No matter how many times they repeat the mantra that they have. And Biden’s big surge has been a wakeup call for those in the media who had been fooled (mostly by Twitter) into believing in their ascendance:
We have seen several iterations of this repetition right here on this board. Saying it doesn’t make it so, folks!
…this was the plan? Really? Cite?
Not “that was their plan” like “in the secret progressive HQ, this set of talking points was distributed” but snarky, like “what was your plan, exactly—just tell everyone you already did it, apparently”. People have said it to me over and over: here, on Twitter, and on Facebook. “You’re stuck in the ‘90s, the party has moved on, catch up or get out of the way.” That sort of thing.
…perhaps people are “saying things to you over and over on twitter” but I would suggest the problem is that “you aren’t listening.” This isn’t the plan. It was never the plan. Not even in a “snarky-kind-of-way.”
Can you provide a cite for anyone saying this to you on your twitter account? Or anything close to “that sort of thing?”
Are you sure the message isn’t “You’re stuck in the ‘90s, the party needs to move on, catch up or get out of the way?" Because that’s a completely different message.
Yeah progressives have deluded themselves about how much support they have among among Democratic voters let alone the wider electorate.
The problem is that that the leftmost 30% or so of the party has indeed moved sharply to the left over the last decade and much of the left commentariat has moved with them. This segment of the party has a disproportionate influence in setting the agenda of the party and shaping its wider public image. And on issues like reparations, immigration and abolishing private insurance it’s pushing the party in a direction increasingly at odds with the broader electorate which creates a serious danger for Democrats.
Even if progressives don’t get their candidate they may push the eventual candidate into adopting unpopular positions. Alternatively, if the candidate resists them, progressives may just stay home and throw the election to the Republicans.
The bottom line is that Democrats are much more ideologically divided than they were a decade ago and that is not a good thing for them.
Precisely.
…which progressives have “have deluded themselves about how much support they have among among Democratic voters?” Can you give some examples of this delusion?
If 30% of the party have “shifted to the left” what is it you are expecting them to do? You want them to not advocate for positions they believe in?
The New York Mag article talks about “ideological labels”. But “labels” are different from “positions.” This poll suggests 70% of people are in favour of “Medicare for all”. Polls suggest that many parts of the New Green Deal are very popular.
So is the message behind your OP is that we should reject “labels” and focus on policy?
Because I’d be good with that.
[off-topic?] Contrary to the line most of the elite has pushed, globalization leads to a downward pressure on U.S. wages — this is a major reason that American workers haven’t benefited from the booms as much as the rich have. Americans sense that and vote for a Perot or Trump who “gets it.”
I don’t think protectionism is the answer, but the Ds have to develop some message to attract the economic populists who support Trump.
Jobs, jobs, jobs! is the important “progressive” message voters want to hear. Trump is winning that issue (though by lying) and this is where the D’s, both moderate and progressive, need to focus.
With unemployment at a low, I don’t think the focus is still on jobs. I think the focus should be on growth in real wages, an area in which Trump’s performance has been at best lackluster.
A political ad I’d like to see (but I’m sure I won’t):
A date 25 years or so in the future flashes on the screen. Begin with a montage of all the horror that climate change has caused. A little girl, who would be adorable if she wasn’t painfully skinny, says: “Grandpa, how come everything got to be so bad?”
Grandfather replies, “Well, honey, your grandma and I got better jobs. For some reason, that’s all we cared about.”
Unemployment is low but the jobs are not better. There is worse wealth inequality and those not on the very top side of that have good reason to feel insecure.
I think certain groups tend to over-estimate their numbers because the view they see (active in the social media they frequent) are people who share their perspectives. That said many of the mainstream ideas promoted by Democrats were considered “progressive” not too many years ago and the most mainstream Democrats and the most progressive both are wanting to pull in the same (progressive) direction, one opposite than the one Trump and the GOP is pushing. Pragmatic or revolutionary is an issue of tactics and well marketing more than anything else.
There’s always been a lot of hope that progressives could leverage a major party into getting their agenda passed, but libertarians have also lived under that delusion. Progressives have their party: it’s called the Green Party, or another, the DSA. The Democratic Party is a center-left party and that’s not likely to change anytime soon. Why the media focuses on the few progressives that just got elected rather than the 50 moderates is hopefulness triumphing over reality. AOC doesn’t matter. Seth Moulton matters. Stephanie Murphy matters.
