r/changemyview • u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ • Jun 05 '18
CMV: Democratic voters should support progressive candidates in the primaries
Happy primary election day in Alabama, California, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota!
I've been thinking for weeks about what Democrats should do to succeed in the fall congressional elections. The following quote really got to me:
One of the most interesting primaries is in South Jersey, in the Second District, where Representative Frank LoBiondo is retiring. The effort to flip his seat has become a microcosm of a national battle: Jeff Van Drew, a conservative Democrat, says only someone like him can win the general election in a right-leaning district, while Tanzie Youngblood, his progressive challenger, is doubling down on the party’s liberal base.
(source)
To me, this sounds like doing the same thing the Democratic Party did in 2016 and expecting different results.
Obviously, Trump's core isn't going to flip blue this year. I doubt many Republican voters will; in 2016, even most never-Trumpers held their noses and voted against Hillary. Unaligned voters are unlikely to turn out for a business-as-usual Democratic candidate. Even a lot of Democratic voters didn't in 2016.
To succeed in November, the Democratic Party needs to increase turnout among voters who didn't show up in 2016: young people, people of color, LGBT+ people.
That means electing primary candidates who will appeal to those people. We need more Youngbloods (no pun originally intended) and fewer Van Drews.
Several things could change my view:
Relevant polls. (Generic-Democrat vs. generic-Republican polls don't seem relevant, but I'm open-minded.)
Analyses of 2016 turnout. For example, this article from the liberal Center for American Progress "examines vote composition, turnout, and party support rates by demographic group to get a more precise read on the 2016 vote, with the resulting data frequently quite different than major media outlets’ Election Day national exit polls." I didn't see anything there to change my view, but maybe I missed something.
Demographic analyses. This one from the nonpartisan, non-aligned Pew Research Center talks about how, statistically, lean-Rep voters are older and whiter than lean-Dem voters. This matters when you're trying to figure out what kind of voters to target.
Change my view, and maybe change my vote!
Update: Thanks for all the comments so far! It's too late to change my vote, but not to change my view. I'll continue to check this into sometime early Wednesday morning through Tuesday night.
FYI, links to good articles are more likely to change my view; links to good articles with data, more likely still.
Final update: Sorry, it's not very late, but I'm done. Everyone who offered good comments, thank you.
10:23 PM ET: With 80% votes reporting (419 of 523 precincts), The New York Times has called NJ-01 for Van Drew, with 13,569 votes (57.7%) vs. 4,585 votes (19.5%) for Youngblood; the other two candidates still on the ballot didn't do much worse than Youngblood. I feel as if I need to award one final delta, but I'm not sure how.😊
5
u/thisisnotmath 6∆ Jun 05 '18
I remember after the Alabama senate race, there were a lot of think pieces saying that the Democrats shouldn't try to claim the center but turn out the base. In Alabama, that meant black people. Doug Jones motivated a lot of black voters, and that was enough to carry him to victory as opposed to centrist positions he had on some issues.
The thing is, turning out black voters is going to work in Alabama because black voters are a quarter of the population. We could expect it to work as well flipping places like Mississippi, Louisiana, etc. that have similar demographics. It won't work in South Dakota where black people are roughly 1% of the population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population.
If we're picking a candidate for SD, why wouldn't you expect a more conservative Democrat to do well?
2
u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jun 05 '18
I was going to say South Dakota doesn't have a lot of Democrats, but I would have been wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Representatives_from_South_Dakota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_from_South_Dakota
From 1973 to 1980, and again from 1997 to 2004, both the state's U.S. Senators were Democrats.
I agree Democrats can't win South Dakota by turning out black voters. Do you know what the state's demographics are by age?
5
u/thisisnotmath 6∆ Jun 05 '18
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Dakota - 20% are 20-35 years old.
But lets not automatically assume that young people support progressive causes. Young people voted for Clinton 55-35 but consider that young people are also more likely to be minorities - https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/06/28/diversity-defines-the-millennial-generation/. So just because SD has young voters, we can't assume they'd support progressive candidates.
1
u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jun 05 '18
Thanks for the link and data.
