Look, I don't disagree with any of this. But the hour is way later than you know, this ship has sailed years ago. Go read Thomas Franks' Listen, Liberal (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." -Chuck Schumer, 2016
Thanks to Pelosi's legacy, the Dems are just as hopelessly collaborators and servants to big money donors as the Republicans. The difference between the Pritzker and Trump families is more aesthetic than anything.
Hell, I remember very well being castigated as a "Bernie Bro" and basically slapped around by everyone in that dammed party for years and multiple rigged primaries before I left. NONE of the internal reforms or pivots to rebuild working class legitimacy has occurred. If anything, the party structurally has gotten even more deranged, rigged, and elitist. The Kamala campaign was the most elite-based campaign I've ever witnessed, entirely a firehose of corporate money sprayed across celebrity endorsements.
If the Dems gain any ground, it's because the Repubs eff up so massively the Dems can eat up the scraps for a cycle. But there is no appetite or desire in the party to do any of this stuff outside of performative aesthetics. Their long term outlook is grim.
Like other commentators I don't disagree with these arguments, but don't find the DNC or party leadership changing so many positions believable either.
For me gun rights are critical: I live in a rural community and it could take awhile for police to arrive even in an emergency. I believe we need to uphold our constitution, including parts we may personally disagree with, so inventing unmentioned rights, like abortion, while restricting clearly mentioned rights like "the right to bear arms shall not be abridged" grates on me.
I'm not as sold on the contention moderation necessarily means crossing the aisle or compromising either however. Most of the Democratic "moderates" like Manchin were hopelessly corrupted by coal or other big polluting industries, or in bed with financial elites, as when Sinema, another former so-called "moderate," insisted on preserving tax loopholes for hedge fund managers. We need more of these moderates like we need a hole in the head.
The rest of this good advice, much as I agree with it, I don't expect the Democratic Party leadership to adopt: the party still supports do nothing elders like the 85 year old Clyburn, for no other reason than race. That won't change any time soon, even though many working class minorities (and the rest of us) would like it to happen.
College educated liberals are whacked in the eyes of the rest of the electorate; heck, I'm college educated and liberal and I find stuff like "Latinx" ridiculous.
What do you think actual hardworking Latinas want, an increase in the minimum wage, which the Biden administration didn't bother prioritizing (or getting done at all) or made up a gender neutral noun to use?
It's even more insulting to those of us who do speak Spanish because modern Castillano actually already has such a term, employing "e" as in "Latine" instead of the masculine "o" ending or the feminine "a."
Frankly the best result would be to demolish the whole party and its leadership and current adherents, and offer a new party, akin to the disappearance of the Whigs and the rise of the GOP in the mid-1800s. That's not likely to happen either though, so we'll muddle through as best we can with two hopelessly compromised political parties.
I think the advice in this essay sound, and unfortunately unlikely to be adopted. Sad, but true.
Good column and data. However, I think the fundamental challenge is that to appeal to working class voters, Dem candidates will need to stake out positions that alienate a good portion of their left leaning primary voters - who will subsequently not move them forward to the general.
I think this is an excellent collection of proposals and data to back them up. It's exactly the sort of thing I hope to see on the blog. I have other comments, but first I want to stress a single point alone:
If the goal of this blog is to persuade Democratic Party activists and their supporters to consider seriously the arguments presented here and change their strategies, the for Pete's sake please ditch the passive-aggressive phrasing: "Brahmin left." It is condescending and it implies that progressive activists are uniformly "nepo babies" asserting the privileged authority of their caste.
So much of the advice here is about persuasion through showing respect and looking for compromise, yet the authors of this blog undermine everything the blog tries to accomplish by writing as snarky opponent rather than as collegial representatives of a branch of the Democratic coalition, reaching out to persuade other branches. If you are serious in your devotion to contributing to the Democrats realigning their strategy while broadening their base, please leave behind expressions of resentment and disrespect of coalition partners who have a history of treating traditional liberals in that way. Their mistakes have created high barriers for Democratic success (both electoral and substantive); please don't adopt a version of the same mistakes.
Thanks for the feedback, Bob. I’ve always viewed “Brahmin left” as more of a descriptor for a population that shares a series of traits rather than a pejorative, though it’s obviously a group we often have serious disagreements with so I can see your point. Will take into consideration.
