Democrats are still way better than Republicans when it comes to healthcare. As I recall, the Republicans battled and battled Obamacare and got concessions and then not one Republican Senator voted for it. Not to mention it is the Republicans who keep trying to destroy it.
3
The question is: where are these "centrist democrats" on the issues that most people in the rank and file of both parties agree on? Namely: Universal Healthcare, Strengthening Social Security, Higher taxes on the financial elite, and consumer protections against corporate dominance and malfeasance. Throw in some job protection/growth and more importantly wage growth and democrats have a massive policy upper hand.
Those are the winning Issues, regardless of centrist or leftist labels.
So let's talk about issues...
12
The left has to persuade, and that's a long-term project made difficult by center-right media who rarely have people on left in their programming or in their panel selection of expert commentators. Most polling shows that majorities of Americans show support for policies that are "left" (eg: universal healthcare not based on wealth; universal education not based on wealth), but they don't think of themselves as particularly liberal or left-wing. So going out and measuring how many people think of themselves as left-wing is not terribly enlightening.
What seems clear to me is that the Democratic Party found itself in terrible shape as a centrist party following centrist policies over the past 40 years. I don't see how doubling down on centrist policies (that are not actually popular) is going to be a winning strategy.
9
At this point in our political atmosphere, charging to the left, full speed ahead, doesn't look so radical anymore. But I get your point. We need to stop competing and think as a state. There are distinct regional differences, and that's what makes California great. The more we work together, the better California gets.
2
The premise here -- that Democrats did well -- is not supported. As a rule, they didn't knock off Republicans (yet) or suggest that they can in the coming months. The first example belies Tomasky's whole point. A Democrat finished second, just slightly ahead of the Republican in third place, in a district won by Clinton. And the Republican incumbent finished first. How is this a sign of Democrats doing well?
4
It's strange how people lump all manner of identity politics, inclusive of trans rights, the 'resist' movement and gun control within this mythical far left. What I've seen online and within my circle is that these issues are favourites of centrist Democrats - or at least Clinton Democrats. Trans rights were undertaken during the end period of the Obama administration (not particularly driven by the administration but supported by it). The Democratic establishment also supported trans rights as long as there was a sense of momentum and inevitability following marriage equality decisions - this includes Clinton supporters.
On the other hand, many of us whom are concerned about income inequality and universal healthcare/single payer were designated as the 'radical far left'. The concepts were characterised as radical and fringe - concepts that have been discussed in US government for decades - actually nearly a century.
Now that there's been a rejiggering of platform priorities, items the establishment Democrats have de-priortised are shunted to this radical far left dumping ground - which may or may not now includes trans rights among other things.
What a racket. And people like Mr Tomasky - and many of the commentators here - are more than happy to perpetuate this charade. This is either wilful ignorance or considerable disingenuousness.
In any event, the economic inequality 'radical far left' registered some wins - and will continue to do so, thank you very much.
12
HEY! NYT! ^^^This is a PICK~!^^^
Well done Gregitz~!
Agreed and recommended.
3
Might I remind the naysayers about the "far left" (which is so far from far left, really) that 80% of Bernie voters voted for Hillary Clinton. We well knew the situation at hand, and we held our noses and were prepared to challenge her on Day 2.
The issue we had with her was a problematic worldview and serious delinquencies on economic and social issues. But obviously, she wasn't Trump (although the recent Frank Bruni Times articles showing the parallels btw'n Bill Clinton and Trump were priceless), and we had a small path to legit progressive policy. Blame the 47% of Democrats who stayed home for Trump's win, not Berniecrats.
The California results don't surprise me, really. HRC won there and a lot of Cali is regressive and conservative, even if they love solar power. NJ was the bigger disappointment.
I'm more focused on races in the center part of of the country, where Berniecrats do have a good chance, as well as NY, where nothing would make me happier than seeing the farcical Cuomo tumble and Zephyr Teachout in as AG.
If establishment Democrats would stop c-blocking legit progressives like Laura Moser and Ammar Campa-Najjar (essentially calling him a terrorist), we could make some progress. Also, the "further left" needs to think strategically and stop whining about the duopoly. The duopoly is what we have and what we have to work with. Deal with it.
The Bernie wing is not going down without a fight!
11
The discussion of "moderates" is very interesting and requires clarification. There are "moderates" and there are "moderates in relation to the current state of politics". I'm not looking to vote for the middle ground between reasonable and extremely irresponsible. That is how we inched closer and closer over decades toward electing Trump. Stand for reason, stand for justice, never compromise.
5
We Democrats have been far too optimistic recently. The country has moved beyond Sanders and Joe Biden cannot beat Trump. If we want to return to power we shall have to broaden our base.
2
The country has moved beyond not just old, white men but finally toward something younger, colorblind and female. Finally. Most of the rest of the world has been there for decades, while the U.S. played the party politics game of corporate enrichment. Sadly, the people's choice in 2016 was a step in the right direction, albeit not quite there generationally. The loser is the right's last gasp at white, old male. Overall, it's the theocrats we need to give the boot. They snuck under the Republican Big Tent after 1980 and have done nothing but stink up the joint ever since.
2
Our democracy is in danger, with a sociopathic president who behaves like a totalitarian. That makes it urgent that the Democrats retake the House.
But -- once the crisis is past -- we will have to ask ourselves why we Democrats lost the state houses, the governorshops, and all four branches of government in Washington DC. And an honest assessment of that will show that we abandoned the white working class, moved too far left on some social issues such as immigration, and moved too far to the right on the economic issues that affect working Americans of every description.
This is not to say that we should abandon our principles and retreat on civil rights or social welfare programs. But as long as the Democrats ignore the fact that American jobs are being exported to low-wage countries with toxic brown air and that fully 5% of American jobs are currently held by people who are here illegally, we will open the way for demagogues like Trump and see-saw with a Republican Party that has abandoned all principle and become a prisoner of the radical right.
4
Are we asking the right question? Is it left vs. centrist? Both Bernie and Trump did really well, and if they had faced each other, I think Bernie would have won. Why? Because they both tapped into the voters discontent with what they identified as the center, Republican or Democrat. So said the Obama-Trump voters.
Hillary, along with her personal limitations as a campaigner, gave off the aura of more of the same. That worked splendidly years ago, but not now. There is a yearning that can express itself as love or hate.
Bernie was the candidate of transformation- let's make things radically different to make a better life; Trump was the candidate of hate and resentment- maybe he won't make it better but we can sure find scapegoats for our anger that it isn't better.
Americans are not only ill informed, they generally are not ideological. They care less about what you say than how you say it. Obama inspired by going high; Trump by going low. I believe that only a move left, embracing economic equality and diversity can move this country forward in a sustainable direction. But we needs candidates that can inspire people, where they can identify with a hope for a better future. Demagogues can do that, but so can genuinely authentic and inspiring progressives.
Do we on the left have such people? I hope so.
8
I for one am glad Democrats are leaning more towards the center than the left. I think the most important task for Democrats today is becoming the 'big tent' party that actually practices the diversity it preaches. That means allowing more conservative Democrats to have fair representation. Does that mean less minority candidates? Less women? No, of course not - it just means expand the ranks to include other voices that perhaps have not felt so welcome in the Democratic party recently.
It also means get back to the economic argument and ditch 'identity politics'. What people mainly want, as demonstrated by Trump's election, is good paying jobs. Democrats should be the go-to party when it comes to job creation. We were the party of the New Deal economy, which led the country from economic disaster in the Great Depression to soaring heights of success. Why, then, do people look to a dirty-rich real estate developer rather than us when it comes to jobs? Well, maybe because we've lost our focus. Let's get back to the liberalized economy, insured by social safety nets and watch the supporters flock to us.
7
The real success was the relative absence of identity politics. Interestingly, it was Obama who began the identity campaign craze. After that midterm shellacking he noticed that one democrat who had done well had done so using identity politics. It was no coincidence that he released his “Dear Colleague” letter the day he announced his re-election campaign. More interestingly is that most of his supporters wouldn’t associate him with an intensely identity-driven campaign. He was that good. Identify politics are, thankfully, waning. A good thing. They are highly corrosive.
4
Individual Democrats are showing signs of rationality, even if the party is not:
-No votes are gained by being in favor of strict gun controls, only lost.
-No votes are added for being strongly pro-abortion, only lost.
-Few votes are added by being pro-immigration; more are lost.
If you want to win and work to reduce the most important forms of inequality for most persons, you sometimes need to be flexible on non-core issues.
5
Glad you mentioned Senator Warren. On March 7, 2018 she said
“I don’t want us to settle for being the party that takes the right side when it comes to the fights facing ordinary Americans. I want us to be the party that picks fights on their behalf.”
That's the needed strategy. The party that will "pick a fight" on behalf of the people.
15
In California, the 49th Congressional District voted more than 50% for Democratic candidates in the open jungle primary.
That is the ONLY District that Hillary won and now represented by a Republican where the Democrats actually won more than 50% of the vote in yesterday's primary in California.
The 49th appears ready to flip to the Democrats in November.
The other Districts won by Hillary and now represented by a Republican are more problematic for the Democrats because they didn't get a majority of the total primary voters in the open primary.
It appears that the Democrats in those Districts in California are going to need to appeal to more registered Republicans and independents to flip the District to the Democratic side in November.
Probably doable, but far from certain.
If anything, it was a victory for Democrats who caution that the Democrats need to appeal to CENTRISTS if they would like to win control of the House in November.
9
We all benefit when democrats move to the center.
3
AACNY,
How do you get a more centrist candidate than Hillary? She was supported by the entire Democratic establishment and big parts of the Republican establishment, especially the neo-conservatives who were concerned with Trump's foreign policy. Hillary failed to win across the country, and another centrist, corporatist Democrat will fail again in 2020.
The Democratic party is still trying to decide what it stands for other than being the default Anti-Trump. In terms of the midterms this may be a good thing because it has brought out a diverse selection of candidates to hawk their wares to a curious electorate.
The party will not become more definitive in its orientation until it chooses a 2020 presidential candidate. And it is unlikely to move conclusively further left absent a Trump-generated disaster. Do we really want to wish for that?
1
Democrats who continue to vote for bloated military budgets, support the Dodd-Frank repeal, and favor special treatment for their Obamacare repeal vote do the party no favors. These are Democrats working for donors. Democrats supporting Medicare for all may be viewed as "leftist", but fundamentally they believe people have a right to health care. No one wants idealogues who insist on one way to do something. The fundamental right to healthcare can be met with improvements to Obamacare, expansion of Medicare, or other ways. Those Democrats selling out Medicare, social security, and the right to health care have no place in the party. A similar argument applies to gun control ... a snappy statement supporting reduction of public access to weapons may be considered leftist, but there are many ways to approach it, from gun registry to closing loopholes to bans. Those candidates who don't support gun control are not Democrats.
6
Last time I checked, Sen Sanders is an Independent, not a Democrat. I know it’s a nuance, but an important one. Sen Sanders and his supporters made unreasonable demands of the Democratic Party in 2016 against Hillary Clinton. Why should Democratic Party donors support Sen Sanders or his “anointed” candidates in any state’s primary?
23
They shouldn't. Sanders and his supported candidates should run as Independents, not Democrats. I'm all in for that, are you Democrats? They have my vote.
6
Are you really sure you want to split your voter base that way?!
Out of curiosity, what exactly were these "unreasonable demands"?!
Maybe you should support Sanders and like candidates because they are more Democratic in the old school way than our current 3rd way neo-liberal Dems. Unless of course you don't mind putting up Soc. Sec. for negotiations. Deregulating banks. Promoting Fracking and Gas. Giving over private property to foreign countries for their pipe lines. Bombing innocent people. Drone strikes upon American citizens without judicial trial. Selling off our Public Schools to billionaires and hedge fund corp. Secret spying upon Americans. Military Coups. etc., etc.
6
Wouldn't it make sense that the districts that Democrats are trying to take from Republicans, would be less likely to select the more extremely progressive candidates. I would think a better measure of the progressive influence in the party is how Our Revolution does in the safe Democratic districts?
As a Democrat, i'd be happy that my more moderate Democrat has a better chance in these suburban swing districts where they're trying to increase turnout of "soccer moms", rather than convincing the relatively small number of young, progressive Berniecrats in that area.
6
"...while the Republicans can gain a House majority with only conservatives, the Democrats can’t do so with only liberals. There simply aren’t enough liberal districts or voters."
A very astute observation.
7
If Trump's election, and Bernie's popularity taught us anything, it's that 2016 was the least ideological election in my our lifetime. Conservative midwesterners voted for Bernie even though they would never call themselves socialists. And many of the white working class people who voted for Obama turned out for Trump instead of Clinton. But the analysts can't get away from the liberal/conservative paradigm in their framing of current politics. Whoever figures out that people are actually aligned according to other factors, such as their relationship globalism and identity politics, will win the next election.
7
I consider myself a centrist, and tend to vote for those who are centric in nature. I think many more people are starting to share this sentiment.
We have seen, in this country, what happens an extreme political wing obtains control of state and federal governments. It started about 40 or so years ago, and culminated with the 2016 election. We no have legislators, governors and a president who are on the far right of the spectrum. And with it, very extreme views which have become damaging to fabric of our democracy.
I suspect that this fall we may see s strong shift towards the center. Being too far left or right, is now a liability. This liability has divided the country into many factions, that cannot be united by extreme left or right views.
This republic has survived, because our elected officials always manged to govern by compromise, mutual respect, honesty, and honor. These attributes need to be restored.
I do want a blue wave or red wave, nor status quo, I want a purple wave. Only a purple wave will heal this country and repair the damage, and divisions. It took decades to get to this point, it will take time to restore trust and integrity which in great short supply with most of our politicians.
8
Your statement is incomprehensible: "We have seen, in this country, what happens an extreme political wing obtains control of state and federal governments." "We no have legislators..." "I suspect that this fall we may see s strong shift..." "I do want a blue wave or red wave, nor status quo, I want a purple wave." "...it will take time to restore trust and integrity which in great short supply with most of our politicians." Perhaps you intended to create the verbal equivalent of a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces and a piece or two from other puzzles. If so, you've succeeded. If not: "WHAT?"
2
It is imperative that the Democrats start to understand there clearest path to majorities in the House and the senate are:
1. Have candidates that fall toward the center/ left center since it is here that a majority of the electorate lie.
2. They relieve Congressperson Pelosi and Senator Schumer of their leadership positions as they are in direct conflict to 1.
Far to the left Progressive issues will never be realized until the Dems regain control of the Legislative Branch of our Government.
They must keep sight of the end game!
5
"Mostly that their enthusiasm has not flagged, despite some polling evidence to the contrary, and that the party’s much-discussed big leap to the left is going to have to wait awhile."
If we exclude those Democrats and Independents who voted in the Democratic races of the more leftist candidates, then yes the Democrats would have a problem. If they lost that part of the primary turnout, the projection would be awful.
Should we exclude that? That depends on the Democrats. Hillary excluded them, or was seen by them to do so in enough key places. Don't do that again.
If this win for the Party is seen as permission to go all Republican Lite again, then defeat looms in these numbers.
7
Once again, it needs to be mentioned in no uncertain terms that Sanders is NOT a Democrat! The media should long ago have ceased conflating the two.
12
If "not a Democrat" means having a backbone and standing for something, then I'm all for it.
4
Cheered on by the NYT and the Beltway pundit crowd, the Democrats tried the namby-pamby, don't rock the boat, middle of the road, establishment approach with Hillary, and it backfired big time. Time for them to stop being afraid to stand up for the working men and women of this country.
15
Tomasky should stop trying to bait liberals into over-reacting. That's plays into stereotypes and he should know better than that. The left pulls squishy Democrats their way when they'd much prefer to move as far right as possible - wins are good but the efforts are useful win or lose. In the swingy districts it's not exactly a surprise that swingy Democrats would prevail. Heck, media darling Conor Lamb in PA would barely admit that he was running as a Democrat. That's ok, For now.
4
As Democrats, we must move toward a more centrist position to get the votes we need to gain back control of the federal legislature.
3
I've been hearing this for decades. The problem is that every time the Dems move towards the middle, the middle moves to the right. This is a strategy for destroying the party. Case in point: Hillary Clinton.
7
Hillary is a centrist and what did that get Democrats in 2016?
Sanders once said that the new American dream was to be found in socialist Venezuela. The subsequent disaster in Venezuela illustrates that Sanders judgement, and the judgement of the Sanders democrats is fatally flawed.
8
There are a huge number of people who disagree, and it isn't a bit helpful to attack them. For the life of me I cannot understand why so many Democrats attack other party members. You don't see the Republicans do this.
2
I'm a moderate liberal in every way. I like the center, it covers most people. I vote for the Democrats but not for the Socialists. As someone much wiser said a while ago in these pages, I don't like the Socialists, they keep everybody poor. I'm not rich, but I am also not poor. I'm just right in the middle. I don't aspire to more than I have, but I'm not willing to sacrifice it for some ideology either. I loathe Bernie almost as much as Trump, just for different reasons. It's time for white old men to go away. Time for a new generation that has everyone's welfare in mind.
8
If you don't think Bernie has people's welfare in mind, then you don't know Bernie.
2
The U.S. left has proved since the 1960s that it no more knows how to govern, let alone pay the rent and keep the lights on, than does the right since the 1980s.
1
The far left and the far right bothers me - same difference. Bernie Sanders tried to take his socialist thinking to Brooklyn College during the 1960s and it did not fly. He left town. Now he is causing a mess for true Democrats in Washington.
9
I'm way, way Left. I very much like Bernie. I want Single-Payer health care and actual progressive taxation. However, our nation is teetering on the brink of destruction and in-fighting within the Democratic Party will contribute greatly to our demise. I will vote for anyone who has a "D" in front of their name even if they are right-of-center moderate Dems! I voted for Bernie in the primary and for Hillary in the General and would do the same today. If we want our nation to survive we must join together, stop being one-issue voters, understand that no candidate is going to please us 100%, and get out there and vote BLUE! Trump, McConnell, Ryan, et al will destroy us if they can. After all, they're doing a bang-up job so far. Just imagine what they can and will do to us if they have all the power for another two years!
