First, define “moderate”, because under present circumstances it sounds a lot like the “we’ll only half-genocide you” joke. Case in point:
I’d rate Clinton, Obama and Biden as center right, Carter as “moderate” (but “left wing” by modern standards). The political center of the modern US is just barely to the left of fascism, if that. A “moderate” at this point would be somebody who intends to implement fascism, but keep up a facade about it instead of flaunting it.
When was the last time they tried?
Teddy Roosevelt?
To be fair, in the past 60 years, only four Democrats have won a presidential election: Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden; two of those failed in their bids for a second term.
The fact that Theodore Roosevelt, who was a progressive, AIUI, won an election 120 years ago is pretty close to meaningless today; the country, and its political climate, in 1905 might as have well been on a different planet, for how unlike it is today.
Also, Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, which really goes to show how much things have changed since then.
I know, that was the joke.
Also he was a bull moose. You know, everything Trump wishes he was.
McGovern, Al Gore, Dukakis.
McGovern, I suppose, but Gore and Dukakis were right in the middle of the party.
But they didn’t lose because of issues. They lost because they weren’t great communicators. Get a progressive with the communications skills of Obama or Bill Clinton and they’ll be a shoe-in to win.
That part should be simple (though not necessarily easy) – presidential candidates need to be great communicators. That’s more important than issues, in terms of actually winning.
In what universe was Al Gore a progressive?
He was the most environmentally conscious candidate from a major party, winning the Nobel Peace prize, and other awards. But of course if ones defines Clinton and Obama as right wingers, then no one is progressive.
He was also pro-censorship and picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate. If we’re saying that environmentalism + Nobel Peace Prizes makes a candidate progressive, then Nixon was the most progressive president we’ve ever had.
Pretty much all the recent Democratic nominees, all the back to Carter, were right in the middle of the Democratic party on the issues.
Sure, and the Dem party leans left. So- moderate liberals.
That was his wife, and all they wanted was a label on the CDs sold. Big deal.
It is WHY you get the prize. Gore for environmentalism. Nixon never won the Peace prize, iirc
An interesting overview as to how things now stand:
And unpacking this should lead to some insights:
*Carter was a Southern Democrat who was more conservative than his opponent Ford on many issues. He benefitted from the Watergate and pardon backlash, but just barely - the fact that even in an election held 18 months after that settled, Carter just barely squeaked in by the margin of 2% of voters in New York should be a significant data point about just how many “natural permanent Republican” voters there are.
*Clinton definitely repudiated some of the excesses of the 1980s Democrats, even if the left-wing criticism of him as “basically a Republican” is overblown, and needed both a recession and Perot to win in 92.
*Obama did a great job of navigating the primary in a year when the Democrats had it in the bag for whoever ended up being nominated, due to the economy at the end of the Bush admin and public fatigue with Iraq.
*Biden benefitted from the anti-Trump backlash and from his own position as the “adult in the room” of his own party, repudiating a lot of the pro-crime excesses of 2020, though he, too, still just barely won.
The fact is that it’s impossible, with a nationwide electorate or a subset that demographically resembles it like Pennsylvania or North Carolina, for a Democrat running on Walter Mondale-style 1980s Democratic ideas to win in a vacuum, because the majority of the electorate doesn’t agree with those ideas. The fantasy that there is some huge untapped vein of “democratic socialism” in the Sanders vein just waiting for someone to vote for isn’t borne out by any kind of polling reality. Mixing that with pro-crime positions - which easily 90% of the electorate despises - is a recipe for disaster.
Democrats CAN win when they appeal to swing voters by projecting moderation and competence, and can even build long-term brand loyalty by delivering on those promises. Look, for example, at Virginia. Contrary to the fallacy that its state elections are hinging on “people moving to the North from blue states,” its most traditionally conservative areas in the Richmond and Virginia Beach suburbs have all continued to vote for Democrats through Kamala Harris. With the exception of an astoundingly botched 2021 gubernatorial campaign, Democrats have won every statewide election since 2009, because Virginia Democrats are known for being the party of competent governance and ideological centrism, and Virginia Republicans are largely considered crazy by average voters.
People viscerally despise JD Vance, Ron DeSantis, and other potential Trump successors, in the same way they despised Hillary Clinton. Of course a Democrat who projects being fucking normal and isn’t carrying the baggage of the circa-2020 race to the left can win in 2028. It’s up to the party to nominate that person and not a loser.
No exactly the same way. There are valid reasons to despise Vance, DeSantis, and the rest.
Per Wiki- His ratings rebounded to 56 percent approving in an October 17–23 polling survey by Saint Leo University. In February 2022, a poll conducted by the University of North Florida found that DeSantis was the most popular elected official in Florida, with a 58 percent approval rating. So in Florida- they like him.
Vance?
According to RealClearPolitics, Vance’s favorability stands at 41.7%, with an unfavorability of 44.8%, resulting in a net negative of 3.1 percentage points. This is slightly worse than President Trump’s net favorability of -0.9 percentage points. Recent polls, conducted after Vance’s contentious meeting with Ukraine’s president, show his ratings dipping further to 42.4% favorable and 48.0% unfavorable.
Right, and H. Clinton came fairly close to winning.
Please clarify, @Procrustus
Is your statement supposed to be as written, namely,
“No exactly the same way. There are valid reasons to despise Vance, DeSantis, and the rest.”
or should it read:
“NOT exactly the same way. There are valid reasons to despise Vance, DeSantis, and the rest.”
That one. Sorry for typos. I’m multi tasking at work today.
Mayor Pete should not run. He’s not ready. Go for Senator or Governor. Don’t waste people’s time.