I second Bob's comment and appreciate your response. One of the things I've always valued about your analysis and commentary in particular is that you generally stay away from what I'd call "loaded" language and let the facts speak for themselves. It's also great, and another thing I've always appreciated about you, the way you take on board comments like this, explain your thinking, and adjust as seems appropriate.
Here is how we see things....a psychological perspective.
Study Maslow's Need Hierarchy.
1. Biological needs get met
2. Safety and Security
3. Love and Belongingness
4. Esteem Needs......self respect and appreciation
5. Self-Actualization: finding true fulfillment in life
Progressives live lives of comfort and security. For example, progressives live in low crime areas, so they can afford to defund police and will still be safe.
Democrats used to focus on the first two-three needs. Now they focus on the 4th and 5th.
They don't realize how much coming from a background of privilege colors their views of the world.
Trump: He went after 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. (in terms of #4, he told working class Americans that they are IMPORTANT! Progressives tell them they are stupid and lazy.
A good example is of Progressives' views on "Defending Democracy." That view is really in Need 4 or 5 for them. Meanwhile, who are the real people defending democracy? It's our soldiers and police. People on the right are far over represented in those professions. Giving their lives to defend democracy instead of marching in a parade.
Progressives will never win over working class folks (who, by the way, are our people)
And yet, prediction markets say Democrats will win big in the midterms. I believe Nate Silver is saying they'll even take back the Senate. Could it be that Democratic voters really do like the ultra-progressive positions you decry? (I'd be sad if that were so, but I fear you are just spitting into the wind.)
I’ve little doubt that Democrats are poised for a good midterm. But is that because voters’ perceptions of them have rebounded from their levels less than 2 years ago? Or is it because they are fed up with Trump and need an outlet to express that anger (which, in this case, is by casting a ballot for Democratic candidates)?
One key difference between today and 2006, the last time Dems won a midterm in year 6 of a Republican presidency: the party’s own favorability is deeply underwater. By contrast, they had a net-positive, double-digit approval 20 years ago, which portended good things heading into 2008.
This is why we spend so much time focusing on the places we feel Democrats are still coming up short: they’ve been fooled in the past into thinking that victory = voters endorsing their entire platform, and then they tend to do things that end up causing a backlash and emboldening Trump/Republicans.
I'm shocked that so many folks still live in the poll-based world of yesteryear. It's likely the Repubs will face some punishment for dropping the ball on the economy, unpopular wars, etc.. But the Dems are insanely unpopular and have no accomplishments or a vision to boast of. If they gain ground this cycle, it's as a sort of protest vote against crappy times, not an upwelling of love and support for what the Dem party is right now.
I'm here in the PNW and I'm pretty sure that Oregon is going to have a Republican governor for the first time in like 30 years.
Dem priorities are fascinating. Thank you. The Dem college educated supposed concern with authoritarianism is very likely to disappear with Trump. When Biden purposefully dissolved the Southern Border and sought to end US fossil fuels, all while regulating everything from cars to water puddles, cooktops, school discipline and everything in between, the Left was not worried about a Strongman takeover. They cheered it.
The US already provides the LGBTQ community with equal rights, found only in the West and a sliver of the rest of the world. In many nations the college educated cheer, if being Gay does not invoke execution or prison, the community enjoys no protection from fellow citizens far more hostile to the LGBTQ community, than Americans have ever been. Lip service legal protections are of little use where gang raping Gay people "straight" is culturally acceptable.
Taxing the Rich? The most significant difference between the Scandinavian and US tax code is nearly everyone in Scandinavia pays high income taxes, while a significant portion of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Anyone really concerned with gun violence would insist on long, mandatory gun enhancements in sentencing, often ignored in Blue cities and states.
Finally, oil and gas production has soared so much under Trump, the eventual end of the Iran War is likely to decrease oil prices and then inflation, quickly and dramatically. Trump's impending perpetual Impeachment and then retirement, will take even more air out of the Dem agenda. Perhaps what the Dem college educated really require are heavily stamped passports, and then new priorities, because while Reps have a bevy of issues likely cost them the House and Senate in Nov, most Rep problems have a fast approaching expiration date.
Good luck, the Democratic party has a lot of work to do. This train started leaving the station in the late 1960's even. And just keeps getting worse. Universities started the strong liberal woke indoctrinations back then and it really got bad with Obama. The Clinton/ Obama machine was terrible for the country.