15
Thank goodness the Bernie party flunked out. The far left and far right share 3 things common. They are rigid and brittle, they won't compromise, so no one can win, and Congress will never enact socialist programs, compromise is a dirty word....or i would be interested in his shtick. It is only the moderates on each side that know how to lose and compromise, which is what this country has always done.
Bernie's people are spiteful and hateful in my opinion, as they are responsible in part for Hillary losing an Donald Dumptster winning. They voted for 3rd party candidates out of that spite. I'd like to see a blend of capitalism and socialism. No reason it can't happen except no one on the "far side" will compromise.
Centrist's like myself have seen how slowly things change, and you're not gonna get away with shoving it down anyone's throat.
Would like to see Bernie go away.....far far away.
10
The majority of those who voted for Bernie in the primaries voted for Hillary in the general election (as did I).
Also, you say you'd like to see a blend of capitalism and socialism - well, that was exactly Bernie's platform. His platform resembles Swedish Social Democracy - the blend of which you speak.
I should know, I spent half my life there!
4
Neither Bernie nor his supporters are responsible for Hillary's loss. She was a very weak candidate and the loss is entirely on her shoulders.
5
Hal,
Isn't our military socialist? How about our Soc. Sec., Medicare, Disability, Infrastructure...for that matter, isn't our gov. a socialist institution?
Are you aware that Sanders is known as The Amendment King?! He compromises and negotiates. He gets done for We The People.
Its funny that you feel "Bernie's people" are spiteful and hateful, 'cause I got the same feeling reading your comment. Funny how that coin works.
As for a blend of Capitalism & Socialism, we have that. Just not a very balanced blend. Sanders is trying to rectify that. Many 3rd way Neo-liberal Dems are not.
But you knew that.
The world is changing fast and waiting, hoping, incremental, crumbs isn't going to cut it if we wish to save a generation and future. Maybe we disagree here.
As for Bernie...he won't go away, cause his ideals live on.
Compromise remember?!
Don't hate and be spiteful.
3
William Jefferson Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama were both well too the political right of left liberal progressive Democrat icons FDR and LBJ as expected. But both men were also well too the political right of corporate moderate Republicans Ike and Nixon as well.
Calling either Clinton or Obama a Democrat is inaccurate. Neither were they left liberal progressives.
6
Well, Michael T, if the choice is Bernie's socialist agenda, however good, vs getting ALL Dems to take back the House and Senate to neutralize the current Trump-Congress disaster, I would say than any sane citizen would readily choose the latter over the former. So, taking a moderate democrat stance now seems very wise. How about you look at the big picture for the short term???
For the slightly longer term, there is one thing that Sanders has championed that has been under-appreciated by thinking voters and thinking journalists, and that is campaign finance reform. All the other ills will start to heal if that one is fixed, even if it requires a million person march on WA DC for a single topic (FOCUS!).
As a journalist, if you could possibly write more (or write always) about campaign finance reform, you just might save your country's democracy. It will be hard and painful, since the electorate is kind of slow to even understand this, but I bet you could a) understand it and b) realize its central importance and c) communicate it even if your columns get a bit mono-topical. Please!
3
We need pro-trade, socially tolerant leaders who support universal health care, ending the drug war, protecting abortion rights, and fully supporting public education. But the pro-trade stance is key. Sorry Bernie voters, take a good look at what Trump is doing on trade right now and take some lessons. But mostly what we need are people who aren’t crazy.
5
The ‘Bernie wing’ is too far left to be elected to office, and his followers’ staying home helped put Trump in. Another set of ‘Bernie wing’ people promising the moon, and we will have Republicans for the rest of our lives.
9
That's wrong. 80% of Bernie voters voted for Clinton and 12% voted for Trump. The millions of Bernie voters were responsible for Clinton doing as well as she did. Only 8% did not vote. Bernie voters have better turnout stats than Democrats because they're more involved. They are also the future.
4
So out of the millions of Sanders voters; a full 20% either didnt vote to stop him or actually voted FOR him (out of spite for the "establishment") and you say they werent (are) partially responsible for his election? In a election settled by 77k votes? Thats your argument?..... If your stats are correct then of course they did. If you thinks thats good, then so be it, but dont tell me it didnt happen. Your own aurguments prove it.
1
Bernie is a reasonable man. He appreciates that government is a social institution that serves the needs of all members of any society or it becomes an instrument for some subgroup to repress and exploit everyone else. The notions of winners and losers and of deserving and undeserving members of society are the language of people who are unwilling to include all in their community, only the winners or deserving people. It's justified by the dictates of survival when only some can have what they need because their is not enough for all. It's not justified when some have far more than they need while others not enough despite there being plenty for all. The conservative-reactionary arguments that disparities of wealth and power are the inevitable results of the natural world showing it's ways in the markets unimpeded by government is the way to generate great economic expansion which by trickle down theory improves the conditions of all, is and was always intended to assure that the wealthy and powerful could retain their advantages even where it kept society from providing for the needs of all. It's a mentality which is seen throughout history with the rich and powerful often claiming symbols of themselves in the form of predatory animals.
6
Hmmm... Clinton won the Democratic primary pretty convincingly and lost the election.
Winning the hearts of Democrats means winning the support of Democratic primary voters- a small portion of the electorate. That may not be sufficient to win enough of the 40 percent of independent voters to win.
Of course, none of the congressional candidates chosen today have the baggage of being a Clinton, so there is a bright side.
2
IT means winning BACK a lot of former Democrats that oozed over to the GOP sludge machine, beginning with the 1980s Reagan era. Dems won back some of them in 1992 but lost 'em again in 2000.
Democrats have had a consistency problem since 1968, which the GOP has not been encumbered by.
This is NOT good news for the Democratic Party. The continued support for GOP lite Wall Street candidates will dry up support from the base....again. The base is energized and angry about Trump, about GOP complicity, about tax cuts, about the ACA, etc. We expect Democrats to deliver. If the DCCC intervention does not deliver a progressive House in 2018, expect a full on rebellion against the party establishment for 2020.
4
Well then, welcome to Trump 2! Now is not the time for pure conscience but for pragmatism. Let’s get back in power, then push for progressive policy.
6
@Peter
"...expect a full on rebellion against the party establishment for 2020."
You should keep in mind that the Democratic primary winners yesterday were elected by their constituencies not by the DCCC. These voters cast their votes for the nominees they wanted, not the nominees you wanted. Vote my way or else sounds just like Donald Trump is speaking and I would never support that.
1
If you think the DCCC didn't have a hand in getting their prefered candidates elected, then you're woefully under-informed. They've been undermining progressives this entire season. (Google it; there's plenty of examples.)
"Vote my way or else" is exactly the message that Hillary, the Dem establishment, and practically all establishment/centrist-supporting commenters here are saying. What progressives say is, "Come and earn my vote; you're not *entitled* to it."
It's a promising sign that the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party didn't do better. There's a lot of alienation out there among more moderate voters who, two generations back, would have been liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats but currently feel like political orphans. My wife is a lifelong Democrat and I grew up in a Democratic household, voted Republican in '88, and not since but I recently changed my party affiliation to the Oregon independent simply because I can't follow the Democratic Party where the base appears to want to go.
We are an interracial lesbian couple with a small child and both feel alienated from the Democrats in at least two dimensions. She is center-left and I am center-right. Neither of us have time for the SJW-driven identity politics or for a reflexive anti-Americanism that really is far more present than is generally acknowledged. Neither of us is fond of utopian schemes although we are both in favor of a public safety net.
We shouldn't be alienated from the Democratic Party but we are. Hopefully, the Democrats will realize that even within deep blue enclaves there are people whose votes they still need to earn by being moderate enough to not raise our hackles.
6
While I wish for a more progressive America, this column reports what is the reality of our politics, or so it seems to me. Now my party needs to stop getting in it's own way. In those districts where the dominant color is blue, fine, lets get more Paul Wellstones. But in the rest of the country, we need to recognize that there are many, many good folks who want an more centrist representative in Washington. If we want to impact the agenda, we need to give it to them.
2
The absolutely critical concept here is that any Democrat, far left, left, center is infinitely better than any Republican in the current climate. 218 Ds are needed in the House and 51 in the Senate to begin to return sanity to the country. Those that voted strategically in 2016 got severely burnt, as did the country - hopefully we've learned the lesson - support your favorite candidate in the primary, but once we get to the general keep it simple - no playing around with third parties, staying home, what do we have to lose?, etc - unless you want to continue to keep the door open for a madman.
2
The candidates don't matter so much as in the policies.
Human tights, Single Payer and fair and progressive taxation are on the ballots. (whereas they have not been before)
As long as we all end up in the same place, then Liberals don't necessarily care who backed whom.
2
Last night's results were very good news. Why? Because the "Bernie Sanders wing" of the Democrats has increasingly not been considering themselves a wing of the Democrats at all. They may run as Democrats, but the past 2 years they call themselves progressives - and note this group does NOT think of themselves as "progressive Democrats" or "the progressive wing of the Democrats".
In fact, many so-called progressives are more critical of the Democrats than they are the Republicans. If there had been a different result last night and Republicans advanced, rest assured some progressives would sadly be dancing in the streets, saying "I told you so! The corrupt DNC has to go!"
(Never forget: IMO some progressives still feel that way; those will be the ones who *will* sit out midterms/vote 3rd party; they'll just do it quietly. They simply don't think a Trumplike regime will affect them and won't think that - until, of course, it does.)
Thankfully many wise progressives are realizing this isn't the time for division.
I do understand compromise works both ways - but IMO progressive goals/ideas will make much more headway in the Democratic Party if they are not presented in a condescending, "We know best", "My way or the highway" manner to those moderates/centrists who have been - and continue to be - the bedrock of the Democratic Party. Those moderate/centrists will not be run over or run out - and you've seen that in 2017-2018 elections - but they will work with progressives.
10
Aside from the Republican party's betrayal of the United states to the Russian Military GRU Intelligence Officers,
Senator clinton lost the election due to left wingnut elements in the Democratic party demanding stuff that did not go over well during the Bolshevik and French Revolutions.
America wants nothing to do with extreme anything.
Sanity, physical responsibility, morality, economic viability-these kind of things. Not a free spine implant for Congress, or a brain transplant for the President's sons.
1
'Ya might also want to be a teensy bit concerned about political left corporations embrace of Russian hackers: Facebook. California-based, at that.
So are y'all cheering Robert Menendez? And you'll be cheering for Cuomo too. Percentage of tails that remain on couches in November? Stay tuned.
3
It's not clear in this piece, nor in many like it, what "left" means in the context of the Democratic party. It's an unexamined term on autopilot in a lot of journalism and punditry. Most Democratic candidates advocate pretty much the same the things these days, with the only detectable difference between "Establishment" and "Progressive" Democrats being that Progressive types clearly mean them and Establishment types possibly, just possibly don't. There may be fights over who has the better intentions in primaries, but I don't see anyone, certainly not among ordinary voters even here in California, looking for another serious intraparty fight in the face of Trump and GOP malfeasance in 2018 or 2020.
1
The left, supporting Medicaid for all, higher minimum wage, free college, and people-driven rather than big money campaigns, has far more crossover appeal to independents and Republicans. Centrist Democrats, with their vacuous Better Deal and whining about Russia and impeachment, can't inspire Millennials, minorities, or independents. While Centrists are better than Republicans on racism and sexism, they are Republican Lite on the neoliberal corporate State. Trump will walk over them, and they will not propose to say nothing of pass progressive legislation. Anti-Trump forces placing their hopes on the mid-terms will inevitably become demoralized. The Resistance has to be ready with a progressive program to fight for through demonstrations and strikes.
8
And therein lies the problem. The Democratic party that, over my lifetime, has been as complicit as Republicans in creating the conditions that led to a Donald Trump remains intact.
10
Borm and raised in New Jersey I KNOW better than any that NJ is not really a Blue State- its a Red State posing as a Blue one. Its still far too white, surburban and racially segregated to be a Democratically leaning state so last night did not really surprise me. I wish Bernie's picks would have won but I knew it was next to impossible with the way people in this state think. We're only blue because of our proximity to NY, like a sibling rivalry. Sad!
3
When was the last time New Jersey voted Republican in the presidential election? 1988, for George H.W. Bush. Whether it was Bill Clinton in 1992; Hillary Clinton in 2016; or every other candidate in between, when it comes to the all-important electoral college, New Jersey is a Blue State.
2
@GRH: how a state votes is not always a correct reflection of its people. I live here & the people don't necessarily behave like true blue Dems.
It’s a testament to American ignorance that Bernie Sanders’ views are widely considered to be extreme (whatever that means) and impractical. Mr Sanders, much to his credit, has simply done what so few have the good sense to do, namely, learn from history. Specifically, he has observed that Nordic-style social democracy works—it’s no coincidence that the Nordic countries are the happiest countries on Earth. America would do well to reverse the rightward turn that began with Reagan, and the “extreme” Nordic model is what we should aim for.
8
Sorry not ignorant. The difference is the middle of the road Dems are pretty good at math and realize Bernie Math is Phony Math. It does not add up how to pay for all the Free Stuff. Plus Bernie Math is hostile to small businesses, the backbone of the U.S. economy.
4
If Bernie’s math doesn’t add up, how is it that the Nordic countries are thriving? Perhaps the moderate Democrats of whom you wrote should consult Jeffrey Sachs, Yanis Varoufakis, Paul Krugman, and Robert Reich, for example. I think those guys are pretty good at math.
2
@Keith
The Nordic countries have a far higher per capita rate of start-ups/people starting small businesses than the US.
The short answer is the non-Bernie Democrats are drowning in money from Wall Street interests which are very interested in having neither Trump nor the Revolution in power.
9
So work to repeal Citizens United. That's the answer, not some smelly old socialist has been that never was all that.
You mean work to repeal Citizens United through the same electoral process it allows them to purchase?
Yeah. That's not gonna work.
What if the voters don't really care about right-left but are instead looking for candidates who will look out for their interests once elected? If so, then these establishment Democrats may be the worst candidates to run in this election, against a president who has stolen the mantle of reform.
4
"...For now, though, the only real candidates are congressional ones, and they are a mixed lot, reflecting the point — which I never tire of making, because some people seem not to want to accept it — that while the Republicans can gain a House majority with only conservatives, the Democrats can’t do so with only liberals. There simply aren’t enough liberal districts or voters.
That’s the price of a Democratic majority — a few Jeff Van Drews. I’d think that after watching this Congress and this presidency for 15 months, most liberals would accept that..."
True, true, and true. 1,000% agree that the Democrats only hope to retake the House is with centrist moderate candidates, especially in red districts, and most especially in districts where Hillary should have won in 2016 but Trump won instead (very poor, even arrogant, planning on the part of Hillary's NYC campaign HQ).
My one objection to this quote is the very last phrase. "...after watching (Congress and Trump) for 15 months, most liberals SHOULD (not would) accept that..."
Too many far left liberals are still so out of touch with middle america that they continue to this day to not understand what drove people to vote for Trump. Until they begin to do that, they will never gain control of either the Congress or the White House. Call it the revenge of flyover country - they have made their voices heard. Now it's time to listen.
4
Bernie Sanders has little to no sway with Democrats. If we want to vote in a progressive it will be on our terms, not on his worn out ideas. Media outlets can keep having him on to trash Democrats and that brings more of us out. While he continues to court Trump voters we voted in some progressives in NM last night. I know -- such a small state it isn't newsworthy, is it?
4
A triumph for the party of Schumer, Clinton, Pelosi and the tightwad coastal plutocrats who maintain them in power. A loss for everyone else who doesn't believe in what's euphemistically referred to as "incrementalism".
5
ROFL. It was a triumph of the adults in the room who pay the bills and plan for the long term, instead of the kids who perpetually want cookies for breakfast, refuse to go to bed on time, eat their vegetables and restrain themselves from using permanent markers on the walls.
As a voter my concern about Bernie and his cohorts is their lack of specificity about exactly what they want to do, and their unwillingness to answer my questions when I probe. I am open-minded. I like Feinstein, for example, but voted for De Leon because I have been following him and think he's a better choice. De Leon *is* specific, and careful, and takes questions, and is a proven, strong leader. Berniecrats have to be like that if they want my vote at any point. Bernie himself faces a steep, uphill battle if he wants my vote because I blame him for damaging feminism and playing an instrumental role in handing the election to Trump. I don't see a future for him in the White House.
4
the country as a whole is not going to go for a leftist agenda now or any time in the foreseeable future. the democrats need to get over it.
2
The democratic establishment is charged by its owners, who, like republicans are the .01% financial elite, to prevent any leftward drift in policy or candidates. That is out of step with the electorate who by large and increasing margins support Universal healthcare, strengthened Social security, and higher taxes on the uber wealthy. Those are separate issues from other social justice issues in that they are really 'the 99%" issues. Bear in mind Identity Social justice issues are weaponized against each other and progressive movement in general by both left and right corporate media.
The corporate media narrative promotes "conventional wisdom" as a service to its financial elite owners...the very same ones who own the parties. It is a well known phenomenon that if people are lead to believe that everyone else chooses a particular thing over another, they will tend to go along with what they've been told. That is how "safer" democratic candidates are picked over more progressive candidates who are strong on the 99% progressive issues I described, but cast as too "out there" if they are also for sensible gun control or if the acknowledge that racism is a problem or that women aren't treated as well as they should be.
The democratic party recognizes that centrist candidates will suppress turn out. That is what it is after. Too much success would mean it would have to show its true corporatist colors. (in the same way republicans had to show they had no healthcare alternative)
3
Um, the world has always operated on rules set by the civilized, savvy and educated, which translates into successful, disciplined and high achieving self-responsible character traits developed in childhood. There's a reason those making poor decisions drop out of high school, then don't have stable lives and families, own a business, become brain surgeons, astronauts, teachers, inventors, or are just employed. Achievement, let alone high achievement, requires effort, internal strength and sacrifice. For 60 years the left wing liberals have derided character and hard work as optional and elitist. How'd that work out for the Democratic Party and for the U.S.?
Michael Tomasky is simply playing "bash-the-liberals" which is the game that helped give us the president we now have. The Democratic Party needs to be inclusive, not exclusive.
I read this sort of column and just cringe because a whole class of voters is being demeaned.