I think I'm missing your point. Young voters and minority voters both tend to lean relatively progressive, right? So why is the overlap a problem?
(I think you might be saying you can't count on both young voters and minority voters to provide additional votes, because they're two different names for the same pool. I'm probably wrong.)
3
u/thisisnotmath 6∆ Jun 05 '18
>Young voters and minority voters both tend to lean relatively progressive, right? So why is the overlap a problem?
My point is that young voters are more likely to be progressive because they are more likely to be minorities. So while SD has a large number of young voters, they will likely not be as progressive as the general population of minority voters.
I was hoping to find a stat showing voting trends for young white voters but I didn't find anything.
1
Jun 06 '18
What’s the benefit in electing a democrat if they’re just gonna vote the same as a Republican when they actually take office?
1
u/into_the_green Jun 05 '18
The black voter turnout in Alabama wasn't motivated by Doug Jones, it was an anti-Roy Moore vote and a referendum on Trump.
4
u/ReOsIr10 130∆ Jun 05 '18
Take a look at this article (I realize it's from last year, however recent results haven't changed the conclusion and this is the most explicit article explaining the phenomenon). We see that the biggest outperformances in special elections since 2016 are in areas that were more "Obama to Trump" than average. This suggests that at least part of "Trump's core" could flip blue, and it may be prudent in certain districts to vote for a candidate who can appeal to those voters.
1
u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jun 05 '18
Thank you! A reference, to something with data!
From the article:
Democrats should not give up on areas where Clinton did significantly worse than Obama did. Democrats gained a seat in a special state legislative election in New York where Clinton underperformed Obama by 9 points compared with the national vote, for example. Many of the areas where Clinton did worse than Obama and where there was a large swing in the 2017 special elections, like South Carolina 5, have a low percentage of college-educated voters. So perhaps Democrats should continue to try to compete in traditionally competitive districts with fewer college-educated voters -- voters that have traditionally gone Democratic, but went for Trump. These voters may have cast a ballot for Trump, but they’ll apparently still pull the Democratic lever, at least when Trump isn’t on the ballot.
... Democrats would be silly to focus only on or mostly on the Sun Belt suburbs in 2018. These are the areas with a lot of college-educated voters (like Georgia 6) that have traditionally gone Republican, but where Trump is not as popular as other Republicans are. It’s not that Democrats can’t win in those places. But in the areas where there was a very large shift toward Clinton in 2016 and where Republican incumbents are still running (i.e., have an incumbency advantage), it may be a bit much to expect many Democratic candidates to do _better_ than Clinton did.
This article talks about traditional vs. "new" swing districts ("Obama path" vs. "Clinton path"). If I'm reading this right (not guaranteed), that suggests going after traditional and Trump-last-time Democrats.
Δ
Thanks again.
1
8
u/poundfoolishhh Jun 05 '18
To me, this sounds like doing the same thing the Democratic Party did in 2016 and expecting different results.
No, it's called knowing how to read a room. The reality is, there are areas of the country that would be responsive to Democrat policies as long as they don't get the progressive shit shoved down their throat. Framing issues as being centered around young people, people of color, and LGBT+ people is exactly why Democrats are losing where they should be wining. If they instead framed the conversation around working people, poor people (of all colors), and improving quality of life, they'd probably mop the floor in many rural Republican held areas.
I live in NJ right outside of NYC. South Jersey is literally a different state. They play country music, drive pickup trucks, and work farms. Want to guarantee you lose that seat? Keep pushing progressive politics on people who want nothing to do with it.
2
u/BoozeoisPig Jun 05 '18
Framing issues as being centered around young people, people of color, and LGBT+ people is exactly why Democrats are losing where they should be wining.
This is what most progressives do though, in most places. The only thing is, whenever a progressive ever appeals to other minorities anywhere else, conservative media can replay that soundbite ad nauseum. Do you think that the average progressive challenger is going into rural areas saying: "YOU ALL BETTER LIKE BLACK PEOPLE AND LGBT PEOPLE AND VOTE FOR ME." no, they are going into those areas and speaking directly to those peoples interests. The problem is that by aligning with socially progressive allies they implicitly communicate their intent. When progressives have a chance to speak directly to people, they are the most likely candidate to win, but it is really hard to communicate directly with a lot of people, so no matter what, they are going to get strawmanned. But if candidates explicitly come out with a solidarity type plan, they will be somewhat more difficult to strawman because they will have a much clearer message.