Start fixing this in the universities or really get the universities back to what they should be, beckons of hope and ethical moral centers of learning. Now they are just network groups and resume builders for a job (and social causes platforms, Example: learn how to organize a sit in or riot??? What?). They used to be so much more and more important than just the buck $.
The university = The "New Religion" (religion of nihilism)
Maybe the next topic Ruy might take on is how the party can keep successful candidates from being abused by the party. Your description of an electable candidate sounds like Maine’s Jared Golden, who isn’t running for reelection. He has taken abuse for representing the values of his red district. It is one thing to get candidates elected, now maybe there is a plan to be nice to them in office.
You make a persuasive case for a different message. But what changes inside the party when the proposed working-class agenda conflicts with the interests or moral priorities of its most powerful college-educated donors, staff, advocacy groups, and local professional constituencies? If working-class voters do not gain real influence over candidate selection and policy, why should they believe the new rhetoric is anything more than a more culturally fluent sales pitch?
I guess if these pieces are trying to sell a better campaign vision for Democrat candidates, my first question would be, "So what policies, changes, and new programs, should I support?"
I get the popularity of messaging and sloganeering, but GOP candidates have been shoving the word "affordability" into their ads now too, so voters just hear the same thing over and over again without differentiation. They can achieve this with any slogan which isn't explicitly partisan, nullifying it utterly.
While two or six more years to build cold equity and then cash out may seem nice this election for those who view politics that way, what about the next elections for those not cashing out? Empty slogans that result in no change, or in the case of the shadow Biden administration, change toward vastly worse conditions, are how we ended up on the electoral cliff in the first place.
This is very simple. Democrats care more about illegal aliens than they do about American citizens. The will admit that openly. (And have). They also care more about the criminals than the victims. (*See Hamas, Tyler Robinson, Luigi Mangione, Linsay Clancy, etc.).
One strategy element that I didn't spot in the lists presented in this post concerns the political geography of the Democratic Party.
Republican campaign strategy makes maximal tactical use of picking out as *representative* targets those Democrats who are farthest from the mainstream on the political spectrum. For example, AOC is a popular bugbear in GOP talking points. The goal of a Big Tent strategy is not to gamble that electoral results will be better if the moderate wing grows and the left wing checks out: it is to, as much as possible, show responsiveness to the left and to moderates simultaneously, bringing both into the tent and keeping them there by developing and implementing policy that includes some but not all of their priorities while searching for compromises where possible.
I think the key to doing this is to be straightforward, using geography to represent what the Big Tent actually involves. AOC represents a very liberal constituency in NYC that supports basic party commitments and adopts specific policy priorities reflecting how those commitments are expressed in New York City. Andy Beshear represents a moderate constituency of Kentucky Democrats who share NY Democrats' commitment to basic party principles, but whose commitments are expressed through a different regional lens. Josh Shapiro, Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders, JB Pritzker, Pete Buttigieg, etc., can all be portrayed as expressing a chorus of Democratic voices in the American Big Tent party.
(In a recent comment on this blog I included a description of what seem to me the long term ideals that distinguish the Democratic Party, about which all its members generally agree, differing in emphasis and specifics (and, inevitably, reflecting my own priorities): "The Democratic Party needs to be a place within which debates about hot-button issues can happen in good faith among members who share a vision that has identified the Party since the late 19th century, emphasizing the regulation of capitalism to preserve its energy, ensure it benefits society broadly, and guard against its tolerance of creating harm; working towards a true equal opportunity society (not equal results, but meaningful effort to sustain some level playing field standards); safeguarding the rights of individuals against both discrimination and government intrusion, recognizing that in practice this involves negotiating numerous conflicting forces; and securing American interests abroad through skillful diplomacy that allows us the luxury of preventing military entanglements through alliances and soft power.")
Polls are generally seen as cheerleading and advertising by most folk I know.
The majority of conservative's I know don’t respond to polls. Polls are seen as structurally incorrect and run by folk who think that’s important to get the next job (assignment) and avoid disappointed clients.
Political pundits talk about the “college degree holder” as a class, a herd. Inaccurate. First there’s the age thing, then theres the employment thing and then the income thing. An increasing percentage of the college graduates group are unemployable or not economic hires. Lots more degrees in political “science” or middle european folkways than finance or chemistry or math etc. The folk who thought they were going to get their parents economic deal with a degree in Indian folk mores are not happy customers right now. Surveys based on college graduates opinions segregated by income level might not show that all college grads work for the DNC.
