Populism: Why can't we use it?

[ProfessorPlum]

Populism is a powerful way to win elections. It is basically telling people that you are going to help them. Trump used racism, but also a healthy dose of populism in his campaign, basically promising his idiot followers the moon.

Our establishment elite freak out about using populism, though. The reason why AOC seems to have everyone from Faux News to congresspeople riled up is that she wasn't afraid to use populism. She told/is telling people that she will try to do things that people would like from their government.

We need democratic politicians to embrace and use populism, both as a means to put the brakes on Trump, and as a way to improve things in this country. The government can end wage stagnation very quickly if they choose to. They can create medicare for all. They could regulate polluters. They can actually help fund higher education. They could create a much more progressive tax structure.

These are all things people would like. They would enjoy these things from their government.

Democrats (and this is just my opinion - I love this party and don't want to divide it, but I want to move it in a more progressive direction) as a group seem to be scared to talk the populist talk, and the reason seems to be that if they get elected on a populist platform, the people might expect changes to be made.

And corporate donors don't want those changes.

The key to winning elections from now until the eye can see into the future is right there. Promise people good things from their government, and then deliver, and then brag about it like crazy. Screw the corporate donors. They will have to live with a country where people are educated, healthy, not in poverty, and hopefully happier. Poor babies.

[beachbum bob]

1. why? Almost always framed incorrectly

and then the GOP twists it all around.

We can win on populism but it can't sound like every one is getting a "free lunch"

[ProfessorGAC]

5. But That Sold Didn't It

Health care better, cheaper and covers everyone was a complete lie, but a lot of people sank their teeth into it.

Mexico will pay for the wall. You, me and everyone here knew that wasn't going to happen, but it sold.

The "free lunch" thing isn't the problem, imo. The issue is we don't sell good ideas with a "for the people" bent. Then complete nonsense sells better. It's our sales approach that seems to be the issue.

[MrsCoffee]

7. It didn't sell, it stole.

Trump did NOT win shit. He didn’t sell shit.

He didn’t have a winning message. Neither did any of the Republicans. They conspired with an hostile foreign power to steal elections.

Most people hate Trump and his bullshit messaging.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Got Enough People To Buy It, To Make It Close Enough...

...to steal. Shouldn't have been close enough to steal that election. We, at the very least, failed to sell to the public that PINO was a constant liar and failure.

[JHan]

10. It's 2018. We've had 2 years to acquaint ourselves with the dynamics of 2016 and yet ..

this analysis exists.

I don't blame you, I blame pundits and the overarching theme of media narratives which exists in two modes for the most part: "dems in disarray" & "Dems don't have a message"

Pundits, who are (sometimes) former campaign message people or pollsters, love to push the idea of "messaging", and their ideas of "messaging" are empty non-substantive platitudes. It's the laziest take in the universe because there's no empirical way to test whether it is true or not. Every single loss is chalked up to "lack of message" even if a candidate just loses by a couple votes. If a candidate wins by a couple votes, then their "messaging" won. Lack of messaging is not the problem, it is how that messaging is received and whether it can pierce through the noise of competing narratives and very often that is outside of the control of Democratic candidates. When you have legacy media outlets legitimizing terrible takes and pushing bothsideism , the framing of issues become fucked.

Because God fucking forbid we look at how the GOP has gamed the system, from voter suppression to Gerrymandering. I guess those things aren't sexy enough to talk about.

When Ossoff lost it was the same nonsense about messaging. Jason Johnson at The Root then had to school some folks:

The Georgia 6th was drawn in a way to guarantee that a ham sandwich, a wet tablecloth, Team Rocket or a Margo Martindale clone will win any race so long as they have an “R” by their name. There was no “message” from Ossoff on how he was going to turn college-educated Republicans into Democratic special election voters. There is no cheat code to make up a 9 percent registration deficit that either Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or JFK could have come up with to change the election results. Privately, most Republicans in Atlanta will acknowledge that Ossoff ran about as flawless a campaign as possible, given the circumstances, but he couldn’t overcome the structure of the district.

.... ( Also special shout out to those who refused to vote in 2010)

[brer cat]

16. +1000

Also racist/bigoted campaigns can be populist campaigns and we have seen that succeed.

[JHan]

23. Yes, and Populists always need an enemy, because populism thrives on emotional angst.

Not facts, not even truth.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. That's Not What I Said

I didn't say we didn't have a message. I said we didn't sell it properly. Our message was clearly superior to the one that stole the election. But, it didn't sell. Otherwise, it would have been a landslide.

Gerrymandering doesn't help in a national election when the vote goes overwhelmingly one way. There was voter suppression and gerrymandering in 2012, and that election wasn't all that tight.