7
Two things the left are very good at: losing elections, and electing Republicans.
The left wing of the Democratic Party elected George W. Bush in 2000 and they elected Donald J Trump in 2016. Just because their candidates didn't fare well against the more moderate Democratic candidates last night doesn't mean the left will have a big impact in November. If they've learned anything from 2016, they will realize that a Democratic candidate that is not in lockstep with them on every issue is certainly better than a Republican, or even worse, a trump Republican. But that's not where I'm putting my money. If you spend any time perusing the comment sections in the New York Times, it should be readily apparent to you that the Bernie left a) is not in any remote way interested in compromise, and b) is still wholeheartedly determined to do anything and everything they can to see to it that mainstream Democrats lose in November, regardless of how heavy a price they or the country may pay.
The biggest motivating factor of the left is spite, plain and simple. Either they get everything they want, or they are going to smashed on the Sandcastle and go home. In any other year this would be a colossal landslide for the Democrats. The same was true in 2016. In 2016, the deciding factor was that there were enough Bernie Republicans who voted for Trump out of spite for Clinton to give Trump the win. The question for 2018 is, are they going to do the same thing?
1
Barack Obama your president from January 20, 2009- January 20 2017.
I don't know why this is a challenge for progressive Democrats to understand. The Democrat that is elected should be the Democrat that represents the interests of the Democrats in his or her district. Not all districts are as left as those in San Francisco or here in New York. We Dems are diverse and progress will not be made by forcing the entire country to sing a progressive tune. Our success must come from the harmony created by the combination of different voices.
7
Never too early to play Stop Sanders.
Definitely a ruling class priority.
The truth is, the Democrats would rather
lose to a fellow capitalist Republican
than win with a Socialist.
9
Hey, when Bernie finalises his FEC filings — which he REFUSES to do, that stalwart champion of campaign finance accountability— then we’ll talk. Till then yep, stopping the hypocrite from Vermont seems like a good idea.
Oh, and also the tax returns....
1
"Moderate Dems are needed"? You are talking about the 17 that voted to deregulate Wall Street again?!
4
How about those that believe in universal health care, are pro-choice, but also are not in favor of too much regulation, goes for some balanced views of gun control (which is actually the majority view of most democrats), etc.
The FAR left are the ones who want to make massive, massive changes. Doubling or tripling minimum wage, make college free, ban all guns, legalize all drugs - there are middle grounds that are the moderate left. Pretending Moderate Democrats are some horror is not reality.
And expecting that one party will somehow share your every belief - or even merely the top 5 political issues you care most about is also not possible. Just look at the math - 5 issues, pretend there's only two sides on each, that's 32 possible combinations - you won't find a political party, nor a candidate that you don't disagree with in some places.
3
The Democats and DNC still think (unbelievable to me) in terms of the next election cycle. My cheerless expectation is that dysfunction in Washington will continue indefinitely and electing Democratic centrists won't help. A marginally Democratic House and Senate might blunt the Trump agenda and the Republican dismantling of so much Democrats hold dear. Assume the best in 2020. A Democratic President and perhaps even a House and Senate might be able to roll back some of the damage, but not all of it. Universal healthcare, seriously subsidized education, and financial security in retirement are not likely to see the light of day. Republicans won't let them. While the rest of the world continue to leave us in the dust we can stay on this gothic see-saw forever, consigned to growing insignificance. If you take the longer view (which is unfortunately not a strength of the DNC -- the GOP does it much better) It's really time to give the left a shot at it. The substantial support for the Sanders campaign from voters under 45, especially the youngest voters, was a clarion call nobody seems to have heard. By pushing hard left, what, after all, do we really have to lose that we haven't already lost?
6
Many of the most significant changes in this country started as "fringe left" ideas. Abolition was a fringe left idea, as was women's suffrage, as were civil rights, ending the war in Vietnam and women's liberation. Critique the left as "radical" all you want, it will probably continue to determine the direction of our country going forward, whether officially or from the margins.
6
This story indicates who backed the losing progressive Democratic candidates. It does not bother to mention whether or not the DCCC threw its weight behind the conservative Democrats who won. Nor does it mention how much money the winners and losers had to spend or where that money came from. Without asking and answering these questions, this article can hardly begin to answer the question of what these primary outcomes mean.
6
Michael Tomasky has an agenda with this and all of his columns: demonize the left and push the Dems ever rightward. I got an email from PCCC saying that they went "3 for 3" in california, but Tomasky only mentions one here. You have to wonder about a guy who wrote an article in 1994 saying that Bill Clinton was the "last, best hope for america". How did that all work in the end for the Dems? not very well.
6
Mr. Tomasky, we accepted any number of closer to center Democratic representatives when Rahm Emanuel helped pick the candidates ... and won the House and had Nancy Pelosi who knows how top0 get legislation through as Speaker.
1
And then put those center right policies into action, and lost the entire farm afterwards right through '16.
1
I’m pragmatic. You must represent everyone, which means moderate and willing to shake hands across the aisle. Extreme left or right will not cut it.
6
A more practical explanation is "Our Revolution" voters don't vote in Democratic primaries. Therefore, the Clinton wing favoring moderation carried the day. However, when Democrats turn to the general election, they may find left-leaning voters equally uninspired to participate. Far from securing victory, Democrats may have just shot themselves in the foot. Certainly not everywhere. In context though, you'll certainly find enthusiasm for luke warm candidates with no real position lacking. Midterms are always an off election year anyway. Forgive me for doubting the Democratic success yesterday. As you might recall, Clinton lost.
4
NJ has one of the highest percentage of registered Independents in the country. And closed primaries.
3
Despite your conclusion, I think every one on the left would be happy if the great buffoon and his supporters were defeated by Democrats who aren't on the left!
6
"I’d think that after watching this Congress and this presidency for 15 months, most liberals would accept that."
You'd think.
3
The centrist New Democrats have been losing political power for several election cycles now. Perhaps if they welcome more progressive-leaning voters to be inside the Democratic tent, the Democratic Party can regain some of the political power they've lost. The Democrats can't win with only centrist voters either. They haven't lately. Democrats need both centrists and liberals. Let's find a way to get along.
2
Good. I’m a liberal and a centrist. The Left helped get us Trump. Nice work.
9
I think it was centrists who helped elect Trump, because they didn't try to attract the left. They took the support of the left for granted and got the surprise of their life. They shouldn't repeat this mistake again.
10
The Left apparently believed that blowing everything up was an actual policy position. Oops.
Going where the far left wants us to go ensures the center has no alternative but Republicans. The far left alienates moderates from the party - just as the far right does on it's side.
This is actually just the first phase of what promises to be a long hall. Primaries always favor the established candidates. Turn out is usually low and it's the party regulars that tend to carry the day.
Bernie's Our Revolution movement has faced considerable push back from with the Democratic party so it shouldn't come as a surprise that low turnout, money and establishment politics prevailed in most of these races.
But while the old guard Democrats seemed to have gained, they did so while sowing the seeds of their eventual demise. The vision articulated by most of these Democrats is "we're not Trump."
While that will win some races, at the end of the day it calls for the continuation of neoliberal policies and more wars and international overreach masquerading as "engagement."
Today's voters, particularly the millennial's who will soon outnumber the boomers need a political vision that provides them and their troubled world with a future. "We're not as bad as Trump" won't do that.
At least it's now clear that there is a left on the political landscape and it does not include the Democratic party.
7
The Democrats have been charging "damn the torpedoes" to the right for quite some time. The narrative of a left-leaning Democratic Party is and has been a farce for a very long time. This was, after all, the party of segregation. Labeling candidates who are more liberal than the Clinton's as "left" or "leftist" says more about the pitiful nature of the Left (writ large) in the US than it does about the Democrats. Any party that has its leaders say that impeachment of a fascist President is off the table is little more than a corpse, rotting in our midst and polluting the air with its stench.
3
Good. Ideally this election would place some centrists in power who will not get stuck in their dogma but get things done.
2
Bye Bye to Bernie Sanders, and the horse he rode in on. He has strong opinions and sticks to them stubbornly (his supporters call it "integrity"), but what has he ever accomplished in the Senate? I'm all for hardworking, cooperative moderates and centrists like Dianne Feinstein.
7
And what did they accomplish? Stagnated salaries? And millions unsatisfied workers despite the economic growth? The lost of election to Trump?
5
They accomplished a ton - and you consider it a failure that they didn't manage a utopia?
NYT please stop publishing polarizing headlines.
A lot of the popular policy issues are a mixed bag. All the party needs to do is to stay together and vote for the best possible candidate,who can succeed locally. By labeling people left , centre-left, etc and publishing headlines that divide people, you are not helping party unity. As many of the comments here, your headlines are just making people stay at home and feel left out.
9
I think you got it wrong.
One can argue who is more left, Bernie or Hillary.
Hillary was the establishment identity obsessed, east coast liberal, never met a war, trade agreement, Wall Street banker I did not like campaign. That is pretty establishment liberal.
Bernie's group is more of a progressive populist campaign that wants to shake things up but more towards the center, ie do something about trade agreements, wars and Wall Street.
If the democrats want to take back the house and have any chance in the Senate they need Bernie type candidates in these purple districts not Hillary type establishment candidates.
13
This whole article is about actual primary elections in which Bernie aligned or endorsed candidates finished distantly behind establishment moderate democrats in purple areas. So you can think they got it wrong all you like but they have actual facts behind their point........
This is what drives many of us crazy- the sheer refusal of the Bernie contingent to look reality in the eye......
2
Did we see that in 2016? And how that elections turned out?
What the article doesn’t talk about is just how much money the dccc put into backing primary candidates and thus tilting the game to more rich establishment types. The dccc shouldn’t be picking favorites, the voters should.
3
If the Democrats can field candidates in moderate red states that have a record of fiscal responsibility and if they at least acknowledge that illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, they will have an excellent chance to pick up the votes of Republicans who are appalled by the president and their own party's failure to try and check any of his outrageous behavior.
4
Maybe it's not so much of a jungle out there - maybe just an over grown back yard. I would be in favor of the California's primary system not matter what Tuesday's result had been. The system in most of the states selects for the most extreme candidates of the two parties while leaving out the more common sense, moderate candidates. California's top two winners primary gets it right. Like California, I like my republic democratic.
1
There's a Bernie wing of the Democratic Party? An entire wing? LOL For someone who isn't a democrat?
8
Right????? Bernie Sanders IS NOT a Democrat. He used the Democratic party because he is an opportunist. I hope he disappears.
3
I wish he'd run as an Independant like he is and get an honest assessment of his chances rather than whining that DNC stole it. An interesting candidate with many well intentioned ideas, if nothing else it would keep pushing room in the two party house
1
To fellow Democrats I offer this advice: stop trying to out-guess what others are guessing about what still others are guessing.
At this point in history simply vote for any Democrat over any Republican so that the rule of law can be re-established. And show up and vote for Democrats you are not thrilled about.
I vote for the salvation of democracy and human rights - whether I am in love with some politician or not is irrelevant - they are simply paid employees. I don't fall in love with employees.
3
Democrats as Trump-lite
5
What is missing from Mr. Tomasky's condescending column about "the left" is any definition of what he considers "leftist," and why he believes those positions are wrong or damaging.
Does Mr. Tomasky oppose the concept of health care as a right of every American? That strikes me as a progressive position. How about insuring the human rights of all Americans, regardless of their race, creed, or sexual orientation? Real Democrats are fighting for those rights.
Or what about the right to vote? Rightist Republicans across the nation are actively engaged in attempts to take that right away from African Americans, Hispanics, and college students. Does Mr. Tomasky believe that position on "the left" is objectionable?
What about making the wealthiest Americans pay higher taxes to help pay for substantially lower college tuitions for most Americans? For lower health care premiums for most Americans? The Right just passed a tax bill that dramatically lowers their tax bill. Is that what Mr. Tomasky feels is appropriate?
As time goes on, more and more decent Americans are understanding that the positions of "The Left" are exactly what America needs.
7
Not voting for the Democrat in 2016 defines leftist. So much for all of the other beliefs, I guess.
1
I'm with you until right at the very end. Even though I'm a progressive independent I will vote for every Democrat on the ballot simply because the alternative--a dysfunctional, enabling GOP--will lead us directly to an authoritarian government.
I do wish we had a another choice, though, because I'm certain our two-party system is broken beyond repair.
6
The race should not be Democrat vs. Republican, it should be Trumpism vs. Rationality & Decency. There are a lot of centrist voters (like me) who just want to see a centrist candidate who can counter Trump and his ilk. Basically, I have become a single-issue voter, and that issue I care most about is stopping Trump and the damage he is doing to the this country.
3
When electing democrats, the labels "liberal, centrist, conservative and libertarian are meaningless. What counts is how candidates will vote on policies that affect the transfer of wealth to the plutocracy -- and their rule over everyone else by means of the Supreme Court's erroneous "Citizens United" case -- which is what allowed corporations to buy our Congress.
For everyone excited about so-called "centrist" democrats taking back Congress, recall this is what we had when Obama was elected. With all those "centrist" (center right) Democrats in office, what happened? We got no prosecution of the Banksters who broke laws and wrecked the economy. We got the budget-busting perpetual engagement in useless foreign wars, we got violations of the Constitution with the NSA and telecoms spying on *all* americans' emails, we got vigorous prosecution of whistleblowers -- like Edward Snowden -- who proved by exposing numerous secret programs of the U.S. Intelligence agencies that the NSA, for a period of years, was in a conspiracy to continuously violate the U.S. Constitution's law of privacy. We got only tiny changes in the tax code to force the Plutocracy to pay more taxes -- as they, and not the 99% -- are drowning in profits because of the increased economic stratification of American society.
Everyone that thinks it's great having moderates, wait 'til you have to pay your own health care bill, or wonder where you next job or raise is coming from.
7
Now let’s consign Bernie to the dustbin of history. It can’t come soon enough for this centrist Democrat.
7
Trump's immigration platform (minus the racist rhetoric) and Bernie's economic platform (minus Medicare for all - should look more like Medicaid) is the way forward - in my opinion.
5
Trump's positions on immigration (without the racist rhetoric) and trade combined with Bernie's positions on social insurance would be an unbeatable combination. A candidate espousing such views would crush any competitor. If you want to become dictator of America, that's the platform you run on.
The bourgeois parties are never going to allow it. The democrats could field such a candidate but their addiction to illegal immigration in the name of identity politics has boxed them in.
4
I am a liberal democrat. But I am also realistic--and disappointed that the feckless Democratic leadership couldn't keep countless Dems from running in districts we want to capture in California. Examples: House district 8 and 10. Why would the democrats want to split the vote so that we might not even have a Dem running in the election? The current extreme Balkanization of the Democratic party is going to kill us.
1
Democrats are the big tent party. This is a midterm election primary. Don't overthink the results.
1
The far left did not do well - the moderate left did very well.
We are a democracy. It does us no good, as a people nor as a party, to elect the extremes in primaries, whether left nor right.
7
Sorry to be the skunk at the party, but America will need a sea-change in its culture to reasonably move left. The failure of American K-12 education is one of the main culprits. And it has done so because of the stupid way education is funded, which is reflective of an inveterately selfish, self-centered society. Most teachers are sincere and hard working. But it's hard to be better with 25 year old textbooks, heating problems, leaky ceilings when the rich district over the hill gets everything it asks for. That and fools who insist on injecting religion and rejection of critical thinking.
1
False choices should be consigned to the same dustbin as bothsideism.
Old line liberals - JFK, LBJ, RFK, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Reuther, George Meany, John Lewis, Irv Shapiro, and even Bill Scranton, Lowell Weiker, and George Romney - believed in a shared American project where opportunity was widely shared, as were the benefits of rising productivity.
The choice is not between liberal and moderate Democrats, but between Democrats, who reflect the belief in shared prosperity, and Republicans, who have across the board cozied up to the likes of the Kochs, Blackstone and the top 0.1%. Once we, as Democrats take back some of the levers of power, we can work out how to share the prosperity. Until then, the argument between Democrats and Republicans (again, just about across the board) is whether, not how, to share the prosperity.
2
Koch Brothers are now funding some Democrats. Their "Libre" initiative has made clear they want unlimited open borders, unlimited population growth and unlimited amnesty. And unfortunately the Democrats are happily accepting the Koch Brothers initiative. . .
I am not so sure this was much of a "win" for the Democrats. By my count, for currently Republican-held seats. only Issa's had more votes for Democrats than Republicans. Of course, who knows how the turnout will be for the general election.
1
This sows the seeds of Republican control of Congress that will be harvested in the fall. Hillary could not crush Trump, what hope do more power establishment insider DC Democrats have? None, is the sad answer.
6
You're WAY overriding CA-45. There wasn't a shred of daylight policy-wise between Katie Porter and David Min. It was not a fight between the progressive and establishment wings of the party in any way.
1
More of the same that lost us the last election, despite the tortured attempts to prove that it was Bernie's fault. A block of wood should have been able to defeat Trump, but the Dems couldn't because they have become just a wishy-washy version of the Republicans. They throw some bones to the left on issues of identity politics and then continue to dance to the tune of their corporate sponsors, thus managing to alienate both left and right. They need to define and live up to a truly progressive vision and educate the public as to how this is to the benefit of everyone or we are doomed.
9
Well perhaps the latest results from these primaries will finally provide enough evidence to the Democratic leadership that the rank and file Democratic voter is not interested in the cultural wars currently being pushed by the 'Progressive' factions of the Left.
These results in fact ought to convince even the most tone deaf Progressive, that in order for the Democrats to regain a seat at the table in November, our Party would do best not to overreach itself but instead ,to listen to our supporters and try leading from behind.
1
"Pro-gun?" No thanks, I don't think the country needs anymore 2nd Amendment blather or ridiculous NRA talking points. But what we do need - desperately - is a Congress that's willing to shoulder its oversight responsibilities and its designated role in our system of checks and balances. Allowing Trump's screwball regime to run amok another three years is simply not an option.
3
All this semantical bla- bla is irrelevant, and the faster Democrats realize this the better. Democrats should support ANY Dem in November. The goal is not between liberals and progressives. The goal is to elect Democrats of any hue in November. Vote strategically in November.