The oogly fact is that, given the debt loads, revenue streams and delays with real life experienced by an ever larger share of college degree holders, many are choosing to avoid that step and enjoying the experience. Parsing them non-college degree holders by income and/or age might also provide some worthy insight.
Thanks for this thorough-going analysis. I would be interested in your views of which candidates right now seem to be doing a good job of meeting the moment in the ways your analysis describes. Rob Sand is one, I would gather. I’d also be interested in your views of Sherrod Brown’s and Jon Ossoff’s approaches.
This summary observation I thought particularly helpful: “Second (and relatedly), most voters are not down-the-line partisans, and many are desperate for candidates who are either moderate or who espouse a desire to be problem-solvers and embrace bipartisanship.” Not the moderate part, as I never know what that actually means, but the problem-solver part. I don’t know whether you may have seen Jonah Wheeler’s recent campaign ad, but I thought he did a good job on that score.
PS: Thank you, too, for giving the definition you are using for “working class.” Very helpful to have that spelled out.
What a Joke! You better address the take over of the Democrat party by the jihad communist that is the Democrat party now! Try truth for a change! Your biases show through out your article! Geez people you don’t see the problems, America is in danger of being overthrown. That is not hyperbolic, it’s true! You forgot 9-11 these jihads didn’t forget “ death to America “ they mean it! You people are so shallow you won’t wake up till it’s too late! Save America vote Red or America is Dead.! Just like the Democrat party is! Truthfully the jihad communist have high jacked it! You better wake up stop being so blinded by your TDS! It’s not about Trump it’s about saving your America your Lives! There is NO Democrat party! They are the jihad communist democrats. Wake Up! Can’t you see it? NY? Michigan? , Calf? Pennsylvania? Chicago? Illinois? Virginia? Tx? How many of these places have cities completely taken over by the jihad communist Muslim brotherhood. Cair? Every mosque is their den to train and plan the death to America! Stop being so damn Stupid and blind! Speak the Truth!
Look, I don't disagree with any of this. But the hour is way later than you know, this ship has sailed years ago. Go read Thomas Franks' Listen, Liberal (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." -Chuck Schumer, 2016
Thanks to Pelosi's legacy, the Dems are just as hopelessly collaborators and servants to big money donors as the Republicans. The difference between the Pritzker and Trump families is more aesthetic than anything.
Hell, I remember very well being castigated as a "Bernie Bro" and basically slapped around by everyone in that dammed party for years and multiple rigged primaries before I left. NONE of the internal reforms or pivots to rebuild working class legitimacy has occurred. If anything, the party structurally has gotten even more deranged, rigged, and elitist. The Kamala campaign was the most elite-based campaign I've ever witnessed, entirely a firehose of corporate money sprayed across celebrity endorsements.
If the Dems gain any ground, it's because the Repubs eff up so massively the Dems can eat up the scraps for a cycle. But there is no appetite or desire in the party to do any of this stuff outside of performative aesthetics. Their long term outlook is grim.
Spot on concur Norris.
Like other commentators I don't disagree with these arguments, but don't find the DNC or party leadership changing so many positions believable either.
For me gun rights are critical: I live in a rural community and it could take awhile for police to arrive even in an emergency. I believe we need to uphold our constitution, including parts we may personally disagree with, so inventing unmentioned rights, like abortion, while restricting clearly mentioned rights like "the right to bear arms shall not be abridged" grates on me.
I'm not as sold on the contention moderation necessarily means crossing the aisle or compromising either however. Most of the Democratic "moderates" like Manchin were hopelessly corrupted by coal or other big polluting industries, or in bed with financial elites, as when Sinema, another former so-called "moderate," insisted on preserving tax loopholes for hedge fund managers. We need more of these moderates like we need a hole in the head.
The rest of this good advice, much as I agree with it, I don't expect the Democratic Party leadership to adopt: the party still supports do nothing elders like the 85 year old Clyburn, for no other reason than race. That won't change any time soon, even though many working class minorities (and the rest of us) would like it to happen.
College educated liberals are whacked in the eyes of the rest of the electorate; heck, I'm college educated and liberal and I find stuff like "Latinx" ridiculous.