[JHan]

21. I also explained the noise surrounding the election and how our narratives become twisted..

policy was not the focus in 2016.

And you haven't explained how you would have fashioned a better message.

And you completely ignored how Russian propaganda influenced how people saw the Dem Candidate and by extension Democrats- in fact you ignored a couple other facts.

But hey you know.. "messaging". or whatever.

EDIT: And yeah, if you want Democrats to become more "populist" you have to factor in gerrymandering. Political power is not just about the Presidency.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Not Arguing That

And, if you don't think messaging with impact is just a phrase, please explain advertising.

[JHan]

30. never said messaging was not important.. it is simply overstated.

there are many factors in a loss and a win and "messaging" in this case is one of those reasons often overstated. It is the sort of thing pundits bang on about .. and I'll fess up here that my irritation in my comments to you aren't personal, I'm just tired of how pundits have messed up political discourse.

I'll give you examples:

Here's a challenge: Ed Gillespie had "Messaging" against Northam, he adopted Trump's rhetoric and went full batshit populist crazy and lost. Do you remember Northam's message off the top of your head? The Messaging Priests of Messageville mostly predicted a Gillespie win and were cautious Northam would win. I don't remember a single thing Northam said but he won.

What was the message Democrats used in 2006 to retake the house in a historic sweep? It was "together, we can do better"- judged to be the lamest slogan in the history of mankind. Yet, they took congress.

I'm not saying Messaging is not important, I'm saying it's given undue focus and attention when our Democracy is being killed in a million different ways by stealth.

[beachbum bob]

17. the problem with all of trumps lies was hillary should have looked at him in the eyes and pointed

her finger at him in any one of the debates and say "Donald, you nothing but a GODDAMN LIAR and thats why NO US BANK WILL EVER LOAN MONEY TO YOU and why you had to run to Russia. for all your money..

that mere statement would have given her a landslide victory and something democrats need to figure out how to do....its not about being "nice" any mnore

[ProfessorGAC]

18. I Wish She Had, Too

There isn't one person on this site who didn't know he was lying. Alas, playing nice doesn't seem to work.

[ehrnst]

2. So you think that "Democratic establishment elite" are afraid of "corporate donors"

What makes you think that?

I also think that many people confuse over-simplifying complex issues and promising the moon with "populism."

[NCTraveler]

3. Populism is a horrific canard deceptively used to win elections.

Throughout history, when looking at major positions, populists are more often than not absolutely horrific for the people. It’s little more than a gimmick.

Donald Trump is labeled a populist. As have a long list of others who lean toward fascism.

[Wounded Bear]

4. This...

Hitler was a populist. So was Mussolini. So was Chavez and Castro.

Populism is the most abused term in politics, historically. It generally leads to some kind of malignant authoritarianism.

[Fred Sanders]

13. The near fascist current Italian government is "populist"! Fucking media wordmasters are

asleep at the switch...neo-fascism is actually what it is and should be called.

The euphemism has lost any meaning we can or should use.

[ehrnst]

9. +1000

[George II]

6. The candidates who win are those who the people want.

How many "populist" Democratic candidates won last night running against? Apparently "embracing populism" didn't work.

The key to winning elections is getting more votes than one's opponent.

[ehrnst]

8. When a candidate doesn't think that the population has the smarts or education

to understand a more nuanced and honest message about the issues and actual possible solutions, I don't know how they could possibly be an actual champion of those people.

I think that "populist" candidates often have a similar world view as fundamentalist televangelists: when people start cheering them and giving them money, they become more convinced that they speak "the Truth," when they have actually found a great sales pitch for a certain part of the population. The problem comes only if people expect them to deliver the goods they promise - which can be offset if they can blame their lack of follow through on "the devil/establishment blocking them."

The current resident of the WH is one example from 2016.

[NurseJackie]

11. "The key to winning elections is getting more votes than one's opponent."

The key to winning elections is getting more votes than one's opponent.

Vermont-style politicians and Bronx-style campaigning don't play as well in the Midwest and in the "heartland" apparently. Of course we knew that already... but I guess it needed to be demonstrated again.

What I'm trying to say is that winning is always more important than losing, and half-a-loaf is more nourishing and filling than a plate full of pride and vanity being served-up for purity's sake.

[peggysue2]

12. Because populism is fraught with unintended consequences

Although I understand the temptation to fight fire with fire (a populist message), I do not think that was the factor pushing the Trumpster over the electoral college threshold. He had outside, foreign help and still lost the popular vote.