3
The left ish part of the Democrats and it's party volunteers are the main reason why Mrs Clinton lost the 2016 election.
Speaking to volunteers after and hearing before the election, millions of leftwing Dems were furious at Mrs CLinton for associating with rich people(voters who often vote Democrat),and worked for super rich investment banking companies. Because the NY Times-newspaper of record for almost all Democrats ,and all NYC Democrats, promised and all but guaranteed-"scientifically"- that Mrs Clinton was going to win the Presidency, easily-so even Mr T thought he'd be living in Manhattan again in the week
after the election. When he won-and later,the numbers were revealed over the next few months-it became clear that so many left wing voters wanted to "punish HRC" and "send a message" to Mrs CLinton so that, "just because she was the President, now,)sic, " that she better not dare to take them for granted." their clever plan cut their- and my-throat
All these lefty voters were so assured of victory,(millions of black voters refused to vote thinking Clinton had stolen Obama's third term!!!), and all these non CLinton -non Democratic voters and negative votes, amounted to voting FOR TRUMP. In party politics-you take good with bad and learn to deal or your foes laugh at you every election.
1
To me, it shows the Dems are starting to show the common sense that got Bill Clinton elected twice (yes, I agree he never would have won the first election without Ross Perot).
But he won a second term, and was clearly a center left candidate. Bernie and Liz can rant on all they want about single-payer and oppressive regulation, respectively, but that’s not how to get elected in America these days.
And don’t we need more common-sense centrists? Trump thinks he’s a King and Sanders and Warren are doppelgängers for George McGovern. Centrists tend to compromise, and that’s the way Washington should work.
If Bill Clinton hadn’t been such an (ultimately) morally bankrupt person, and if the Dems had run someone like him without the baggage, W never would have been elected. Clinton’s smell was all over Al Gore, and many people argue he was still the winner.
We can’t predict the future, but we can learn from the past.
Now it’s time to focus on jettisoning Pelosi as the potential Speaker, and the Dems will recapture the House. It’s that simple.
5
"[T]he point — which I never tire of making, because some people seem not to want to accept it — that while the Republicans can gain a House majority with only conservatives, the Democrats can’t do so with only liberals."
I suspect people don't want to accept this point because it's inaccurate. One of the core truisms of American politics -- one that's consistently forgotten by both parties at the end of an eight-year presidential cycle -- is that a sizable majority of Americans are moderates, who vastly number extreme partisans on either side. Further, this has been the case for much of American history. This is how the American electorate has flipped directly between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump in presidential elections, and also how both the House and Senate routinely flip between Democratic and Republican control -- though yes, the midterm elections during any given president's first term almost invariably work out more favorably for the opposing party.
Tomasky also appears to be ignoring the basic reality that the Trump regime has succeeded in alienating just as many self-described conservatives as it's brought into the fold, if not more so -- despite constant reminders from The Times and others of the size of Trump's purported "base." (Perhaps that's been drastically overestimated as well?)
2
Why should we support a pro-gun, anti-same-sex marriage candidate over another with the same views just because he happens to be a Democrat? That's not even a "centrist" candidate.
5
The term "left-wing" is ill-defined in American politics, especially when it is used in the capitalist press. I have seen many comments to articles like these in the Times where people have argued for the need for democrats to focus on economic issues and economic inequality in particular as "centrist." If that's centrism then call me a centrist.
"Left-wing" appears to be a blanket term for all non-establishment democrats, particularly those middle-class people for whom racial and gender issues are priority number one, along with the socialists like Sanders and his followers. Their commitment to racial issues above all other concerns leads them to take some interesting positions, to say the least, like favoring economic migrants and free-trade over the interests of unemployed and underemployed American workers. That's hardly left-wing at all.
The ideological purity espoused by those types, combined with their ill-defined plans for the paying for the programs they seek to impose makes them unelectable. Worse, it threatens to give the right control over the courts, the federal bureaucracy, and the federal budget, where they can do (and have done) serious damage to the rights and fortunes of America's working and lower middle-classes. You know, the very people the left is supposed to be fighting for.
I fail to see how it is a defeat for the left if electable pragmatists triumph over the ideologues in the democratic primaries. We in the real left know that it isn't.
1
Democrats were vulnerable in 2016 because they didn't offer anything new, and they wimped out on key issues. Americans want the trade deficit with China reducesd, and they wanted Obama to fight to keep that SCOTUS seat. They wanted a plan to improve the prospects of the lower middle class too. Instead they got the same old pablum from the Democrats, and enough of them preferred the vitriol from the Trump and his Republicans to hand them a victory.
The Democrats need to come up with solutions, even if it displeases their corporate sponsors. Almost nobody likes the direction America is going, and nobody has offered a way to turn it around. So we vote for the lesser of two evils and count on winning. That is not a good long-term strategy.
Of course the opposition will always brand such efforts as liberal, socialist, or even communist. They spent 50 years controlling the terms of the discussion to make any opposition look un-American or even treasonous. The Democrats need to counter this strategy as well.
3
"Democrats Did Well Last Night. The Left Didn’t."
I'm pleased to see the Times acknowledge that the Democratic Party is hardly "liberal" -- except when compared to the GOP.
2
I'm a progressive who will continue to sabotage the Democratic centrists by clinging to my "impossible" ideals with "no clue about the nuts and bolts of actual governance."
I'm not alone.
Deal with it.
6
Well, you're not alone, but close enough to alone: your sabotage didn't succeed because you couldn't get the votes. Consider yourself dealt with.
5
This isn't bad news. The extreme left isn't smarter or better than the extreme right.
4
Very progressive Democratic voter here, happy to vote for a less progressive candidate if there are appropriate for the district. What separates us is so small, compared with stupid, evil, festering malignancy which is the Trump Party.
7
Decent, hard working and honest Democrats have lost a generation of gains due to the bizarre, and frankly unrealistic adventures of the far left.
Sorry idealists, we just can't afford to keep chasing the perfect while the greater good is lost forever.
11
I consider myself a lefty liberal. But I know that governing is the art of compromise and flexibility and I want legislators that are willing to work towards the middle. I know I will not always get what I want, but by such, neither will either extreme and more people will be satisfied that government is working for them. People want government to work and to do so we must be be more centrist and elect candidates willing to work for compromise.
8
I've noticed a recent ideological difference between liberals and what can best be described as "leftists." Some on the far left hold views that, to me, seem pretty illiberal. Liberalism, by definition, involves an open minded approach to things that fosters a healthy debate about possible solutions to problems (i.e. Bernie Sanders). Leftists, by contrast, seem more tightly bound to ideology, facts be damned (i.e. Jill Stein). I would say that liberals did just fine in the primaries, but maybe leftists didn't. I'm fine with that.
2
If the districts weren't gerrymandered in the ridiculous way they are there would plenty of liberal districts to make a majority. Even when the Republicans have won the popular vote for congressional seats nearly always is behind the Democrats.
4
Should read that "when the Republicans haven't won the popular vote for congressional seats, they always win more seats than the Democrats.
The name of the game is and always has been..."Deliver the Votes."
I would like to live in a more liberal world (not just a more liberal USA).
Personally, I live in a very liberal space (family, friends, neighbors, workplace, etc.). However, politically I am more of a pragmatist. I worked in Congress. I've been to the Circus. If you can't get the votes, you don't get the policies you want. Half of the Obama Presidency was spent trying to get policies for which Democrats could not muster the votes (not in Congress and not in general elections). I want a more liberal America and I believe that the demographics will lead us there but I will take progress over voteless positions almost every time. The GOP is more vulnerable today than at any other time in my memory but Democrats aren't going to get those hidden -- begging for release -- Moderate Republicans to join our liberal cause by expecting them to shift all the way left in one swift move.
Let's get the votes first then move the nation left through PROOFS of concepts not merely promises that most of the nation (wrongly, in the long run, in my opinion) doesn't believe we liberals/Democrats can keep, never mind vote for today.
2
To begin with, I still don't understand why some people continue to lump the Bernie Sanders contingent in with Democrats when there's simply no relation between the two --and he isn't even a Democrat!
That said, at this point the most important thing is to put that all aside in order to confront what is now in the White House, instead of repeating the same quibbling that occurred during the 2016 presidential election because there's simply too much at stake.
Now is the time. VOTE!
6
As democrats we need to start promoting our ideologies based on their merit in fiscal terms.
"Entitlements" like education and healthcare don't just promote a healthy and competitive economy but are fundamentally necessary to create an economy that is competitive on the global stage.
Liberals often argue for these programs based purely on moralistic terms. Free healthcare is the "right thing to do". Conservatives *clearly* do not agree with these moralistic arguments.
Personally though neither do I, though I've come to realize that the most successful economies in the world are built on the backs of healthy college educated individuals. Taxes go down when your economic growth explodes. New economies built on unprecedented technology are born from the egalitarian societies of the world offering education and healthcare as a right rather than a privilege.
Fiscal conservatism often wants to do away with these sorts of programs and allow the "free market" to dictate their "needs". The free market won't fund an entire generation's education with the goal of *maybe* creating entirely new industries from the ether. Though for long term success in the modern world this is the risk our society as a whole must take to ensure our continued success and our return to the throne as "leader of the free world".
It's pure common sense that healthy educated citizens will create a healthy strong economy. Somehow this argument seems to be lost in our current battle cry for "equality".
1
Thank you for this heartening news. Bernie Nader and his cult of personality may finally go away. Although I wouldn't count on it. I fully expect him to run in 2020 and I'm scared that he will do exactly what he's been doing for the last 20 years - attempt to rip the Democratic party into two beatable halves. No wonder Putin supported him.
4
This is a center-right country.
I know that it is tough thing accept but the Democratic Party was most successful when it pursued Clintonesque policies.
I know, I know...he did disappoint us with Lewinsky and I did not vote for him a second time but his positioning on social and economic policy gave us a strong economy and the ability to move some social policy forward.
I did work for McCarthy and McGovern and got Johnson, Nixon and Reagan. I am older now and have the ability to look back and see what has happened.
Social policy is important but electability with the 2018 and 2020 cycle is critical to taking back our country.
We would do well to heed Mr. Tomasky's next to last paragraph:
"For now, though, the only real candidates are congressional ones, and they are a mixed lot, reflecting the point — which I never tire of making, because some people seem not to want to accept it — that while the Republicans can gain a House majority with only conservatives, the Democrats can’t do so with only liberals. There simply aren’t enough liberal districts or voters."
We are the more diverse party...we need to act like it.
4
It's not a center-right country at all.
The electorate, however, tilts center-right. Which makes sense: the electorate is better educated and wealthier than the country as a whole, and they tend to prefer candidates who will protect their gains, however small.
2
We are mincing words...I agree with your sentiment and point.
Elections are won from the center, we need to understand it and nominate candidates that are moderate and understand the possible.
"in the southern part of the state, Democrats chose a pro-gun, anti-same-sex-marriage nominee, State Senator Jeff Van Drew, over a more liberal opponent by a large margin", which is exactly as it should be. If it takes electing centrists willing to vote against Trump's tyranny than we will have to plow ahead and vote that way. Priority #1 right now is beginning to put out this dumpster fire. 1) Save the country. Assuming we do that then perhaps we can start to worry about 2) progress. You don't try and steer a bus in the right direction when it is being driven towards a cliff by a madman. You just find a way to keep it from going off the cliff. That's what victory will look like.
6
So the Democrats think more of the same-old triangulation model will yield different results with respect to the growing disparity and continued guilding of our age, the consolidation of corporate control of the levers of power in the party and in the government, the continued slide of the nation into right-wing extremism and fascism, and the continued long-term wane of the party? ... As far as the Democrats are concerned, it looks as if the beatings will continue until morale improves.
2
Actually, the Democratic Party is left. Bernie is not a Democrat.
The Sanders people keep saying they have the support of the people, except when votes are cast and counted, they end up not having the support of a majority.
5
Good. The Bernie people are too far out. What we need now are pragmatic centrists who believe in basic democratic ideals. And to those who would counter this argument given the success of the rabid right, I point out that the rabid right preaches to individualism not collectivism. People are not inherent givers, religious teaching aside. So to win, the candidate must "make my life better" and then talk about how bettering the lives of others fits into that scenario.
4
Hillary Clinton was a very moderate candidate; she was practically a Republican. "Moderates" are not a safe bet.
4
Bernie is not a democrat. He only pretends to be one when he needs the party’s infrastructure to run for office.
5
The Democratic Party also seems quite happy to have his vote in the Senate, so I think it's a two-way street.
6
Chris,
Bernie did the Democratic Party a favor in showing them what a Democrat should be. He's as much a Democrat as was FDR and LBJ (domestic affairs).
The poor, the working and the middle classes need a political party. The Democrats, who traditionally were that party, need to decide whether they want to be that again, instead of the 2nd party for big money they currently are.
3
A good Revolutionary is a pragmatic Revolutionary.
You do whatever it takes to win because that's what the reactionary alt-right forces do. But you have to win first.
"Whatever it takes" means sacrificing your ideals to prioritize winning.
Once in, you incrementally reintroduce your ideals and drag your voters left. If your ideals are any good, your voters will approve.
If not, the opposition deserves to win.
6
First, I don't the "experts" know who or what fits the traditional "Left" or "Right" anymore. In other words, they don't really understand the current political landscape. They're still struggling to get a grip on how they so badly missed the 2016 election, and the primaries that produced Trump and almost Sanders.
Second, declaring that the Left lost based upon results in traditionally conservative districts proves nothing. The "left" is obviously is energized and has turned out in large numbers in their more traditional strongholds. That the more liberal candidates made a decent showing in conservative leaning districts actually proves the opposite from what you concluded.
Third, if the DNC continues to use a heavy hand to force candidates down peoples throats, they're going to continue to lose. They need to let the people in each area select their the candidates that best meet their needs, If that means a more liberal one or a more conservative one, so be it.
Fourth, forget the whole "left" "right" pigeonholing. The Dems need to win, regardless of where they fall on some artificial scale or any litmus tests.
5
It doesn't matter what you call the Democrat, a Sanders/Warren progressive or an establishment centrist. If that Democrat can't address the economic concerns of the neglected working class, then that Democrat will lose to a Republican who pretends to care. That's the lesson from 2016.
That means that Democrats, very concretely, will have to propose affordable, universal, easy to use healthcare; affordable college; a living wage; some kind of job security.
The Sanders/Warren progressives have their proposal for those things. The establishment, centrist Democrats, with their loyalty to big money, are still dithering about helping working people.
If making working people the foundation of your party is something the Democrats aren't able to do, then Sanders/Warren progressives need to start a new party dedicated to the poor, the working and middle classes.
5
All the good ideas are from Sanders.
Trump has all the bad ideas.
And the Democrats have no ideas at all; "A Better Way" anyone?
But are there really "liberals" anymore, in the conventional sense of the word?
I mean, they're still out there, sure, but in very small numbers. Not enough to carry an election and assume the reigns of all 3 branches of government.
The battle now is between "Trump supporters" and "everyone else."
If "everyone else" wins, then the country wins.
4
The battle is between the corporatists, both Democrat and Republican, who want everyone to be a slave to the 0.001%, and the anti-corporatists - the Trumpsters plus the Progressives.
The anti-corporatists have the momentum and the future.
Both liberal (Clinton) corporatists and republican corporatists are switching to the independent and non/less-ideological anti-corporatist view that welcomes both right and left.
This happens when they suddenly get that feeling that establishment power and their mainstream media has been programming them to acquiesce in their own slavery.
Many living in Seattle voted for the progressive left and now the world has seen the damage done to our city.
Damage that has been done on the local local, state & national level by the bernie left and the trump right will take years to repair and hard work by the center to right democrats and left to center republicans.
Our country needs to work together, not be torn apart by extremists agendas.
6
Pnp. Sorry it is the damage done by Neo liberals married to big money and Hollywood that have led to the current state of affairs. Unless they cut that cord get ready for Trump in 2020 and then we deserve what we get
1
The term "establishment" Democrat is a pejorative and misleading label. The "establishment" label suggests that such a Democrat is a pawn of party leaders. Most Americans see themselves as centrists -- either center-left or center-right or dead center. Today's radical may be tomorrow's centrist. The fact is that there are many liberals who also have a sense of fiscal responsibility. While sympathetic to a social democrat agenda they know that voters do not want them to give the farm away. "Liberal realist" or just plain vanilla "liberal" would be a more fair description than "establishment." Those further to the left may feel the voters have a different view. In any event, the semantics are unnecessary. Democrats in general share core liberal social and economic values. It's why we call ourselves Democrats and why we went to the polls and voted for the candidates we feel represent our values and get the job done if elected.
7
I really think we need to start promoting the notion that "entitlements" like education and healthcare don't just promote a healthy and competitive economy but are fundamentally necessary to create an economy that is competitive on the global stage.
Liberals often argue for these programs based purely on moralistic terms. Free healthcare is the "right thing to do".
Conservatives *clearly* do not agree with these moralistic arguments.
Personally though neither do I, though I've come to realize that the most successful economies in the world are built on the backs of healthy college educated individuals.
Taxes go down when your economic growth exploads.
New economies built on unprecedented technology are born from the egalitarian societies of the world offering education and healthcare as a right rather than a privilege.
Fiscal conservatism often wants to do away with these sorts of programs and allow the "free market" to dictate their "needs". The free market won't fund an entire generation's education with the goal of *maybe* creating entirely new industries from the ether. Though for long term success in the modern world this is the risk our society as a whole must take to ensure our continued success and our return to the throne as "leader of the free world".
It's pure common sense that an individual needs to be healthy to work. It's pure common sense that a better educated worker will be more creative, innovative, and capable in our advanced economies.
The obvious question for all the centrist enthusiasts here is why, if centrists are so great at winning elections, did Democrats lose a 1000 state and local seats, both houses of Congress and the presidency -- this, during and immediately after Obama's mostly center-right stewardship, followed by Hillary's tireless "never, ever" advocacy of the status-quo?
Or are you folks claiming, as the right does, that Obama is a far left Kenyan-born socialist, notwithstanding his actual center-right policy positions (including Obamacare, which was a product of lobbyistd, the insurance industry, the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney)?
Or maybe it's all Bernie's fault, despite the fact that the losses piled up long before anyone outside Vermont knew who he was?