What do you think actual hardworking Latinas want, an increase in the minimum wage, which the Biden administration didn't bother prioritizing (or getting done at all) or made up a gender neutral noun to use?
It's even more insulting to those of us who do speak Spanish because modern Castillano actually already has such a term, employing "e" as in "Latine" instead of the masculine "o" ending or the feminine "a."
Frankly the best result would be to demolish the whole party and its leadership and current adherents, and offer a new party, akin to the disappearance of the Whigs and the rise of the GOP in the mid-1800s. That's not likely to happen either though, so we'll muddle through as best we can with two hopelessly compromised political parties.
I think the advice in this essay sound, and unfortunately unlikely to be adopted. Sad, but true.
Good column and data. However, I think the fundamental challenge is that to appeal to working class voters, Dem candidates will need to stake out positions that alienate a good portion of their left leaning primary voters - who will subsequently not move them forward to the general.
I think this is an excellent collection of proposals and data to back them up. It's exactly the sort of thing I hope to see on the blog. I have other comments, but first I want to stress a single point alone:
If the goal of this blog is to persuade Democratic Party activists and their supporters to consider seriously the arguments presented here and change their strategies, the for Pete's sake please ditch the passive-aggressive phrasing: "Brahmin left." It is condescending and it implies that progressive activists are uniformly "nepo babies" asserting the privileged authority of their caste.
So much of the advice here is about persuasion through showing respect and looking for compromise, yet the authors of this blog undermine everything the blog tries to accomplish by writing as snarky opponent rather than as collegial representatives of a branch of the Democratic coalition, reaching out to persuade other branches. If you are serious in your devotion to contributing to the Democrats realigning their strategy while broadening their base, please leave behind expressions of resentment and disrespect of coalition partners who have a history of treating traditional liberals in that way. Their mistakes have created high barriers for Democratic success (both electoral and substantive); please don't adopt a version of the same mistakes.
Thanks for the feedback, Bob. I’ve always viewed “Brahmin left” as more of a descriptor for a population that shares a series of traits rather than a pejorative, though it’s obviously a group we often have serious disagreements with so I can see your point. Will take into consideration.
Much appreciated, Michael!
I second Bob's comment and appreciate your response. One of the things I've always valued about your analysis and commentary in particular is that you generally stay away from what I'd call "loaded" language and let the facts speak for themselves. It's also great, and another thing I've always appreciated about you, the way you take on board comments like this, explain your thinking, and adjust as seems appropriate.
Here is how we see things....a psychological perspective.
Study Maslow's Need Hierarchy.
1. Biological needs get met
2. Safety and Security
3. Love and Belongingness
4. Esteem Needs......self respect and appreciation
5. Self-Actualization: finding true fulfillment in life
Progressives live lives of comfort and security. For example, progressives live in low crime areas, so they can afford to defund police and will still be safe.
Democrats used to focus on the first two-three needs. Now they focus on the 4th and 5th.
They don't realize how much coming from a background of privilege colors their views of the world.
Trump: He went after 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. (in terms of #4, he told working class Americans that they are IMPORTANT! Progressives tell them they are stupid and lazy.
A good example is of Progressives' views on "Defending Democracy." That view is really in Need 4 or 5 for them. Meanwhile, who are the real people defending democracy? It's our soldiers and police. People on the right are far over represented in those professions. Giving their lives to defend democracy instead of marching in a parade.
Progressives will never win over working class folks (who, by the way, are our people)
And yet, prediction markets say Democrats will win big in the midterms. I believe Nate Silver is saying they'll even take back the Senate. Could it be that Democratic voters really do like the ultra-progressive positions you decry? (I'd be sad if that were so, but I fear you are just spitting into the wind.)
I’ve little doubt that Democrats are poised for a good midterm. But is that because voters’ perceptions of them have rebounded from their levels less than 2 years ago? Or is it because they are fed up with Trump and need an outlet to express that anger (which, in this case, is by casting a ballot for Democratic candidates)?
One key difference between today and 2006, the last time Dems won a midterm in year 6 of a Republican presidency: the party’s own favorability is deeply underwater. By contrast, they had a net-positive, double-digit approval 20 years ago, which portended good things heading into 2008.
This is why we spend so much time focusing on the places we feel Democrats are still coming up short: they’ve been fooled in the past into thinking that victory = voters endorsing their entire platform, and then they tend to do things that end up causing a backlash and emboldening Trump/Republicans.