Populism and/or pie-the-sky politics often leads to mob rule and extreme policy directives that end up disastrous for everyone. History teaches that grim lesson. The Trumpster's 'Build a Wall' was a clear dog whistle that has now morphed into hideous immigration policies (no tolerance for POC) as well as child kidnapping and abuse. Now the Trumpster and the odious Miller are turning their attention to reduce legal immigration, the lifeblood of the country. This appeals only to the bigots, masking their prejudice in the American flag.

The Trumpster's/Republican messaging is in direct opposition to American values. Democrats do not need to reinvent the wheel to be successful. Instead, we need to embrace Democratic/American values--increased opportunity and access for everyone be it in the workplace, healthcare, education, etc. and insist on national security, as in stopping foreign intrusion into our domestic elections. To oppose that is UnAmerican, even traitorous.

Making unrealistic promises to the public only ensures more bad faith in effective government, something we need to staunch and turn the other way because good government works in behalf of all citizens, not simply the entitled few. The Trumpster and his acolytes are attempting to turn our basic institutions into the enemy. We need to push back hard on that effort and messaging.

There are some Americans we will simply never reach. We need to accept that. We need to target those who still believe in the country, in its core definition, and then--with their votes-- are willing to rein in an out-of-control Administration and a Republican Congress refusing to hold the line.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. I don't think it is pie-in-the-sky to return to New Deal policies that work

or providing healthcare the way the rest of the world does.

And we will _always_ have a conservative elite putting the brakes on things ("how will you pay for it" would be in everyone's mouths and ears).

So, I'm not too concerned about America suddenly doing too much for its citizens.

[MineralMan]

14. Populism is more than promising to "help" people.

Truly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

[wonkwest]

22. Populism is how Millennial political power is going to be expressed.

The Old Guard is quite against it. They keep thinking if they just do the same things they've always done, somehow they'll eventually win.

And you know what? In this cycle, that may just work. But it will work because Trump is such an unmitigated disaster. He's taking the Republican Party down with him (which is their own damn fault). But some will read into this as, "See? Toldja we didn't need to change!" This is a grave error.

I've been reading on this board and many other places, this constant stomping on progressivism, populism, and Millennial politics. How long can this feasibly go on? Instead of incorporating and including a generation that will soon come into its political power, we're met with sneering, bashing, hostility, and sometimes outright hatred.

This massive hatred of Ocasia-Cortez floors me. She is an early piece of the coming Democratic future.

But the hatred.

I realize a lot of this has to do with Sanders and 2016 wounds that have festered and apparently need constant picking at, but the Old Guard alienates Millennials at their peril. The party needs us. Don't slap us in the face and then bitch that they don't do what you want them to. It's counter-intuitive to human nature.

Millennials are so desperate that populism is coming with that generation, whether establishment types and their supporters like it or not. Fail to address the basic pain of an entire generation, and you make populism an inevitability.

The question for the next five to ten years is whether or not the Democratic Party embraces it in such a way that they can help inform, shape, and control the impulse, or if they resist and continue on with the hostility, leading to a much more volatile intra-party conflict in the not so distant future.

This seems like common sense to me. I think people are too wrapped up in personalities, in emotions, in partisan loyalty. I see very little thinking happening on this issue. I see a lot of reactionary impulses. This is not going to bode well for us. If it weren't for Trumps rolling apocalypse, we might've continued failing going forward. As it is now, I think we have good chances in this midterm and in 2020.

[JHan]

24. I'm a millennial and I cannot relate to any of this.

You'd be surprised how many others out there are like me..

Furthermore, generational arguments about preferences, even when it comes to politics are simplistic...

[wonkwest]

29. Let me just throw out a stat to bolster my point

In the 18-29 voting bloc in the 2016 primary, Sanders won that demographic 72% to Clinton's 28%. 67% of that demographic said the next president needed to be more liberal than Obama.

If you can't look at those kinds of numbers and not see a massive shift coming as they get older, I don't know what to tell you.

[JHan]

33. Actually as I recall it was 18-26... but I'll bite..

Last edited Wed Aug 8, 2018, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Edit: actually yeah, it was 18-29.

But anyway, please explain the philosophical and substantive difference between a 29 year old and a 30 year old please.. or a 31 year old.. there is none.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm pointing out the silliness of generational hot takes like that, which did not originate with you but with punditry guys. It's far better to look at other demographic markers ( income level, gender, ethnicity) than simply age. There is no singular millennial experience. I am a millennial and I did not support Sanders.

But I will grant you that there was antagonism towards Clinton by millennials who bought into Misinformation and dezinformatsiya which was rampant on social media. As an anecdote, some of my own friends changed their minds on Clinton when they realised they were duped.