When does the losing side ever admit it's a loser? Or would you rather lose, than suffer the likes of actual progressives?
2
Arghhhh!!! The USA is not a left wing nation. Purity tests are a losing proposition. Moderate Democrats are not going to come in and ban abortion, go after gays, team with religious conservatives, give rich people tax cuts etc. Moderate Democrats will fight for access to health care, vote for quality jurists, put limits on campaign finance, pass common sense gun laws. Left-wing Democrats will lose elections in key districts and never get to put their left-wing agenda in place.
Senator Sanders needed to end his 2016 campaign speeches with the following line: “and of course, I have no way of actually paying for, or even passing, the things I just proposed.”
Heading full tilt to the left is just as dangerous as heading full tilt to the right. The center is where it’s at in this country. Always has been. And, while not perfect, it’s resulted in steady progress.
7
And not only that, unfortunately when Bernie has had the chance to walk the walk when it makes a difference for his actual constituents in Vermont, he has chosen Lockheed-Martin and its F-35 fighter jet (very quietly) over the health and home values of the very demographics he pretends to care about. I.e., the working poor, working class, immigrant refugees and veterans and the elderly.
Ask the thousands living in Winooski, Vermont, or South Burlington, Vermont whose homes are now in the "not suitable for residential use zone" thanks to Bernie's backing of the F-35 fighter jet how much he has done for their retirement security? Undermining and depreciating the value of their biggest asset, their homes, so real estate developers like Patrick Leahy's cousin, Ernie Pomerleau, can profit?
Bernie has always talked a great game but he unfortunately makes no difference when it really counts.
3
I don't care for either the establlshment wing or the "Bernie" wing of the Democratic Party. Could we have something else on the menu, like a credible, electable, non-corporate, unbeholden, practically effective, democratic wing?
Does it make sense to have "free college" when there are a lot of wealthy and very-well-off folks who can pay? Does "Medicare for all" make sense when Medicare starts being in the red in five years? I think debt-free college and Medicare-for-all are worthy, but have people thought about what it will take to get there and how to do it? You know, the actual politics and nuts and bolts of effective governance?
Could we have a choice between the Wall Street DINO wing we've had for the last 30 years and the head-in-the-clouds wing? Someone who can walk the walk as well as talk the talk? (And walk the walk the same way they talk the talk?)
Amy Klobuchar, lookin' at you. Time to step up.
3
And how much money did the DNC spend supporting "establishment" Democrats?
"I #FeelTheBern"
- @SeanSpicer , 7:51 PM - 17 Jan 2016
Everything you need to know about how the GOP planned to manipulate the "left" in encapsulated in the above tweet.
And it continues ...
3
Hopefully Democrats have learned that tying themselves to Bernie Sanders and his view of the world is a no-win proposition.
A guaranteed job for everyone? With no way of paying for that? And with almost every breathing person having worked in places where they knew some people worked hard and others loafed?
2
And now all the "liberals" who said "Hillary lost and needs to go away" will now say "we lost but we need to stay for good".
2
The democratic party as with the republican party are parties filled with rich people making laws beneficial to other rich people. Bernie is right. I know democrats don't want to hear it but he is right, the party "Centrist" have sold their soul to Wall Street. Until we have a government who truly is a social economic representation of the country then we will continue down this path where the rich get richer and everyone else gets screwed.
3
The electorate will always be both supportive of conservative and of progressive policies, and respecting this is the key to achieving a powerful majority to win elections.
There are fundamental preferences of any electorate in our country that always are winners and some that only win the hearts of limited constituencies. The major political parties rely upon the later for enthusiastic support, volunteering, and contributions but to win elections they need to focus upon what attracts the support of most people. All people have a desire for fairness. Progressives win elections where they represent efforts to achieve fairness for people who have been treated unjustly. Conservatives win elections where they seek to preserve consistency and predictability, because people need consistency and predictability to have control over their lives and those of their families. This makes clear the challenges created and addressed by both progressives and conservatives. Progressives seek change to resolve injustices while conservatives oppose change which can be disruptive, the former demanding injustices be eliminated while the later are willing to keep the unjust ways to avoid disruptive changes.
When you are using Hillary Clinton as a benchmark, you have to keep in mind that Sec. Clinton ran as a centrist, even center-right with Tim Kaine, and her attempt to woo Republicans at the expense of liberal, Sanders voters and blue-collar Democrats. That means there's a built-in bias toward centrist candidates in those districts she carried and not surprisingly those are the Democrats who won.
1
I love the middle of the road where either nobody is happy or live with half via Congressional trade offs. The idea that one group or party should have the whole pie is destructive. We will see if Democrats after November, if Congress is flipped, have the common sense for self control and avoid the hubris of a "mandate".
2
I have recently been in an online discussion with a few people that would pass for leftists. They don't understand what "left" is about, and are caught up in identity politics, fussing about "microaggression" and other snowflake nonsense. They'd croak into a puddle of melted witch (per Wizard of Oz) if they had to deal with the hardhat dollars and cents and union organizing issues of the Old Left that gave us the New Deal and Great Society legislation. The current crop of Democrats don't seem to be from-the-heart fighters for the vital programs, policies and values of the historic New Deal politics I want to see continuing into the future. Too many Dem leaders are sold out to affluent interests and aren't even aware of the issues facing poor people today. My enthusiasm for them is of the same order of magnitude as their enthusiasm for outlawing, for example, jail for debt (unconstitutional, but doubletalked into jail for contempt of court for nonpayment on a fine which is in fact jail for debt). Show me a politician anywhere who's a champion of outlawing that unconstitutional practice!
5
There has been a deliberate push to define "leftism" as a middle-class to upper-middle class progressivism that is almost exclusively concerned with identity politics, and that has no interest whatsoever in the economic problems facing the working and lower-middle classes.
These progressives are not going to care all that much about bread and butter wages and employment concerns because their college degrees, white-collar resumes, and generous 401(k)s mean that economic issues don't really affect them.
Identity politics is a luxury of the comfortable classes.
2
Yep. I left the Democratic party when I watched the SJWs rip out the very rungs I used to climb out of poverty. Namely discipline in public schools so that poor kids who wanted an education couldn't get one. Followed by the ballooning of highly paid diversity administrators and college "cultural centers" that made it no longer possible for anyone to work their way though college. Toss in regulations that make it prohibitive to manufacture in the US coupled with trade deals that make is profitable to shift manufacturing to countries where you can pay salve wages and pollute to your hearts content and you get President Trump. Who is basically an old school Blue Dog Democrat in a vulgar wrapper.
3
Bernie scares me. The far left scares me. I want to vote for moderate, sensible, moral Democrats. I hope we don't lurch from the far right to the opposite end of the spectrum.
5
You're afraid of people making a living wage of $15/hour?
You're afraid of single payer health care for all?
You're afraid of affordable higher education?
You're afraid of regulations for the banks?
You're afraid of taxing the rich?
What aren't you afraid of??
This op-ed piece embodies the author's centrism--and the Times's. Mr. Tomasky cites the results of a handful of off-year primary elections, and exaggerates their importance in order to support his belief that the Democratic Party should remain in the center, rather than move in a more progressive direction. He is certainly entitled to his views, but I don't think that yesterday's elections prove that he is necessarily correct. The future of the deeply-divided Democratic Party remains to be seen.
2
The left did very well last night. Everyone is frightened and the centrists and the right are in command because the needed change is so frightening. The American so called left wants a return to the 1990s and the right wants a return to the 1890s.
Water and time go only in one direction. I am reminded of the 1770s when the board of the East India Company decided British Imperial policy.
The people at Davos are not equipped to understand the complexity of Global governance. We need to get back to the march to liberal democracy and a healthy educated and secure population. Fear is not the method by which we can make the correct decisions about the future.
We must understand that the economy must serve us and we seem to have it all backwards. We need to elect leaders that first and foremost want an economy that serves us.
3
Daily Beast folks evidently are bent on demeaning people who are liberal, but Democratic candidates need to appeal to liberal voters to be successful in most instances. Why mock liberals?
1
The Democrats have a big tent and there’s room for anyone who wants to join, but it means compromise and respect for others in the tent. I have been a Democrat for almost 50 years and I’ve knocked on doors and worked day in and day out for justice and equality in my community and I don’t appreciate the new far left trying to push me out of the tent because I don’t toe their line. Of course the party needs young people and we always are always open to hearing new ideas (and old ones made new again) but it also needs old people, and others who may have different priorities or different solutions and only when there’s a dialogue (as opposed to a rant) will these disagreements within the party find resolution. It is crucial for families for justice and for the environment that we stop Trump and his GOP
6
Let's please stop worrying about which "wing" of the party we support and just vote for some Democrats--any Democrats--and save our very fragile democracy.
The latest SCOTUS rulings are a warning: Ruth Ginsburg is 85. Stephen Breyer is 79. Anthony Kennedy is 81. The next President will almost certainly appoint three Justices. And we need a Democratic Senate to confirm liberal appointees.
7
I can't, of course, speak on behalf of everyone on "the liberal left." I can, however, speak to my own feelings and those of friends. We consider ourselves liberal and on the left - and don't consider Bernie a Democrat. And, at the local levels, there is much encouragement that progressives (yes, liberals) are making compelling arguments to voters. They're focusing on real issues at the grassroots level - and that's how they win and will continue to do so.
4
Bernie is a nice guy; some good ideas but no clue on how to implement them. In sum, he is an ersatz Democrat who is way too old (my age) and un-electable.
9
How do you know he has no idea how to implement his good ideas?
He accomplished enough in Vermont to get elected to various offices many times (he's won 23 primaries), and won 71% popular vote during his reelection as Senator.
So he knows how to "implement."
The way you "implement" is you listen to and learn from experts, than you strategically delegate with a timeline and monitor the results. Simple.
Consider Trump with his Bad ideas, with no clue about much of anything, and yet he's made a lot of bad changes.
Sanders is also, by far, the most popular politician in the country.
And how is someone who's voted 98% of the time with Democrats, "ersatz?"
He's also sincere when he talks and not on the take. That's why after about 30 years in politics his net worth is far less than the average politician. (Hillary monetized government for $45,000,000 for example)
So stop clutching your pearls and leap into the future.
California wants to make America good again.
2
You could start by obeying our country's immigration laws. Crimes by illegals in sanctuary cities will get us 4 more years of Trump. Bank on it.
2
The "illegals" are far more law-abiding than the legals. They also work harder and pay much more in taxes than they take.
Come to Utah the land of brothers and sisters for the statewide party. Other than Ben McAdams who is running against Mia Love the state ticket is filled with Bernie Bots. They just don't want to lose they want to get crushed. Life is about compromise which too many Blue voters in my state don't want. Any shade of Blue is better than Red.
4
"Democrats Did Well Last Night. The Left Didn’t."
As someone that's neither a Democrat nor a liberal, makes me more comfortable voting for a Democrat than a Trump Republican in the next election.
4
"Establishment Democrat" = "New Democrat" (circa Bill Clinton) "Bernie Wing" calls to mind parallels with the Tea Party, which is what it's supposed to do. The "Wing" caused Trump, apparently. Trump is the result of the group of people whose politics are closest to the group that 40+ years would have been known by the arcane label of, "Democrat."
I have no idea what this column is about. Are Democrats supposed to be Republicans to win elections?
8
This is a good thing. Not only because moderate Democrats stand a better chance of winning, but more importantly we cannot continue swinging left and right and hope for any chance to bridge the great divide in this country. We NEED moderate leadership. We need unity, first and foremost!!!
4
This year and 2020 Democrats MUST set a goal of reestablishing a government of civility, honest, and responsiveness to the average voter. That means winning seats in Congress! So correct the mistakes of 2016.
Among Clinton's mistakes were the fact that not only did she miss the importance of middle America, but she also missed the fact that left leaning women's issues take a second place in the majority of white women's lives. Decent jobs for the household breadwinner is first.
If Democrats cannot adopt that balance they won't win and there will be no possibility at all of introducing progressive issues into the Congressional legislative debate.
Blue state progressives seem to be hopelessly unaware that 2 senators for each state means that Wyoming or South Dakota get just as many Senators as New York or California. Red states are way over represented in the Senate. But that is the facts that we must live with. Democrats must appeal to middle America or they won't win the Senate.
I am a progressive Democrat, but I live in a world of reality, not unachievable dreams.
4
I am afraid that the easy victory of Diane Feinstein in the primary shows democrats have learned absolutely nothing from history. Other than labeling herself as a democrat, you don't vote AGAIN for someone who shows no real inclination to differentiating herself from Republicans in attitude and policy and moving the party forward. Within the last ten years, centrist/right mainstream democrats like Feinstein and Pelosi have cost the party almost 1000 seats at the state and local levels resulting in this mid-term vote being at almost a crisis point for the future existence of the democratic party.
If the trends continue and Republicans hold the house,
I think it would be safe to say "goodbye democratic party, goodbye America".
1
Wall Street and the 1% are laughing. Would you like the puppet on our left hand? Or the puppet on out right hand?
7
The idea that the country, or the Democratic Party, should adopt the hard left ideas of Bernie Sanders existed only to make Hillary Clinton look bad so that the left could be divided enough to lose. It was shocking to watch us bungle this so badly with an imaginary fantasy that America is ready for a socialist revolution. Maybe in Whole Foods parking lots and yoga studios but not in a country of 300 million.
7
we're already feeling the Bern. sitting in the Oval Office.
1
Accept?! We'd stand up and cheer.
Too bad the author needs to resort to hyperbolic clickbait ledes.
Oh well- those who can...
1
"Democrats did well" but "the Left didn't"? We should hope.
This is precisely the prescription needed for Democrats to defeat the GOP's Trump ascendancy.
The ultra-liberal wing of the Democratic party, with it's obsessive Politics of Envy and Identity have fueled a backlash of which the Trump presidency is stark evidence.
6
We SHOULD resist. Resist Trump. But, also Resist false dichotomies.
Elizabeth Warren is as far on the left as Bernie is. She is also a Democrat. It should take us all no time to understand this and stop falling for the bait Trump and Republicans will lay out for us.
How else can Trump win the election? His poll numbers never top 40%. He only wins by dividing us. Preventing people from voting (long time Republican strategy). Making targeted attacks at key Democratic constituencies to keep them home (“Superpredators”...).
Don’t fall for false labels. Look at the candidate. See what they stand for. Compare candidate with the alternative (Trump sycophant)...
VOTE!
7
I can't remember where I read it, sometime during the "W' years of endless war. Someone asked who they were going to vote for in the next election.
"I'd vote for a dog if it was a Democrat". My sentiments exactly. Just win!
5
I hope the Democrats wake up and realize that they cannot get elected or rule this country from the fringes, the election of Trump should tell them the dangers of doing so. That doesn't mean the Democrats should try and engage people who otherwise wouldn't vote for them, the racists, the white supremacists, the religious right, you can't appeal to them by 'toning down your message'. On the other hand, there are a lot of people out there looking for real answers to the stupidity and nastiness Trump and the GOP have unleashed on the country. Instead of coming up with policy points, get down on the ground and talk about the country of the future (not the past of Trump, bringing back the 1950's), show you actually care people are worried about the future. You don't need to sell out your soul, you can make a push for cleaner energy while finding ways to employ people who worked in fossil fuels, you can promote steps to reverse climate change while also showing how that can actually create jobs (while pointing out the very real impact of that change, rather than trying to bury it like the GOP). A centrist doesn't mean doing nothing, it means having a picture of the future that both embraces diversity without making that into the only thing that matters, it means showing a brighter future for men, women, lgbt people, working class people, the poor, and yes even the well off. More importantly, instead of appealing to people's worse nature, appeal to the better one.
5
As a California liberal who supports single payer health care, stricter gun control, and equality under the law for everyone, I will support any Democrat who runs against the Republican/Trump Party. I would like for him or her to support the same things I do, but I'm not so stupid to stay at home because the candidate running in the November election isn't pure enough for me. I'm sick of the people on my end of the political spectrum that rail against any establishment Dem, They cut off their noses to spite their face, then proudly show off the wound. Funny how it looks just like Donald Trump.
11
Enough with this divisive narrative! Let Dems be Dems.
2
Many of Trump's most rabid supporters were "build the wall" types, but in border states like Arizona, there are a lot of people who view illegal immigration as a big problem and support hard-right types like sheriff Joe Arpaio. If Democrats want to pick up southern border-state Congressional districts, they need to address this issue coherently. "Border control won't work" is sort of like "I'm weak on national sovereignty." "We need poor Mexicans to do the jobs no-one else wants" is sort of like "we don't support an living wage for immigrants."
2
Just get Democrats into office. That's the important thing. We don't have time for the circular firing squad.
10
Don’t care what the NYT says!
Vote Sanders or bust!
4
It is clear what NYT wants! Weaken Bernie so some other Hillary-type gets the nomination in 2020. And in terms of November 2018, the more wishy washy the better. This paper will set it attack dogs on Center Left or Left candidates.
3
You need to obtain power before you can change anything. Vote Democratic and take over at least one House of Congress. The 2020 election will be key. Once you achieve power THEN you can have your internal arguments as to hard to push the country to the left. A campaign designed around reasonable ideas to help the lower and middle classes will resonate with voters regardless of wedge issues pumped out by the opposition. Attacking what republicans have done to move us backward needs to be part of the discussion but people (voters) who aren't policy wonks need to feel respected and need a POSITIVE message.
7
As a Democrat, I would have voted for Bernie over Hillary, both because I agree with his platform and thought some of what he advocated for might get done in some form, but also because I would have trusted our system of checks and balances to keep him from getting too crazy. I ended up holding my nose and voting for Hillary as the least bad of two bad options. I thought she might well have a history of corruption and somewhat questionable alliances and with her fame Bill, but at least they knew how to run the government. Politics should be the art of the possible and the art of compromise. No, I do not want a Congress full of some of the wackier left leaning liberals in the party, anymore than I wanted what we have now. I don’t believe what they want to do will work. Identity politics has overwhelmed the party. Focus on electing people willing to work with Republicans and more moderate democrats on issues like jobs, health care, funding social welfare programs — making life better for all people, in other words — and the Democrats will get more votes.