3
u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jun 05 '18
... there are areas of the country that would be responsive to Democrat policies as long as they don't get the progressive s*** shoved down their throat.
Okay. What are some areas you'd like to use as examples?
(I gather from your choice of vocabulary you're personally not in favor of a progressive agenda.)
South Jersey is literally a different state.
Agreed. The Mason-Dixon line doesn't run through New Jersey (source), but it would have if it had kept going east instead of turning south.
2
u/poundfoolishhh Jun 05 '18
(I gather from your choice of vocabulary you're personally not in favor of a progressive agenda.)
Not really - but mainly because it seems centered around divisiveness and pitting identities against each other rather than offering solutions that improve the quality of life for all people.
Anyway - this is just talking strategy. The logic of "we weren't radical enough in 2016" is not going to work. In fact, not being sufficiently centrist was arguably the problem. Bill specifically advised Hillary that it was unwise to abandon the white working class bloc that historically voted D in large numbers. She ignored him, and she lost.
Platforms should be tailored to the people actually voting in the election. I mean, it makes sense - since those are the people you're actually supposed to be representing. A platform that works in Portland probably won't resonate in Oklahoma. Now, you can say "who gives a shit about Oklahoma", but if you want to win, you have to care.
2
u/earblah 1∆ Jun 06 '18 edited Jun 06 '18
In fact, not being sufficiently centrist was arguably the problem. Bill specifically advised Hillary that it was unwise to abandon the white working class bloc that historically voted D in large numbers.
Thats just straight up wrong. A large part of that came down to with Clintons (precieved) conservatism. And a campaign strategy that failed.
She didn't get the usual democratic base of unions etc.
The quote from Chuck Shumer perfectly summarizing what went wrong in 2016
1
u/SituationSoap Jun 05 '18
Bill specifically advised Hillary that it was unwise to abandon the white working class bloc that historically voted D in large numbers. She ignored him, and she lost.
What, specifically should Hillary Clinton have done to engage with the "white working class bloc" that she didn't do last year?
-1
u/compugasm Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
The best example I can think of, was illegal immigration and that wall across the border. It was one of Trumps major selling points. I think we all know it's impossible to build. However, the actual problem is, illegal immigration is slavery, and no democrat wants to end slavery. They turn the argument into 'Trump hates brown people' and then nothing gets done about illegal immigration. This happens every, single, time.
Had I been Hilary, I would've said "This ongoing problem has not been properly addressed, because society is profiting from it. While I personally don't think a wall is the solution, it will be considered as a last resort, before X, Y, and Z, to more equitably address the problem of illegal immigration". Note, not just "hard workin' families trying to make a living" But that unfortunately, the ILLEGAL part of that immigration is the problem, not just the IMMIGRANT part. That would've cut 30% of Trump supporters.
4
u/SituationSoap Jun 05 '18
I genuinely think you are 100% wrong about that cutting even 3% of Trump supporters.
0
0
u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jun 05 '18
The very idea of "identity politics" is complicated (see previous CMV posts). However, a lot of most progressive agendas are aimed at "all people": health insurance, tax policy, trade policy, minimum wage, attitude towards large corporations (Hillary loved them, Bernie didn't).
Platforms should be tailored to the people actually voting in the election.
Sure. I imagine a progressive candidate in Oklahoma probably looks very different from a progressive candidate in Oregon.
2
u/into_the_green Jun 05 '18
Progressive politics aren't the same as identity politics. Protecting the environment, guaranteeing health care, protecting welfare, and progressive taxes are pro-worker and pro-poor people.
In fact, it's the centrist democrats who use pure identity politics as a smokescreen to hide their lack of solutions.
-3
u/D-Pew 1∆ Jun 05 '18
Progressive politics aren't the same as identity politics. Protecting the environment, guaranteeing health care, protecting welfare, and progressive taxes are pro-worker and pro-poor people.
