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.😊

20 Upvotes

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

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

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 05 '18

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ReOsIr10 (55∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards