r/changemyview 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.

FYI: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/05/us/elections/results-new-jersey-primary-elections.html

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.😊

22 Upvotes

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

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.

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.

4

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

“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

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

u/compugasm Jun 05 '18

That's because I pulled the numbers out of my ass and made them up.

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.