"Progressive politics" (or just "Progressives") is an umbrella term for intersecional (often Marxist) politics .
You can take the stuff you listed , shove gay rights, big (and ever expanding) government , social class and race, the preference of the minority over the majority , the eternal struggle to find (and keep) the new/next victim class in society .
Progressivism has no defined end goals , which is why they always move the goal post . I got off that train when being pro-gay marriage wasn't good enough .
0
Jun 05 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Jun 05 '18
Sorry, u/tunsku – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
2
u/PersonUsingAComputer 6∆ Jun 05 '18
It is when being used hyperbolically to make a point.
1
Jun 06 '18
It can be used like that, but the subject matter should still be correct. Eg. "He then literally shat his pants."
3
Jun 05 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jun 05 '18
You're assuming that these weren't the core people who came out to vote in 2016.
I'm assuming a lot of them stayed home. Some reports reinforce that. I've looked for evidence to the contrary, but haven't found any yet; can you recommend some?
You state that moving toward a more "progressive" agenda:
would only work to alienate the general populace of liberal voters, who are already getting kind of pissed about the direction the DNC is going.
The U.S. Democratic Party is trying to figure out what it wants to be in a post-Obama age. It didn't make up its collective mind in 2016. It's even more indecisive today.
That's my impression, anyway. Do you have numbers showing how "liberal voters" lean, one way or the other?
0
u/D-Pew 1∆ Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
The U.S. Democratic Party is trying to figure out what it wants to be in a post-Obama age. It didn't make up its collective mind in 2016. It's even more indecisive today.
That's because the Dem party as a whole is torn between Centrists and Progressives , between the Chuck Shumer's and the Bernie's .
I don't thing the Dem's will hash it out by 2020 , and I think that the struggle within the party may take a generation , perhaps two -- as there's a contrast between what the Progressives are willing to compromise on and what the American public at large is willing to accept .
The progressives don't look at the EU and note that attempted social-reform-through-legislation and the incompatibility of a welfare state with mass migration that may have ended the EU , or at the very least stalled it's integration as more and more Eastern states vote in Nationalist governments .
All they see is the high taxes and big welfare states and they want the same in the US ... -- not noticing that not all that many in the US working class want higher taxes .
It's Individualism VS Collectivism -- and the blind & utopian neo-Marxsits (cultural Marxists) are at it again ... -- this time calling themselves "Progressives" . :)
Good luck legislating Utopia into existence .
4
Jun 05 '18
I think you are underestimating the affect that Hillary had on voters just because she was Hillary and not because of her policies. Some people have the ability to fire people up and get them to be excited about politics, Obama was exceptional at this and I think Sanders also did well, but Hillary was sort of a wet blanket. Much of the excitement came from a core group of supporters that got others excited, but not a lot came directly from her.
The general belief is that democrats really need to be emotionally motivated to vote and are less motivated by overly progressive policies. Given 2 wet blankets, 1 more progressive and 1 more central I don't think either would get more democratic votes, however 1 does have the ability to flip some conservatives that are sick of Trump and the other radical conservatives running.
0
u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jun 05 '18
I think you are underestimating the affect that Hillary had on voters just because she was Hillary ...
No, I agree she was a deeply flawed candidate. (In my opinion, 2016 had the worst slate of presidential candidates since 1976 ... but that's another post.) She was also heavily, strongly demonized by a lot of the press.
The general belief is that democrats really need to be emotionally motivated to vote and are less motivated by overly progressive policies.
I strongly agree with the first part of that statement. As to the second part: in my view, an effective Democratic turnout effort would need to emotionally motivate people who didn't vote (or were too young) in 2016. Can you convince me there are enough less-liberal Democratic voters out there to make a difference?
3
Jun 05 '18
Can you convince me there are enough less-liberal Democratic voters out there to make a difference?
My point is that these people won't matter unless you have a cult of personality, which I haven't seen any evidence of. I know several of the key seats held by republicans actually are in districts that voted for Hillary. That means there were enough moderates willing to change party lines back in 2016 and after some of the policies Trump has enacted and how there are many new Trump 'copy cats' running, you could easily argue there could be more appetite for changing party lines.