I'm shocked that so many folks still live in the poll-based world of yesteryear. It's likely the Repubs will face some punishment for dropping the ball on the economy, unpopular wars, etc.. But the Dems are insanely unpopular and have no accomplishments or a vision to boast of. If they gain ground this cycle, it's as a sort of protest vote against crappy times, not an upwelling of love and support for what the Dem party is right now.
I'm here in the PNW and I'm pretty sure that Oregon is going to have a Republican governor for the first time in like 30 years.
No kidding? That would indeed be a sea change.
Dem priorities are fascinating. Thank you. The Dem college educated supposed concern with authoritarianism is very likely to disappear with Trump. When Biden purposefully dissolved the Southern Border and sought to end US fossil fuels, all while regulating everything from cars to water puddles, cooktops, school discipline and everything in between, the Left was not worried about a Strongman takeover. They cheered it.
The US already provides the LGBTQ community with equal rights, found only in the West and a sliver of the rest of the world. In many nations the college educated cheer, if being Gay does not invoke execution or prison, the community enjoys no protection from fellow citizens far more hostile to the LGBTQ community, than Americans have ever been. Lip service legal protections are of little use where gang raping Gay people "straight" is culturally acceptable.
Taxing the Rich? The most significant difference between the Scandinavian and US tax code is nearly everyone in Scandinavia pays high income taxes, while a significant portion of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Anyone really concerned with gun violence would insist on long, mandatory gun enhancements in sentencing, often ignored in Blue cities and states.
Finally, oil and gas production has soared so much under Trump, the eventual end of the Iran War is likely to decrease oil prices and then inflation, quickly and dramatically. Trump's impending perpetual Impeachment and then retirement, will take even more air out of the Dem agenda. Perhaps what the Dem college educated really require are heavily stamped passports, and then new priorities, because while Reps have a bevy of issues likely cost them the House and Senate in Nov, most Rep problems have a fast approaching expiration date.
Good luck, the Democratic party has a lot of work to do. This train started leaving the station in the late 1960's even. And just keeps getting worse. Universities started the strong liberal woke indoctrinations back then and it really got bad with Obama. The Clinton/ Obama machine was terrible for the country.
Start fixing this in the universities or really get the universities back to what they should be, beckons of hope and ethical moral centers of learning. Now they are just network groups and resume builders for a job (and social causes platforms, Example: learn how to organize a sit in or riot??? What?). They used to be so much more and more important than just the buck $.
The university = The "New Religion" (religion of nihilism)
Maybe the next topic Ruy might take on is how the party can keep successful candidates from being abused by the party. Your description of an electable candidate sounds like Maine’s Jared Golden, who isn’t running for reelection. He has taken abuse for representing the values of his red district. It is one thing to get candidates elected, now maybe there is a plan to be nice to them in office.
You make a persuasive case for a different message. But what changes inside the party when the proposed working-class agenda conflicts with the interests or moral priorities of its most powerful college-educated donors, staff, advocacy groups, and local professional constituencies? If working-class voters do not gain real influence over candidate selection and policy, why should they believe the new rhetoric is anything more than a more culturally fluent sales pitch?
I guess if these pieces are trying to sell a better campaign vision for Democrat candidates, my first question would be, "So what policies, changes, and new programs, should I support?"
I get the popularity of messaging and sloganeering, but GOP candidates have been shoving the word "affordability" into their ads now too, so voters just hear the same thing over and over again without differentiation. They can achieve this with any slogan which isn't explicitly partisan, nullifying it utterly.
While two or six more years to build cold equity and then cash out may seem nice this election for those who view politics that way, what about the next elections for those not cashing out? Empty slogans that result in no change, or in the case of the shadow Biden administration, change toward vastly worse conditions, are how we ended up on the electoral cliff in the first place.
This is very simple. Democrats care more about illegal aliens than they do about American citizens. The will admit that openly. (And have). They also care more about the criminals than the victims. (*See Hamas, Tyler Robinson, Luigi Mangione, Linsay Clancy, etc.).
One strategy element that I didn't spot in the lists presented in this post concerns the political geography of the Democratic Party.