4
The Democrats should learn from their mistakes in 2016 . Their focus should be on defeating Trump and the only way they can do it is to take over Congress by a large margin.
The left wing of the party needs to base its activism and voting on the disastrous consequences of Trump completing his first term, let alone getting re elected.
6
Whatever happened to the idea of just choosing the right or best option in the legislative arena?
Cause you know it is still as true today as it was before the GOP made every decision a partisan one, that facts have no party.
That is why in the past we had members of both party's who were on the same page frequently when it came to choosing solutions and making decisions they are elected to make.
Why is it OK for the GOP to impose communistic standards for party line adherence and not even have it pointed out or the comparison made?!
3
WORK within the Democratic Party to elect viable candidates in the General Elections. Then vote for the Democratic Candidates.
Do not go to the polls to 'send a message' to the Democrats by voting for outliers like Bernie Sanders. That is just throwing your vote away and wrapping yourself in liberal martyrdom.
This isn't a game where you make your voice heard by choosing to vote against the better candidate because that candidate isn't perfect. Seeking Perfection is a fool's errand. And the truly evil laugh while you follow the Pied Pipers of Perfection.
13
I went to vote northern ca and they told me I already did
So they gave me a provisional ballot to fill out and another registration card
And now I see down South had problems too by the way I'm a Republican
2
A bad night for Bernie Sanders is a good night for the rest of us.
6
I don't have any problem with centrist Democrats, even thought I'm not one. Anything is better than the right-wing reactionaries currently trying to upend our nation. Each district needs to elect people who most represent the district - here in Oakland, a very liberal place, we are represented by a very liberal rep, Ms. Barbara Lee. I don't presume that the voters in Iowa (or even New Jersey) would elect her or someone with the same positions. But I do want to see sane, thoughtful, committed people elected who have an agenda that doesn't require us to reverse 50+ years of progress on the environment, regulation, justice equity, and other issues. Republicans have proven that they can't represent anyone outside a thin slice of right wing, racist extremists (and their billionaire enablers) - so now it is up to centrist and left-leaning people to work together to bring our country back in line with the true majority's values. I refuse to believe that the majority of Americans want to live in a nation ruled by a cabal of corrupt, super-hypocritical, greedy, hate-filled reactionaries.
5
Bernie wing ate crow-pie for dinner last night, and it is time Bernie Sanders stopped meddling in politics of Democrats, considering he is out to con Democrats by running as one in the primaries and then refusing nomination to run as independenet in the general election for senator in Vermont.
When will the DNC wake up and tell him to go away?
7
AND in the mid-terms watch the democratic party "go away".
1
Progressives have fallen out of fashion. Way too much hypocrisy and elitism.
5
Progressivism fell out of fashion because of the backlash to Civil Rights splitting the Democratic party in the 70s and the concerted 4 decade effort by the ultra-rich libertarian fringe to convince Americans that progressives were communists and moochers
). Except for periods in the 1950s and 1960s and possibly the 1990’s when tax rates on the rich just happened to be high enough to prevent overinvestment, the economy has generally suffered from periodic overinvestment cycles.
It is not just a coincidence that tax cuts for the rich have preceded both the 1929 and 2007 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 worked exactly as the Republican Congresses that pushed them through promised. The dramatic reductions in taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy did indeed result in increases in savings and investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile manufacturing companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, ultimately much poorer.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
2
The chief electoral effect of the Donald is to make it clear that what we are voting for is not ideology, but the best available governance. Ideologues lose.
2
Democrats have to move left. We saw that moderates and their wishy washy policies blew it. Plus, we can no longer afford those policies. We are at the edge of social and moral bankruptcy in this nation. Time to wake up from the long false consciousness that has been more than a nightmare. Vote in masses in November and vote Left. We need a government to serve the 99 percent and Clintonite centrists won’t do anymore.
5
If you can’t afford the policies of the moderates, how can you even imagine affording those of the far left, with “free” everything?
I would love to have Clintonite centrists in the WH now.....
1
We can afford all of the lefts policies. Tax reform so the wealthy pays higher taxes, corporates pay higher taxes and pay their workers instead of buying back shares and make the wealthy even more wealthy, cut idiotic military spending that buys us nothing (Iraq, Afghanistan,Libya)....
1
I consider myself a progressive, but I would rather fight and protest a moderate Democrat in office over a few issues like foreign policy, then have a Republican in office where I'd have to fight those policies, and also resist the rollback of the last 50 years of social progress in this country.
Pick your battles, people. How would you rather spend your energies? Fighting for a few issues on a narrow front, or be forced to fight for all of them on several fronts?
8
A sound analysis and you can tell some CA Berniacs are disgruntled from the tone of some comments on threads related to the CA results. Old Daniel Patrick wasn't wrong on the desire of far left Democrats for self immolation if they can't get exactly what they want.
The Democrats dodged the bullet in CA and the news from there and elsewhere was generally pretty good for their cause. Turnout was up, there were some surprise wins in red states, Trump is a great motivator (of Democrats).
Overall Democrats have every reason to be pleased with last night and if you're a Republican in a suburban dominated area you probably need to be worried.
4
Should this be a surprise? The far left shows up for the Presidential race, undermines the centrist Democratic candidate for not being left wing enough, hands the white house to the Republicans, and goes sulking back to their tents for another four years. (Trump, Bush II, Nixon) Either they are not interested in the hard, slogging, decades-spanning work to create a movement as the far right has done or their message can't attract supporters. In my opinion, a Sanders nomination in 2020 means four more years of Trump.
14
Two reasons why the left wing of the Democratic party did not fare well in the primaries:
(1) More Americans are Independents than a member of either political party. They are leaving both parties for a variety of reasons.
(2) The far left platform of 'government is the solution' to America's problems is a tough platform to run on. Many voters simply don't trust our federal or local governments. Moreover, running against Trump is not a platform that says what you will do once you are in office.
An observation - the DNC attempted to influence who ran for office in California. Most (if not all) Democratic candidates ignored them.
1
More than ever, Democrats will need to thread the needle. President Trump may provide a once in a generation opportunity, but it's common sense that voters in conservative areas are not going to switch from Ted Cruz politics to Bernie Sanders politics. This will not happen.
Get the guns out of our schools, restore clean air and water, keep taxes low, make friends with our allies. Unless you're Trump, these things are hard to argue with.
8
While "left" and "liberal" are often used interchangeably, we should be clear that they are not synonyms. It only seems so if one is looking at the spectrum of American political ideology from the extreme right end.
Besides the fact that all strains of liberalism value individual liberty and the hard left champions radical equality among racial, ethnic, and gender groups, I liberal mind is an open mind, which can be said of neither the rigid, intolerant right nor the rigid, intolerant left. As Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell wrote, what marks a liberal is not what he believes, but how he believes it: tentatively, like a scientist, he believes that for which he has the best evidence, but he's always willing to be talked out of his views.
As for Bernie, then, I read every word of his 2016 Presidential platform, and he is a centrist liberal (albeit center left, as distinct from the libertarian center right). He is not on the Marxist or anarchist left, who want to overthrow the existing constitutional order. To deal with the effects of Citizens United and the outsize influence of money on our elections, for example, Bernie advocated several modes of opposition, all within our constitutional structure. These included legislation, executive orders, court rulings, administrative action, and amending the Constitution. Marx would be so disappointed.
In any case, the sooner we flush Trump out of our system the better, so go Dems 2018!
10
Bernie Sanders should put his country before his purity. He helped elect Donald Trump.
53
Should be a NYT pick.
Who refused to cede after her lost by millions of votes?
Who started "Hilary- Goldman Sachs -Clinton"
Bernie needs to go away
15
Yes, he was the indispensable man that way.
2
I hope just the opposite. By speaking out as he has about the inequalities in our system he benefits the many not the few. We need a critical constructive voice that is positive not the negative voice of the GOP and their fear mongering. The Democratic party has historically been a big tent, unlike the Republicans. Bernie did not help elect Trump, he wasn't running in case you were not aware, Hillary ran. It was her election to lose along with a bit of help from Putin. It was not Sanders fault that Hillary did not know how to connect with voters.
12
The left, and by this I mean the extreme left, seems to have a cognitive issue, as Trump does, with the notion that whoever gets the most votes in an election is the preferred candidate of those who chose to vote. While the solution is obvious (turn out more voters who share your point of view), they seem to think the correct approach is to intimidate those with less strident views, and withholding their votes from anyone they deem impure. Dems will have a tough time in November, and in 2020, if this continues.
Bernie Sanders' mealy-mouthed statements on this during the 2016 election and afterwards, have exacerbated this issue. He too should start putting country before politics.
59
E.B. you could have stopped at the end of your first sentence. Who is sitting in the WH today. Trump is a disaster but he is the disaster the voters chose.
3
I don't withhold my vote from those I feel impure. I withhold my vote from those with a track record of pushing Republican policies and voting for Republican legislation and nominees.
If you oppose taxing the rich to pay for healthcare, education, entitlements, and infrastructure, or raising the minimum wage, then I oppose you. It you disagree on one or two of those items, I can live with that. But telling me all good policy is "impossible in today's political climate" is code for "I'm a Republican pretending to be a Democrat."
It doesn't matter what letter you put after your name. If you will vote for increased military spending and a torturer to be head of CIA you are in the wrong side of history.
I would rather vote for a good candidate that loses than a bad candidate that wins.
I am not an unreasonable person. I don't expect any candidate to agree with everythingI want. But I expect candidates to take a stand for the things they believe are important, to advocate for these things, and to lead in the right direction.
Capitulation, retreat, and hiding in the center are not qualities I vote for.
Fight for the Greater Good and you win by vote. Try to sell me lesser evil and I'll vote for someone else.
5
I'd just like some basic integrity from Sanders. If you sit in the Senate as an independent and you want to run for President, then run as ans Independent.
2
We see how well the purity tests worked in 2016. I just want someone who can win! I don't expect to agree w/them on everything or expect them to be perfect.
14
Isn't this what the CA "jungle primary" system was designed to do - encourage candidates that have to appeal to a wide electorate rather than a narrow base? It looks like the system is working as designed (despite all the hand wringing)
4
Remember people, we need a big Democratic tent, and then to unify behind our primary choices.
Only winners effect change in government (and hold a wannabe dictator in check). Losers go home.
There are no moral victories unless you think Trump advanced your moral agenda.
15
The Democrats need to stay away from going too far left on social issues. Perfect example is the majority of both Rublicans and Democrats support for standing for the national anthem. If the Dems think they can win more seats by appealing to minorities before the white working clasd they are mistaken. I hope they learned they're lesson in 2016. If not then they have nobody to blame but themselves again. As I stated above, the fact that the majority of all voters support standy for the national anthem is enough it itself to warn them.
2
Too bad the issue that ignited the NFL protests had nothing to do with patriotism, the military, the anthem, or the flag. The kneeling players were protesting about the frequency of police killings of unarmed black people. Trump has no interest in discussing the real issue here and sees attacks on NFL players as motivating his base.
The fact that you have made standing for the anthem the issue in your posting indicates how effectively Trump has diverted the discussion away from the origins of the protests.
2
Progressive and third party voters are held hostage in the current system if we don’t want to end up up with a Trump supporter in office. We need ranked choice voting. Then we can vote our beliefs without fear, instead of having to vote for the common-denominator-candidate.
7
So many Bernie supporters just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary. Hope they have learned that there are real and dire consequnces for their obstance.
11
Listening to the comments around me - they did not...
2
This Bernie supporter DID vote for Hillary, while holding his nose tightly. But it seems that she LOST the election anyway, perhaps due to the financial corruption that she embodies and that has pervaded the Democratic Party since she last resided in the White House. Bernie's platform did nothing but force Wall Street Democrats to acknowledge the need to address the economic concerns of working people who vote. To the extent that the Dems continue to do this, they may win.
4
So glad to see the wedge-issue left wing of my party taking backstage in the primary. We need to focus on what unites us as conscious liberals, sustain a national and global view, and stop whining about everything like arrogant, petulant children.
7
Good article. Here's the key point -
"... that while the Republicans can gain a House majority with only conservatives, the Democrats can’t do so with only liberals. There simply aren’t enough liberal districts or voters."
This is true. But you'd never know it listening to liberal pundits who seem so convinced with their moral superiority that it sometimes seems they think elections are superfluous. And forget about trying to persuade those "deplorables".
"That’s the price of a Democratic majority — a few Jeff Van Drews. I’d think that after watching this Congress and this presidency for 15 months, most liberals would accept that." If that's true, then why are Dems so clearly moving left ? Sanders used to be a fringe Senator who caucused with the Dems but was openly socialist. Now, he's the voice of the party.
What happened to the centrist Dems like Bill Clinton. I mean really centrist - not just labeling a true leftie centrist to boost his appeal (ahem, Obama) ? Sure, Clinton hiked taxes on the rich a bit. But he also balanced the budget, "ended welfare as we know it", and put 100,000 cops on the street. (Don't mention Hillary. She disavowed every one of Bill's policies and was far closer to Obama than Bill.)
Unfortunately, Dems have not listened to Tomasky. We need moderate Dems. But let's remember that Dems didn't even nominate Bill until they had lost the White House three times ! Hopefully, it will not take so long this time.
6
Absolutely.
Catering to the far left is the best way underachieve in the mid-terms and eventually give Trump another four years.
Trump won because far left liberal ideology, with regard to identity politics, trade, and immigration, was becoming centrist among Democrats, and they began labeling moderates on both sides of the aisle as ignorant racists because they don't support open borders, outsourcing jobs, and political correctness.
Democrats will never win by calling half the country bigots, especially when the bar for bigotry has been set so low.
Trump and the Republicans are entirely beatable as long as Democrats are willing to ignore their lunatic fringe.
10
I don't know what party you think the Democrats are, but what you wrote simply isn't true. Democrats don't favor open borders, they have been pushing for rational immigration laws and cleaning up the mess we have today. As far as outsourcing jobs, that is not a Democratic plank, that is pure GOP, the acceleration of job losses to China and elsewhere happened under Bush II and the GOP congress that came in in 2006, they not only didn't try to stop it, they gave companies huge tax breaks to outsource jobs.
As far as political correctness goes, while I felt that the Democrats spent too much time on identity politics, when I hear political correctness it generally is from those who yearn for the good old days when "normal people' could denigrate blacks, gays, women , etc and not face consequences for it. It doesn't take a genius with Trump and who is supporters are to see the racism and the like, since Trump was elected attacks on minorities, verbal and physical, has skyrocketed and Trump has appealed to the most base among us, the white supremacists, the religious haters, you name it.
2
Just imagine the results if the Democratic Party actually tried to win rather than focusing on pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.
4
It's all about turnout. It's that simple. It's not about appealing to some mythical moderate vote. It's getting the Dem voters who otherwise would sit this out. If a lefty fireband gets people to the polls, more power to her. No one gets fired up about a "moderate." If a "moderate" can really meet its constituents' needs, people will come out to vote. That's not a moderate. That's a "good candidate."
8
You can keep trying, but election losses don't dampen a progressives' enthusiasm or invite reflection, they only prove that everyone else is wrong and a bigot.
4
I am disturbed by the lack of reflection among the Bernie wing. Personally I stand for progressive issues. But progressives are being led by Bernie to believe they're victims and have no need to reflect on their own behavior like they want everyone else to do. That's why I wind up voting mainstream.
What saves us is that the nature of the mainstream is dynamic. Twenty years ago marijuana legalization was a fringe issue. When longtime opponent Dianne Feinstein was cornered into backing legalization to ensure her reelection, that tells us that the mainstream has adjusted itself to the progressive side on this issue.
All kinds of things are now regarded as centrist and mainstream that were still on the political fringes twenty years ago.
So please reflect on that. There's more than one way to make an impact here.
5
"That’s the price of a Democratic majority — a few Jeff Van Drews. I’d think that after watching this Congress and this presidency for 15 months, most liberals would accept that."
Yes, because if the "far right" has proved anything over the past several years (looking directly at you, Mr. Meadows - and your stubborn posse), extremes of any sort are not REALLY what is needed in Washington; nor what most voters actually want. Despite what the extremists on both sides are constantly shrieking , and so constantly desperate to prove.
1
Keep telling yourself this and spinning the propaganda fan one more time. Your "insights" are not supported by anything other than cherrypicked races.
2
It takes a truly blind establishment hack to interpret 21% turnout in the state at the heart of "the resistance" as "unwaning enthusiasm".
But hey, it's your grave. Feel free to dance upon it, I suppose.
3
There is no one size fits all answer, each district has to elect the type of Democrat that suits THAT district, and there will be a wide spectrum of correct options.
The problem I have is the state and national parties across the board will not bend left in the cases where it fits the district. The money and influence still goes to the moderate, the district is apathetic about the nominee and feel unheard, and the party candidate loses.
I am not hearing any change in this m.o. and it makes me fearful for November. Passion counts, it gets people to the polls. Left voters DO suck it up and vote moderate, maybe it is time for some payback....and see if there is not an increase in people voting for the first time because they finally have someone they care to elect.
3
I'm definitely to the left of the Dem mainstream on most issues, especially economic ones, and I voted for Sanders.
In swing districts, though, I'm all in favor of nominating moderates over leftists and would vote accordingly. It's critically important that the Democrats nominate the most electable candidates they can run. In particular, candidates should match their voters on hot-button social issues. Where guns and God are popular with the voters, they should be popular with the Dem candidates.
Sanders et al. should focus their attention on safe Democratic districts. There is more potential to make change that way without harming the party's electoral chances.
11
I was going to write the same thing. Very well stated. I'd love to have a D congress with just enough Bernie-ites to keep it heading forward.
5
The vast majority of people - the silent majority - do not want hard-right or hard-left politics or politicians. They want centrist, democratic governance.
However, too many of us neglected to get/stay involved - and even vote - because we have been too busy with our own lives. Fortunately, people are waking up.
Democracy is not a spectator sport and there will always be crooks who want to destroy governments of every kind for personal gain in money and power.
WE THE PEOPLE are the only ones who can/will stop them. NOW is the time. Every election counts.
8
Fair, decent, honorable and compassionate do not fit on a "scale" from the center to the far left. Let's educate everyone so we elect representatives that are Democrats who address the human needs of the nation's citizens. The Republican party has almost vanished as we knew it.