…who the fuck is Seth Moulton? Who on earth is Stephanie Murphy? If they “matter” so much how come I haven’t heard of them? This graph says it all. AOC has more interactions on twitter than anyone else in the Democratic party. More than Obama. More than CNN. She is the only person who comes close to Donald Trump in reach. They focus on people like AOC because people are interested in what she has to say. Welcome to the 21st Century. Like it or not this matters.
And like it or not America is effectively a “two party system” and if you want to have a hope-in-hell of getting your agenda passed you need to do that under the banner of either the Dems or the Republicans. I don’t hear you complaining that the “Freedom Caucus” have a voice in the Republican Party and that they have power. That’s just how the system works.
trumpists are a majority within a party that manages, sometimes even without a plurality of votes, to win elections. But they themselves are only, maybe, 35 to 40 percent of the total population. As a democrat, I’m not sure I’d want us to mirror that scenario. (Except for the winning elections part.)
No, they don’t. I’m not saying economic populism is bad. A lot of the appeal of AOC & Bernie Sanders is their strong populism. But ‘the economic populists who support Trump’ are not on the table, because they already have a man in the White House. You can’t offer to give them power they already have.
You* can* appeal to the economic populists who support Bernie Sanders; you know, young millennial social democrats, or ‘progressives.’
…if we accept the statistics in the article in the OP that “29 percent said socialism is compatible with American values” and if you also accept my cite that said “70% of Americans want medicare for all” I think it would be fair to say that many Americans reject the label of “socialism” but would actually embrace “socialism” as long as you don’t call it that. Like how they hated Obamacare but loved the ACA. So I don’t see it as “mirroring the Trumpism scenario” at all.
Moulton and Murphy have more power within the caucus and will get much more legislation passed.
The Freedom Caucus has about as much power as their numbers justify. As does the Progressive Caucus. And the DSAers haven’t even come close to even the Tea Party’s success. All they did was primary some fellow Democrats in blue states and districts. The Tea Party actually won Senate seats in purple states, defeating incumbent Democrats. AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley haven’t defeated a single Republican incumbent and never will. Meanwhile, Tea Partiers knocked off Russ Feingold. When a progressive candidate takes out Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton I’ll start to be impressed. Heck, beat Cory Gardner without having to use a moderate. I dare you.
…still haven’t heard of them. Who the fuck are they again?
The Freedom Caucus have power disproportionate to their numbers.
So you agree the Progressive Caucus can happily coexist within the Dems and don’t need to quit and join the Greens? Okay then.
You dare me? What the fuck are you daring me to do? I’m not an American citizen. I can’t run against Ted Cruz. The center can’t beat Ted Cruz. I’m not sure what your point is.
And you’ve shifted the goalposts. We’ve gone from “the Progressives should leave” to “they can’t beat Ted Cruz I dare you” what-ever-the-fuck you mean by that.
No, I’ve just noted that progressives are a minority within the Democratic Party and do not get to call the shots. Nor are they being allowed to. You haven’t heard of Moulton and Murphy because they write legislation rather than appear on the cover of Rolling Stone.
…you did a bit more than just note that “progressives are a minority within the Democratic Party and do not get to call the shots.”
When some polls suggest that 70% of the American people support Medicare for all then perhaps the Dems should “allow them” to do a bit more than they are.
I haven’t heard of them because they have insignificant social media reach in comparison to someone like AOC. AOC didn’t appear on the cover of Rolling Stone by accident. She knows how to leverage social media to forward her agenda. That’s how things work now.
She knows how to leverage social media to forward her brand. On policy, her accomplishments are zilch and that’s not likely to change. As for Medicare For All, Americans love it on two conditions: 1) they get to keep their current insurance, and 2) they don’t have to pay for it. Polling on its actual cost and impact on current health insurance arrangements drops support to much lower levels:
Almost all of the support for health care reform involves some additions to ACA, not scrapping it in favor of something else entirely. Along with scrapping Medicare as well. You all may call it Medicare, but M4A is MEDICAID, not Medicare.