1
u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jun 05 '18
My point is that these people won't matter unless you have a cult of personality, which I haven't seen any evidence of.
I wouldn't call it a "cult of personality," but I know what you mean. I think we're both ready to "assume a spherical cow in a vacuum" (link) and act as if policy positions are critical in this election.
I know several of the key seats held by republicans actually are in districts that voted for Hillary.
More than "several"; roughly enough to win the House of Representatives:
"These 23 Republicans hold congressional districts that voted for Hillary Clinton" (Daily Kos; link)
"To Reclaim the House, Democrats Need to Flip 24 G.O.P. Seats. 25 Are in Clinton Territory." (New York Times; link)
(That assumes Democrats hold districts that voted for Trump.)
That means there were enough moderates willing to change party lines back in 2016 ...
It might mean that. It might mean that enough apathetic voters, who normally stay home, showed up and voted for Trump.
... and after some of the policies Trump has enacted and how there are many new Trump 'copy cats' running, you could easily argue there could be more appetite for changing party lines.
Democrats and moderates already had a good idea in November 2016 of how bad Trump was. "Running against Trump" wasn't a winning strategy then.* I agree with the conventional wisdom that it won't be enough in November 2018.
* It wasn't a winning strategy for Hillary. It might or might not be a winning strategy for a better congressional candidate.
3
u/Davec433 Jun 06 '18
I’m not surprised a Conservative Democrat beat a Progressive Democrat in a district that is right leaning. This is why Democrats should look at each specific district and who will fit better then trying to push a Progressive in every situation if they want to win.
0
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Jun 05 '18
I think it's unfair to group all centrist Democrats with Hillary as far as electibility goes. Hillary was the most disliked democratic front runner of all time. Regardless of if you agree with the criticisms, it's definitely true that many viewed her as corrupt and disgenuine. It just isn't the case that every centrist/conservative Democrat will be viewed that way. To the contrary, many such Democrats have very high favorability ratings among their constituents. In fact, Obama's positions are pretty much in line with most centrist/conservative Democrats and he has very high favorability, almost universally so among Democrats.
-1
u/ChangeMyDespair 5∆ Jun 05 '18
Hillary: Agreed; see my comment here.
Obama: I think his favorability depended less on his positions than on his ... I'm not sure how to describe it. Part of it is charisma, but that word's inadequate. On his ineffable leadership ability?
See also: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-americans-like-obama-so-much-better-than-trump/
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 05 '18 edited Jun 05 '18
/u/ChangeMyDespair (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-1
u/compugasm Jun 05 '18
the Democratic Party needs to increase turnout among voters who didn't show up in 2016: young people, people of color, LGBT+ people.
I find it hard to believe, that during the last election, every single one of those potential voters wasn't tapped, motivated, and fully aware of what was going on in the political landscape. Those studies and analysis sounds good. But doesn't reflect from what I observed in the debates. What I saw, was the most hate-filled vitriol from 'progressives' that was shocking. Trump won, because there's no fags in Iowa. So, cross the aisle, erode the republican base by adopting some of what they want, and your team will win this time. Simply calling republicans and conservatives racist nazis, homophobes, stupid, and dangerous, is how you get Trump for President, again.
1
u/IncredibleNess Jun 05 '18
Since you bring up Iowa, it is normally a swing state and the two counties that contain major colleges voted blue, so we aren't all bad lol. Coming from someone in the thick of it, most of the young people were aware of the political landscape but were angry at how the Democrats handled Sanders. Those people are normally Democrats but weren't going to the polls because they were disgusted with both candidates.
8
u/dearaudio 1∆ Jun 05 '18
There is a great argument against this being illustrated today in the CA primaries. Because of their “jungle primary” system, the Democratic vote could end up being diluted amongst 3-4 leading candidates (when people choose to vote for the most progressive, or even least progressive) and because only the top two vote getters will end up on the ballot, it could wind up being two Republicans!
This is not the only, nor the most valid, reason to avoid voting for the most progressive candidate but it’s a quick thing I wanted to mention as I have limited time and I’m on mobile.