7
That's good for November.
Democrats can portray themselves as a broad coalition of sane Americans, from liberals, progressives, centrists, independents and to moderate conservatives. That may be the best selling point for those sitting on the sidelines. In fact, they can portray Trumpists as a right wing extremists.
24
Looking-backward through history, periods in which a population dug into either into one of two ideological extremes hasn't always bode so well for peace and prosperity.
So as enthusiastic as I was for Bernie in 2016, I'm OK with moving more people from the hard-right toward the middle.
12
It’s one thing to have diversity within Democratic ranks. It’s another for conservatives to fund DINO’s as a Plan B. They know they’ll pay an electoral price for bowing down before Trump, and they’re trying to minimize the damage by installing or maintaining Democratic candidates who will do their bidding. Senator Heitkamp, anyone? It’s bad news for the middle class.
1
The fact that mainly moderate Democrats won their primaries mirrors the fact that most Democratic voters are moderate centrists. The only reason one can describe us as "left-of-center" is that today's Republicans are "to the right" of John Birch.
17
Compared to the rest of the developed world, I'd say the majority of Americans are centre-right. Our modern Democrat Party, especially under Clinton and Obama, would be a centre-right party in Western Europe. The modern GOP under Trump is far-right. America does not a have a viable far-left party.
Personally I want a Nordic model in the US, and I know many Bernie Sanders-type do too. However, I'd say we only comprise less than 20% of the electorate. 40% of the country is far-right since most of them still support Trump. The remaining 40% are people who are undecided, independent, and/or apathetic. For Dems to win in the general elections, they need moderates to get that third group in the middle.
21
Ew, stop appropriating my political party: there are many who identify with being ON THE LEFT who are not Bernie supporters and never were. The LEFT did just fine last night, thank you very much!
17
I suspect that Democrats threat to win the House by what happened in California yesterday will motivate Trump voters to go to the polls in other states.
2
All the news for months has predicted that the Democrats would flip the House. If Trump supporters cared about this, they would have been voting in greater numbers already.
I suspect many Trump voters have little affinity with the Republican Party, especially those who voted rarely before 2016. Their loyalty is to Trump.
What worries me is that the campaign in October will turn on Trump himself, with a lot of rhetoric about how he and his supporters are under attack on all sides. I could see a "rally-around-the-[trump]-flag" phenomenon among Republicans. (Maybe Ryan Zinke could work to design another custom flag, this one for Trump.)
Voting for charismatic candidates does not transfer to other races. Obama and Clinton proved that. If history repeats itself a House controlled by Democrats would assure Trump of a victory in 2020.
"Lefty" candidates will not win in districts or states that lean Republican. Centrist candidates will, as the "righty" candidates have made themselves so repellent in their greed, scapegoating and racism, not to mention abhorrent policy making. Democrats need to focus singlemindedly on appealing to voters, not to demanding some made up "purity" standard that will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Let left-leaning states elect progressives and use those states in the role of test cases for progressive policies. In close races or on the national stage, Democrats must broaden their message to Republicans left high and dry by their party's extremism.
22
Mr. Tomasky, it would help if you'd use labels with MEANING. Candidates For The People, versus candidates For The 1% Oligarchy.
It might help return America to a nation For the People, as our founders wrote and intended.
Instead, you rely on repeated use of the meaning-free labels "left" and "right," as if it all were just a football game of candidates with different-colored jerseys, no more consequential than a football game.
2
Our Founding Fathers were the 1% of their time. They feared 'the people', which is why they put in the electoral college. There is no earlier time of the sort of democracy you envision.
Our Founding Fathers would throw up at the idea of women or any people of color having the vote. Many had slaves and found nothing amiss with that.
And Bernie Sanders would probably have been run out of town by the Founding Fathers. Of course, most of Bernie's message would have meaningless to the FF, in that his message deals with income taxation (which didn't exist), health care coverage (which didn't exist) and other concepts which arose in the 20th century.
This article was about pragmatism.
Maybe Democrats have just adopted the Republican posture, win at any cost and be the majority party. Look at the Republicans, they are hardly a party with a cohesive message, policies or plans. They are at odds with their own president. So I hope the Democrats can do better. We will see.
The title of this op-ed is very illustrative, to wit, "...Democrats chose a pro-gun, anti-same-sex-marriage nominee, ". Now, one or two of these pro-gun, anti-gay marriage types is bearable. But, these are the same types, when seen on the Republican side, are the first ones Democrats seek a bi-partisan relationship.
.
These middle of the road pols will have to toe the Pelosi line or find themselves shunned at the trough. So, don't be surprised if a couple of Dems go along with some NRA legislation to give every 6 year old an AK47 machinegun when they pass the same sex marriage appreciation program.
.
Also, it is time to start asking these Blue wave surfers if they will support Hillary in 2020. She wants to know.
2
I like think of myself as a pragmatic progressive--I supported Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, largely because I thought she was the best chance to win in 2016. (I still think I was right.) Even as a progressive, I am happy to see Democrats understanding that in these times, a move to the center is a move leftward. The object of elections--the upcoming one especially--is to win. The future of the nation might well rest on what happens in November. So a small step to the left is a good thing, because trying to take a big one is likely to lead to tripping ourselves up.
19
You are quite wrong or she'd be sitting in the Oval right now and Donald would be writing revenge books in his living room instead.
3
Did anyone really think the Democrats were going to do well when the right has record low unemployment skyhigh markets and housing prices that are through the roof, come on.....
You'd be nuts to vote against what's happening right now in this country
A continued slide backwards as wages are stagnant and the rich get ever richer off the labors of the American worker?
Really, not a whole lot has changed since 2016. Plenty of people voted against what was happening then.
1
May I beg to tell a different story. The low unemployment rate was due to Obama and the Democrats cleaning up the mess the Republicans left. FYI, the Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent actions to get us out of the Great Recession. And wages are growing how fast???
Since top 10% of wage earners own 84% of stock shares, I don't think surging stock markets has much of an impact on people.
There are just as many local housing markets that are still depressed as those that are surging. Stockton and Denver are examples of both ends of the spectrum.
My 2 cents
4
If you mean that Donald will probably get re-elected, you're right. But if you mean that huge, steaming morass that congress has become, you are quite wrong.
And to be clear, any thinking, rational person with money in the markets knows clearly that this prosperity is the aftermath of Obama. Donald's trade war will have it all come tumbling down overnight, so invest in bullion and don't count your chickens before they're hatched.
2
If "it's certainly the case that any American political party's direction is largely set by it's presidential nominee.", then the Republicans are either headed for Moscow on the Potomac or Hell in a Handbasket. Either way they should stop being considered an "American" political party.
3
The real question us whether there will be enough votes to impeach in the House and convict in the Senate. Trump should be removed by impeachment before he blunders into a world war.
3
Even if the Democrats were to squeak out a one- or two-seat majority in the Senate, I find it very unlikely that there would be 67 votes to convict were the House to bring impeachment charges.
1
Finally some commonsense from my fellow Democrats. Maybe now Bernie, and Hillary, will simply fade away.
4
Having voted for Gene McCarthy and gotten Richard Nixon for my trouble, I'm glad to see this. Without exception every one of Bernie's policies is misplaced from an economic standpoint. We are running this country into the ground with too much ineffective government spending. Universal health care, overreaching environmental protections, and liberal welfare benefits are not the solution. Better, more evidence based government is. That's what the evidence says.
8
That's quite a transition, from rebelling against lies with Gene to parroting them. "Without exception..."? Classifying health care as a means-based benefit only? In favor of privatizing profit only, but unwilling to hold those who pollute responsible for preventing it or cleaning it up? And for good measure, a parting shot against those welfare chiselers? Really?
Incidentally, I voted for McGovern... by absentee ballot, from aboard an aircraft carrier conducting bombing operations against North Vietnam in 1972. So I share your culpability for Nixon, but it appears we have taken very different paths from our youth to now.
No lies. Oh you mean my practical experience derived from 50 years spent in the business world. So, I've lived where there is single payer - the UK. Have you?) It worked for a while really well but now (per the Economist) it's falling apart because of affordability. In the USA the problem with the same idea is the transition costs, not to mention politics. If Bernie really has a detailed costed out project plan for implementing it, I can't find it. Until I see that my rough calcs say it's impractical. What do yours say?
As far as my positions on the environment are concerned first I take care of my own pollution and then I ask others to consider the costs and benefits of each law or ruling based on the evidence we can find. Doing the right thing in the real world is about costs and benefits, not half formed aspirational ideas.
If you want to argue things based on how you'd like the world to be I'm all ears but implementing them with my money is just not on my radar.
Blaming Nixon on Gene McCarthy seems like a stretch to me. Do you think Johnson would have won re-election in 1968 with cities in flames and hundreds of kids coming home in body bags each week? Do you think McCarthy's challenge had anything to do with the rise of George Wallace? Even without LBJ Texas voted Democrat in 1968. On the other hand, California, Wisconsin, and even Illinois voted Republican. Look at the map from that election. What states would have gone for Johnson had McCarthy not run? Would they be enough to make up a hundred-vote deficit in the Electoral College?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968
I was a diehard lefty when I was 27, but now I'm 72, and finally get it that winning with imperfect candidates is better than gloriously losing with perfect ones.
339
Exactly. The Democrats are currently fielding candidates that work for the district in which they are running, which is a good thing. Diversity of opinion, within the parties and between the parties, is also a good thing.
Adding to your sentiment, the purity tests have to stop. If you can elect someone that you trust and you can agree with on most major issues, you have a worthy representative.
71
I agree. I consider myself a progressive, not a lefty or a centrists. But to get to working on more progressive policies and programs one first needs to defeat the Republicans. You can tweek and make adjustments afterwards.
30
Exactly. If the Democratic Party hadn't been willing to move to the right over and over again, we would have had Republicans in the White House instead of Presidents Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.
5
I certainly hope that the Democrats regain control of the House and clamp some limits on our out-of-control President. Mr. Tomasky overlooks one important factor, though: centrist Democrats won in New Jersey and in California in part because the Democratic Party exerted a lot of influence in races in those states. Many voters, myself among them, remain disgusted by the party's leadership. The rift in the Democratic Party may be bridged temporarily in November to stop President Trump, but it certainly will not be eliminated.
18
Most important is whether or not the party will remain bridged in 2020. I certainly hope so.
2
If I understand the writer's meaning of "the left" I think these outcomes are good overall. Much of what the media portrays of "the left"- e.g. college kids against free speech, intersectionality enthusiasts- is decidedly undemocratic, even authoritarian.
17
Intersectionality enthusiasts- are authoritarian?
Seriously?
2
Local races are just that: local. They say nothing about the national consensus and trying to extrapolate from them is temerarious.
4
I'd say the use of the word "temerarious" is pretty reckless in this instance.
Wrong,
Medicaid, Obamacare, social security and infrastructure investments are both local and national.
The large corporate propaganda machine known as the media is the issue. Big money begets exposure.
In the California governor's race the media focused on the democrats best funded, Newson & Villaraigosa. Although I read multiple sites it was months before I discovered Delaine Easton was in the race.
In the senate campaign, Alison Hartson, refused to take any corporate funding, where was that talked about in senate coverage. In fact, media focused only on Feinstein and De Leon, both well funded.
Money should not shut out the social good, locking out the 99%.
Corporations are not people and money is not speech.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
8
better title - "pragmatism beats out principles, like in the GOP"
3
"And in the 2nd District, in the southern part of the state, Democrats chose a pro-gun, anti-same-sex-marriage nominee, State Senator Jeff Van Drew, over a more liberal opponent by a large margin."
===
This is a "moderate"? I wasn't aware that being for civil rights and any gun control whatsoever put you in the "left" of the Democratic Party. If so, what if anything does the Party at its core stand for?
8
A good night for Democrats means a good night for America and a slap in the face for ignorant bigotry.
13
United we stand, divided THEY WIN. Get that thru your brain. That should be the lesson of 2016. Seriously.
97
Yes, compromise with the left base instead of with Republicans. That is how you win.
6
@Phyliss and @McGloin
Now that the primaries are over, you're both basically right -- er, correct.
Sure there's still some general campaign tussling ahead, but when it comes to marking that ballot, it needs to be D all the way down the ticket.
2
Oh and by the way, I don't think there's anyone who understands what I just wrote better than Bernie Sanders. That's why he supported her in the general and even hustled campaigning for her.
I don't care, as long as they're not republicans. Any flavor will do. We need the numbers. I hope my friends see it that way too.
30
I honestly believe that party lines will begin to blur over time, especially given that the Republican party, as we knew it, is gone. As a result, I'm not shocked. Regardless, we need to vote in enough anti-Trump candidates. It's time to block him every step of the way, same as the Republicans did to Obama. Not to mention the fact that Trump, unlike Obama, is dangerous and reckless. Someone grab a leash for this wild beast.
10
Centrist works for me. Polarization hasn't been so good for the country.
33
The center unfortunately has been pulled way too far to the right.
7
Let's hope the folks controlling the Democrats have learned something. The party moved too far left for the majority of US Citizens. That is the reason Trump won and the Republicans control our entire federal government. The Democrats need to pay more attention to the plight, wants, and wishes of middle America.
Things look fairly dark right now, maybe there is hope.
10
Also there are many, many reasons why Hillary lost, of which the political posture of her party is only one.
By American standards of the last 80 years today's Democrats moved to the right and republicans became unhinged right wing extremists. Just look at this administration, it is totally a freak show.
2
Democratic Members of Congress are only slightly more liberal now than they were in relative terms around 1980. The Republicans began moving right in 1980 and continue on that trajectory today.
https://voteview.com/parties
2
I continue to believe that we don't have a progressive party in the US right now. The modern Democratic party actually represents what I USED to think of as Republicans: it is a center right party committed to preserving the status quo, ie a classic "conservative" agenda. The modern Republican party has completely sold its soul to the 1% and exists only to advance the propaganda and agenda of the super-wealthy. It is a real stretch to call this agenda "conservative" in any way that I understand the word? Maybe "faux-populist" is the best term? This brand a of populism that actively works to harm the interests of its constituents and is based completely on a platform of lies. So, there is no party representing a progressive platform to actually improve the situation of the average citizen.
17
So what are we going to do? I don't really agree with your premise but I'll concede for now... What? Do we vote for Third Party candidates and elect the GOP; an out of control reactionary party representing the 1%? Or do we vote centrists who will at least stop the hemorrhaging? Vote Democratic! seems the obvious answer to me. Then we keep pressing for a more progressive agenda.
4
Maybe it isn't centrism that voters are tired of, but simply the old guard.
4
This is good news. The country already has a problem with the hard right wing of the GOP and fighting that with the exact opposite will get our nation nowhere. This country is, at heart, a central right country. Bernie Sanders was a disaster last time. His brand of liberalism is not where the mainstream of America is right now and a tamer debate amongst moderate Democrats and whoever the GOP puts up to run against them is a net positive for us all.
16
Bernie Sanders was NOT a disaster, and had he been the Dem candidate, he would have won the Presidency.
5
As a lifelong Democrat I have always known that the collective wisdom of my fellow Dem voters far exceeds the wisdom of what passes for our party leadership. No different now, thankfully... It's not about being the "smartest" party, but the one with a big, wise, accessible heart.
9
The Democratic voters sensibly decided to nominate those who can win rather than those ideologically pure. Had the voted that way in 2016 the Don would not have won.
32
Like Bernie? HE would have won.
12
So Hillary was ideologically pure, then? This looks like a confusion of Democratic establishment talking points.
3
I'm a pretty hard left Democrat and I don't think Bernie could have ever won a general election... It breaks my heart that a number of Dems remained resentful enough to allow the election of Dear Leader.
"while the Republicans can gain a House majority with only conservatives, the Democrats can’t do so with only liberals. There simply aren’t enough liberal districts or voters."
Succinct. Thanks.
18
Can they? Watching what is unfolding in the House in regards to immigration might challenge that idea of a lockstep in the Republican party too.
The Bernie factor continues to be more of a hindrance than anything—a built-in vote suppression effect. Bernie ought to lead a get-out-the-vote for his fans, not just chase his own meaningless fame.
70
You need Bernie supporters to win. Bernie conceded defeat and campaigned for Hillary. But you kept attacking his supporters, and still are. It Hillary had picked Bernie as her running mate, she would be president right now.
If you are more interested in compromising with the right train the left, you will help make Trump "president for life."
Those that treat the Democratic Party like a private club for limousine liberals have cost the Democratic Party 2/3 of all elections for 25 years.
33
On what factual basis do you base the conclusions you state in the first paragraph?
Bernie ignited the party in a way that Hillary couldn't. WIthout the Sanders factor Democrats just come off as lukewarm Republicans. I agree that Dems need to take control first in order to pass any agenda and in all likelihood will need centrists candidates to do this but I hope Bernie holds the party's feet to the fire or we will have nothing but milquetoast results again.
20
I live in Colorado - in my congressional district, single payer health care could be a winning issue, but gun control and trans issues can't be. If a candidate is far left on economic issues and centrist on social issues, then do you say that the party is moving to the left or to the center?
We need some way to discuss party alignment short of blanket left/right statements. There's no natural tie between economic leftism and social liberalism, and its a mistake to assume that the two move in lockstep.
204
Depends on how you define far left. It seems to be mostly about issues that have been hijacked by certain elements of the party and are now being used to define whether someone is far left, center or whatever.
For instance, I fully support single payer healthcare, but for rational reasons. It is the only way to go to prevent ruin of our health care system and of the social compact. It is simply unacceptable that someone who had the bad fortune of being struck by an expensive illness is ruined and his or her family as well. This is what a moral society stands for.
On the other hand, I support the Masterpiece bakery decision, not because I am anti-gay, I am certainly not, but because at heart I feel like a libertarian about that issue. Gay people don't affect me, so why should I have the right to tell them what to do. So why should we have the right to dictate the baker to act against his conscience. Same about abortion, I have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, but I can still feel that abortion is a morally treacherous matter and that as a society we should address it to minimize its occurrence (by promoting all means of contraception, for example, or by offering a targeted adoption program that helps the women and eases their decision to continue the pregnancy).