Republican campaign strategy makes maximal tactical use of picking out as *representative* targets those Democrats who are farthest from the mainstream on the political spectrum. For example, AOC is a popular bugbear in GOP talking points. The goal of a Big Tent strategy is not to gamble that electoral results will be better if the moderate wing grows and the left wing checks out: it is to, as much as possible, show responsiveness to the left and to moderates simultaneously, bringing both into the tent and keeping them there by developing and implementing policy that includes some but not all of their priorities while searching for compromises where possible.
I think the key to doing this is to be straightforward, using geography to represent what the Big Tent actually involves. AOC represents a very liberal constituency in NYC that supports basic party commitments and adopts specific policy priorities reflecting how those commitments are expressed in New York City. Andy Beshear represents a moderate constituency of Kentucky Democrats who share NY Democrats' commitment to basic party principles, but whose commitments are expressed through a different regional lens. Josh Shapiro, Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders, JB Pritzker, Pete Buttigieg, etc., can all be portrayed as expressing a chorus of Democratic voices in the American Big Tent party.
(In a recent comment on this blog I included a description of what seem to me the long term ideals that distinguish the Democratic Party, about which all its members generally agree, differing in emphasis and specifics (and, inevitably, reflecting my own priorities): "The Democratic Party needs to be a place within which debates about hot-button issues can happen in good faith among members who share a vision that has identified the Party since the late 19th century, emphasizing the regulation of capitalism to preserve its energy, ensure it benefits society broadly, and guard against its tolerance of creating harm; working towards a true equal opportunity society (not equal results, but meaningful effort to sustain some level playing field standards); safeguarding the rights of individuals against both discrimination and government intrusion, recognizing that in practice this involves negotiating numerous conflicting forces; and securing American interests abroad through skillful diplomacy that allows us the luxury of preventing military entanglements through alliances and soft power.")
Several observations:
Polls are generally seen as cheerleading and advertising by most folk I know.
The majority of conservative's I know don’t respond to polls. Polls are seen as structurally incorrect and run by folk who think that’s important to get the next job (assignment) and avoid disappointed clients.
Political pundits talk about the “college degree holder” as a class, a herd. Inaccurate. First there’s the age thing, then theres the employment thing and then the income thing. An increasing percentage of the college graduates group are unemployable or not economic hires. Lots more degrees in political “science” or middle european folkways than finance or chemistry or math etc. The folk who thought they were going to get their parents economic deal with a degree in Indian folk mores are not happy customers right now. Surveys based on college graduates opinions segregated by income level might not show that all college grads work for the DNC.
The oogly fact is that, given the debt loads, revenue streams and delays with real life experienced by an ever larger share of college degree holders, many are choosing to avoid that step and enjoying the experience. Parsing them non-college degree holders by income and/or age might also provide some worthy insight.
Thanks for this thorough-going analysis. I would be interested in your views of which candidates right now seem to be doing a good job of meeting the moment in the ways your analysis describes. Rob Sand is one, I would gather. I’d also be interested in your views of Sherrod Brown’s and Jon Ossoff’s approaches.
This summary observation I thought particularly helpful: “Second (and relatedly), most voters are not down-the-line partisans, and many are desperate for candidates who are either moderate or who espouse a desire to be problem-solvers and embrace bipartisanship.” Not the moderate part, as I never know what that actually means, but the problem-solver part. I don’t know whether you may have seen Jonah Wheeler’s recent campaign ad, but I thought he did a good job on that score.
PS: Thank you, too, for giving the definition you are using for “working class.” Very helpful to have that spelled out.
What a Joke! You better address the take over of the Democrat party by the jihad communist that is the Democrat party now! Try truth for a change! Your biases show through out your article! Geez people you don’t see the problems, America is in danger of being overthrown. That is not hyperbolic, it’s true! You forgot 9-11 these jihads didn’t forget “ death to America “ they mean it! You people are so shallow you won’t wake up till it’s too late! Save America vote Red or America is Dead.! Just like the Democrat party is! Truthfully the jihad communist have high jacked it! You better wake up stop being so blinded by your TDS! It’s not about Trump it’s about saving your America your Lives! There is NO Democrat party! They are the jihad communist democrats. Wake Up! Can’t you see it? NY? Michigan? , Calf? Pennsylvania? Chicago? Illinois? Virginia? Tx? How many of these places have cities completely taken over by the jihad communist Muslim brotherhood. Cair? Every mosque is their den to train and plan the death to America! Stop being so damn Stupid and blind! Speak the Truth!