So on some issues some readers may place me on the far left, on others on the far right. I consider myself right smack in the middle.
134
Yes, move left on economy's to win.
10
@Kara-
Perfectly put
Democrats have one goal: to limit the expanding power of Trump, and hold him accountable for his actions. The “Our Revolution” crowd fails to realize that this is the primary motivator of the Democratic electorate, and so they lose.
46
What this means is simply that they haven't learned anything. There are more Independents than Rs & Ds combined. Those of us who DemExited did so permanently. This is just the beginning; the establishment is fighting to hold power any way it can. Eventually, we will topple it; if not from the inside, from the out. And you can quit calling us ideological purists; what we have is a sense of moral outrage at the violation of all our most fundamental rights, including the right to a fair election, which we did not have in 2016. We can compromise on policies, never on basic human values. I am a moderate who is swinging increasingly left and am appalled at the blinkers in seeing the obvious are revealed in the comments here-and this article.
8
You cannot win on just being anti Trump.
You have to offer real benefits for working people to get them to the polls. Hillary spent the last election saying that we can't have universal health care, can't have subsidized higher education, can't make trade fair, can't tax the rich to pay for anything, and can't raise the minimum wage higher than $12/hr, Trump ran to her left on economics and won.
You have to give the 60% of people who work for a living real economic reasons to vote FOR Democrats. Otherwise they have no reason to take time from work to vote.
11
Yeah, I'm okay with it for now...to me goal #1 is regain majorities...then worry about consolidating power. Splintering now when our Republic is under attack would hand us a defeat on many levels. Im kind of disappointed, but I also understand strategic voting.
98
Not sure if this is the right take but if it is, get ready for a loss in the midterms and 4 more years of Trump in 2020. People want change, not more of the same pain.
17
They may want change, but the change they want is a return to some form of normalcy, not a swing to the far left.
58
Candidates run in the districts they run in...period. The voters in that district will decide if they want a far left liberal or progressive, a moderate centrist or a Republican. We have to accept those voters' decisions for their district.
What is divisive is for some activists somewhere else such as my state of Michigan to use some election result of which they don't like the result in California or other state as some sort of attack on the Democratic Party as a whole.
14
What are the horrible policies that the far left would impose?
Taxing the rich to invest in the families of workers?
Stopping global warming?
Not attacking Iran?
Demanding that all humans are treated equally under the law?
Really, what is it you are afraid of?
The left is not extreme. The right is extreme. And the right gets away with being extreme because centrist Democrats help them.
If it takes moderates to turn the tide--I'll take it.
At least then we will have something to work with.
249
Right now we need moderate candidates who can appeal to the majority. We need people who can compromise rather than purists. Most people don't lean hard right or hard left, they're somewhere in the middle. People want some sanity instead of the current dysfunction in Washington DC. Moderates are very welcome in our current climate.
437
I agree, but the moderates need to be able to compomise with the left, too.
What many on the left fear is that all the compromise will be between a moderate position and a conservative position. That could be disastrous not simply because some on the left might bolt but because moderate voters (and even some conservatives) have shifted to the left--on some issues.
The trick is to determine what those issues are, district by district and state by state, and shift left accordingly.
71
That's all fabulous, but all of the centrist candidates were defeated in the presidential election.
People don't believe in the center anymore because centrist candidates in both parties keep selling them out to global corporations. The "establishment" is now a dirty word for that reason.
Democrats have been spending 25 years convincing themselves that sacrificing their principles will win them elections and they have lost 2/3 of all elections the entire time.
Moderate voters do not want pro-corporate policies. They don't want entitlements privatized. They don't want more wars. They don't want more tax cuts for the rich adding to our debt.
As long as Democrats confuse K Street "centrist" establishment policies for what moderate voters want, you will continue to lose elections.
26
I disagree, Oscar. The fact is the the Left has decided in the most tone-deaf manner that the electorate has somehow "shifted left". Except you seriously lost the general election, and your platform is not winning votes now nor has it been. the national landscape doesn't seem to be swinging your way yet you insist that voters are behind you. I'd call that a serious case of fundamental attribution error, and you should get that looked at PDQ.
The Democratic Party will have to turn further left, in spite of this author's wishes, because that's where the country is. Most Americans want universal health care. Most Americans want a viable functioning government with strong regulatory agencies. Republican lite Democrats aren't the way forward.
224
" Most Americans want universal health care." Quite true, but they are not in agreement on how to pay for it. That makes it a dicier compaign issue than you suggest.
106
If only those "further left" citizens would turn out to vote.
57
But the results of the primary say otherwise. I think that was the point of this article.
51
Right now the ONLY goal must be to retake the house, protect democratic seats in the Senate, and check the destruction of our democratic institutions by Trump and the Republicans in congress. Many liberals may regret that the Democratic party is not moving far enough to the left, but the reality is that the elections that matter will be won or lost in the center. Democrats must be united and resist the temptation to engage in internal battles.
391
In order for the center to affect the election, you must first have a base.
Trump understands that and puts his base above everything.
Democrats sacrifice their base to win the center, but the center is shrinking. More voters are registered as unaffiliated than in either party, not because they are halfway between the greater evil and lesser evil, but because they want the Greater Good. Offer the Greater Good to win.
Trump's base believes in hate, fear, greed, and violence. But the Republicans know they can't win elections without them.
The left believes in love, courage, sharing, and peace, so Democrats call them extremists and try to win elections without them. It's a terrible strategy that keeps failing. Why won't you let it go?
8
Are you sure? They might flip the House, but will just keep voting the same way that Wall Street and CEOs want the House to vote. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
5
...and the senate.
1
As a moderate voter, I find this a welcome development. Many voters like me do not want radical "change" from either right or left - we want consistency in the rules we have played by honestly and sensible, small scale adjustments where needed. We want stability. Enough with the ideological disruption.
186
"Democrats Did Well Last Night. The Left Didn’t."
I am perfectly OK with this outcome. The Democrats need to seize power from the GOP. It is not hyperbole to claim that the future of our democracy hangs in the balance when the vast majority of Republicans openly embrace a leader who is a natural born fascist autocrat who aspires to be our Maximum Leader.
Fortunately, a small number of conservatives find the current president and GOP abhorrent. Bret Stephens. George Will.
So it is no longer a question of left vs. right. We can get back to that once our citizens reward decency and honor at the ballot box and our elected representatives respect and observe our long held political and societal norms.
267
And how did Democrats lose power to the right?
Centrist candidates pushing right of center policies.
Anyone who is r to vote for evil will vote for greater evil over lesser evil. Lesser Evil loses. Greater Evil its taken.
Why don't you try the greater good.
Why don't you try actually advocating for good policy?
Why don't you try actual leadership?
Politics is the art of making things possible. Trump is making bad policy possible every day.
Lead the country to the left or let Trump lead it to the right. Those are the only choices.
2
The point is not that the Democrats can win with only the left. The point is that Democrats can't win without the left. Spending more energy trying to win back Reagan Democrats (who have not voted for a Democrat since 1976) than building up the base has been a disaster for the Democratic Party and the country.
Another point is that electing "Democrats" that vote with Republicans is worse than electing Republicans, because they provide cover for bad policy and end up taking the blame for it.
We don't need a bunch of fake Democrats that will help Trump destroy the country. We need Democrats that will fight for workers and hold Trump accountable to the law.
In normal times with a normal president incremental change created through smart compromise is the best way to govern. These are not normal times and Trump is not a normal president. Trump is leading a civil war of liars, criminals, and white supremacists intent on overthrowing the rule of law and most of the Constitution.
There is nothing about Trump's Republican Party worth compromising with, and every offer of compromise only emboldens them.
They need to be soundly defeated. Tip do that, you need to offer the 60% of the population that works for a living help with the things they and their families need. If you run a campaign telling workers that nothing can be done for them, like Hillary did, you will lose.
146
I know a number of people who ordinarily vote Republican who voted for Bernie in the primary and were quite enthusiastic about him. They definitely planned on voting for him in the general if he had won the primary. When Hillary won, they held their noses and voted for Trump, and I held my nose and voted for Hillary. Calling Trump a populist is simply Orwellian. He is the opposite of a populist. The whole political scene these days has me completely befuddled. In many ways Nixon was more of a liberal than I'm seeing today.
5
Well said
Agreed. Mr. Tomasky's argument perplexes me for that very reason. Wasn't one of the lessons from the 2016 elections that the populist appeals of Bernie would have soundly defeated those of the Donald in a runoff, and that caving to the Hillary establishment ended up costing us at least 4 precious years without a commander in chief?
17
Outgoing California Governor Jerry Brown is an example of a progressive Democrat who isn't afraid to stand up to extremists of any stripe, whether on the Right or Left. That's a primary reason he's been so successful.
Democratic political hopefuls should closely study his record of governance and the philosophies that underly it. Brown took office in 2011 with a $27 billion state deficit. He drastically cut spending, and in 2012 won voter approval of a tax increase that Californians reauthorized in 2016. The state now has a surplus of over $6 billion, primarily as a hedge against future recessions and natural catastrophes.
Meantime, Republicans are crying" over-taxation" and howling for the state to "return" the money to "oppressed" taxpayers. In other words. Brown favors investing it in public education and other socially beneficial uses.
Point is: a majority of Californians of every political stripe now benefit directly and/or indirectly from Jerry Brown's centrist financial prudence - what Republicans claim they practice but seldom do - which often put Brown at odds with his own party. By rejecting extremism and governing for bipartisan benefit, he's become an example of what leaders must be if this country is going to have a future worth the name.
When Trump, McCarthy and other Republicans denigrate Brown's leadership, they demonstrate again that none of them is qualified to lead us into that future.
372
Here here!
11
Perhaps it's his training for the Jesuit priesthood, maybe it's just his smarts, but Jerry Brown's unerring moral compass has lead California in the right direction for 44 years.
30
Well said, Mark. I wish Jerry Brown was 20 years younger and running for President. He’d have my vote. Even now, at 80, come to think of it.
25
It looks like most commenters so far still haven't accepted how well issues like single-payor health care are actually popular, and motivating, to the electorate. Why chase Trump voters with mealy mouthed statements on abortion or gun safety when you can speak directly to their pocketbook issues? Why not remind them that Trump didn't just promise to repeal Obamacare, but to replace it with something better? Polling has made it clear that Democrats can't just be about opposing Trump and expect Democrats to turn out.
141
You want to win polls or votes?
13
Polls are indicative of electoral success. And running centrists has not resulted in electoral gains for Democrats (i.e., all 3 branches of the federal government plus 2/3rds of state legislatures and governorships are held by the GOP)
The party needs to follow the will of the people, not the other way around.
"It looks like most commenters so far still haven't accepted how well issues like single-payor health care are actually popular, and motivating, to the electorate."
Single payor polls pretty well, until you get to the part where taxes are raised and the government makes decisions about your health care. A good argument can be made that overall, taxes will be less than insurance premiums, and that your health decisions are better made by the government than your for-profit insurer, but in reality nobody is making the argument.
I blame Bernie Sanders, who made single payor his signature issue without ever coming to grips with what it would cover, much less how much it would cost. We've lost a generation on a botched roll out.
11
I can advise with the authority of long years of voting, vote your conscience! Do not vote for neoliberals thinking you are doing the right thing, do not vote to be on a winning side, do not vote like sheep. Vote your conscience! The single best vote I ever made was for Nader vs Obama first time around, that proved to be a bit of genius for which I was denigrated at the time. I won that one as we now see.
In the long run no Democrat is going to change this nation to a progressive place with a Department of Peace and a pentagon budget half that of The Department of Education. No Democrat is going to ever stand up to banks and big businesses. There are no Democrat FDRs out there, even Sanders is a compromising tool of the status quo (although should he run I'd be torn).
It's important to vote, because you demonstrate to Democrats what they missed out on had they moved left. But do not empower them to carry on with DNC GOP Lite by voting like sheep.
67
To summarize, continue tilting at windmills.
89
Had those who voted their conscience by pulling the lever for Nader in Florida voted common sense instead, we would not have gone into war in Iraq. There would have been numerous other benefits under a Gore presidency, but that one enormous blunder alone is enough to nullify your argument.
173
That thinking lost Gore the presidency. A disaster we have yet to recover from.
114
I'm pretty far to the left myself. But the country just isn't (or, more accurately, doesn't like to be labeled so). The important thing is to VOTE DEMOCRATIC. Let's move the party to "the left" while we're in power. Out of power, all we can do is throw our hands up as we watch Republicans rip our country apart. An imperfect Democrat that can win is better than a "pure" one that can't. I am personally glad that the Democratic machine exerted the influence it did... We have to think strategically and WIN. Here in LA we will elect more liberal candidates while less "left leaning" districts will elect more centrist Dems... That's the way it should be. We can change nothing looking from the outside in.
552
Christopher,
I'm sorry, but I won't. If the Democrats keep getting elected by purring up centrists, there is not incentive for them to move left. Ultimately our country will be pulled ever further right by the insane Freedom Caucus, should we follow your direction.
The lesser of two evils is nevertheless evil!
17
Hi Christopher. I have been saying this all along. You said it better. Thank-you.
47
This strategy has been failing for a quarter century, while the Republican strategy of moving further and further right just won the rich $5 trillion in tax cuts.
Why won't Democrats try a different strategy?
35
The liberal left is completely bonkers. They are addicted to anger and 'resistance.' They attack anyone who does not agree with them 100%.
They fight, endlessly, over semantics. They are addicted to illegal and economic migrants. They hate whole classes of citizens based on race and gender.
They are destroying the Democratic Party and our democracy. They are pushing reasonable people away. They are squandering any change the Democrats have of passing real reform.
107
To know what Republicans are actually doing, one has only to look at what they are loudly accusing the Democrats of doing. I think Reagan started this, but it could be an even older tactic. Thanks for this fine example of the genre.
67
Excellent comment...I just think you meant "Republicans."
69
Will,
Your democracy is kaput and has been since Reagan. You are slaves to an economic system that serves only itself.
26
Mike says we can't win with only liberals, and that there aren't enough liberals. It's not exactly brilliant. As the GOP has shifted rightward, Democrats have chased them to avoid the "L" word. It's self-defeating, and the results show it.
People like Mr Tomasky claim to know the voters but few of them saw Trump coming. Now they tell us we can't win with liberal candidates, and we are supposed to believe that?
Just two years ago we watched religious voters and conservatives hold their noses to vote for a philandering vulgarian with a well-known history of supporting Democrats and Democratic policies. The guy was a complete clown without any qualifications but 63 million voters preferred him to the establishment Democrat - a candidate who promised us nothing because change is hard.
Maybe a liberal who offered us an alternative to more of the same would get the votes of most of these people. Seems likely to me, but go ahead and run some more center-right candidates and tell us we have to accept it if we want to be rid of the Trumpers.
I don't know about anyone else, but after 43 years of voting, I would rather stay home than pull the lever for the status quo.
90
@Neil
It seems to have escaped your notice that three million more people voted for the Democrat. But congratulations you're living proof of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's dictum that "For the far left it's ever the case that nothing, is better than not enough."
75
Many living in Seattle voted for the progressive left and now the world has seen the damage done to our city.
Damage that has been done on the local local, state & national level by the bernie left and the trump right will take years to repair and hard work by the center to right democrats and left to center republicans.
20
"I would rather stay home than pull the lever for the status quo."
And that, my friends, is how Trump got elected.
116
The problem with many of these comments is commentators who accept the radical Republican definition of a liberal as an egg-headed intellectual with impractical solutions to the nation's problems. In doing so, they fall into the he said-she said construct created by our reactionary media. This labeling becomes divisive, diverting us from any concrete discussions of policies such as wasteful or excessive funding of military weapons that will never be used and will become obsolete before they are fully developed.
147
Oh boy! Mr Campos, you are so misguided. I sure hope you will not one day lose you job, you health insurance, run out of money to pay for your children's education, get stuck on a bridge that is about to collapse from lack of maintenance for a century, have to fight a war in some god forsaken desert for no reason of your own, etc etc. I won't assume you get the picture but it is worth a try!
1
That the Republicans are the party of greed.
Campos,
"Republicans are focused on the economy, trade and defanging terrorist countries of their nuclear capabilities. "
I couldn't resist laughing. Republicans left disaster in 2008 and are on a track to leave another one in 2019-2020.
Trowing 2 trillions at corporations and billionaires to get tiny uptick in GDP is throwing money out the window.
I'm a younger, slightly right-of-center moderate. I stopped voting for Republicans a few elections back because they have gone completely crazy. I will vote for Axne in IA-03 this fall because she seems reasonable and we desperately need a congressional check on Trump. Sorry, not interested in Bernie economics or SJW nonsense. But you can get my vote with someone a little more moderate.
143
Not in IAs 3rd, older, slightly to the left of Bernie Sanders and generally speaking I would have no problem voting for Axne in a general election.
As a rule I have tended to vote for Dems over the years. Have never had any interest in ideological purity. Nor do I expect saint hood from elected officials. To not be bought & paid for by a tiny financial special interest, for an official's team to demonstrate both willingness and competence in examining what things are amenable to government intervention . . . & how to do that with the least pain possible is always the best for which one can hope.
I have nearly always been both disappointed & relieved by actions of nearly every one for whom I've voted, since 1970; but, nevertheless keep voting. (only once for a socialist who had no chance to win, purely to post some numbers on the ballot count)
For me it is only slightly more complicated, (but how would require a lot more words) than hoping for a modicum of honesty, & for someone that keeps striving from the best public options even while forced to bring a tooth pick to a knife fight.
1
Moderate has come to mean milk-toast. Establishment Democrats have proved their allegiance: it's to Wall Street and the donor class --- we saw this in 2006. Bernie was a serious threat. He has practical ideas for bringing the dogs of Wall Street to heel. The demographics are with Bernie not Hillary, not Biden, and certainly not the DINOs being selected in primaries around the country for us to vote for.
3
Rocket, if Bernie had been "a serious threat," the Republicans would have trained all their weapons on him instead of on Clinton. It was obvious the right wing wanted Bernie nominated -- which should have told his supporters that he posed no threat whatsoever to the Republican candidate.. But I don't believe you're a progressive at all -- I think you are a right-wing concern troll trying to sow dissension among Democrats.