[wonkwest]

38. Generalizations exist for a reason

No, Millennials are not a monolith. If you don't feel that way, you don't feel that way. I'm a gay man, and there are times I'm not entirely on board with where the general LGBT community is going on various issues.

But you can look at movement, patterns, a general direction of sentiment. Millennials are, in general, way more liberal than those who came before. The social justice movement is arriving in a way it hasn't in a generation. The economic strains of student debt, housing shortages, wage stagnation, and income inequality are coming to the fore in a way that many Boomers just never had to bother about at that age.

I did actually look the numbers up, and it was 18-29. I would love to see what 30-39 came out as, especially since the upper end of Millennials are well into their 30s as I am. I'm still paying off student debt. I'm fortunate that I work in tech, have my own place, health insurance, and am generally financially secure. But my 20s absolutely sucked despite having a decent job through them. And it's getting worse.

You're kind of promoting what I'm chafing against. This idea that Millennials were "duped" as you said. Not so much. There's this idea I see floated around here and other places all the time, "Well, if you don't feel as I do, it's Russian propaganda." It's such a reductionist way to easily dismiss contrary opinions and thoughts. It demoralizes people to be condescendingly dismissed in that way.

I did find an analysis of 44 and under from the primary here:

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/07/age-and-race-democratic-primary

Sanders comfortably won there as well. Not with the same lopsided margin as 18-29, but enough to know there is a leftward shift coming for the party.

[JHan]

40. Yes people were duped. folks get duped all the time.

Why you would chafe against this fact is beyond me, especially when I contextualize it in the way the Dem Nominee was slandered.

The point of propaganda is best explained in this quote:

"The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth."

And truth mattered for little in 2016. Unless you seriously think that dezimformatziya was not a factor in 2016, and if you think this you would be wrong.

And I repeat, it is far better to look at other demographic markers ( which I explained). There are cultural factors, income factors, ethnic and gender factors, a whole myriad of other markers far more useful. The idea of summarizing "generations" in this way came into vogue after WW 2. There was a baby boom, and someone decided hey let's call all this new babies "boomers", and someone else decided a generation gap would be 15-18 years give or take. It is completely made up.

But let's talk about the primary some more. Among African Americans, Sanders barely edged Clinton among "millennials" , that 72% figure drops to 52% among African Americans vs Clinton's 47%. And I can tell you that yes, propaganda played a HUGE part in it, we now know that Cambridge Analytica targeted young African American voters, they called it "voter suppression". I saw the impact of it, to dismiss this phenomenon is to be dangerously oblivious to dynamics threatening the health of democracies.

Edit: To tie this back in with the OP, the idea that because 72% ( in total) of those aged 18-29 supported Sanders in the primary means populism should be a thing is a reach, especially since such analysis is devoid of other dynamics at work in 2016. And.. I guess people above 29 don't count ( this is how meaningless it is)

[lapucelle]

51. You're assuming that the political philosophy of people remains static

over time.

Do you really think of people well into their 30's as millennials? How about someone who is 40?

Yes, I know that the "official" designation is anyone born from 1978-2004, but such broad brush categories lack nuance and are more problematic than helpful.

[George II]

56. Anyone who was 21+ will be out of that voting bloc by 2020.

[ProfessorPlum]

32. It surprised me too

I thought that we were all in favor of government that is better than what we have now.

[Hortensis]

25. Like playing with wildfire. Populist leaders are rabblerousers

by definition, trying to bring out and inflame the worst in people, while suppressing rationality and responsibility. The Republicans lost control of their populist movements, and if those ruthless bastards backed by almost limitless funds and a giant propaganda machine couldn't control what they started...

So hardly a surprise that populist leaders are naturally authoritarian and the types who should never be trusted with power. Successful ones typically betray their followers with secret goals and wreak destruction. Trump and Hitler are both examples.

True liberals are virtually never populist leaders, although many try to draw in populists and give them a more hopefully positive direction. Hillary tried, but her messages couldn't begin to compete with Trump's. Sanders's weaker populist appeal drew some away from Hillary, but he lost a bunch, including those famously resentful white working class men, to Trump's factory-whistle racism and misogyny.

Btw, I invite anyone to imagine Sanders managing to keep control the populist wave he's trying to start. I see him as operating well above his level of competence, and my question is who'd replace him with what goals?

[HopeAgain]

27. Shhhhh...we don't want to scare the moderates.

[Demsrule86]

62. You mean trying to help a candidate win a gubernatorial primary in Michigan who could never win

statewide? I don't call that populism, I call that political suicide.At least we have a shot now. We need a 50 state solution ...tailor candidates to their districts and states...that is the only time we are successful. AOC fits her district. This is why she won her primary that and low voter turnout. We are doing pretty well now ...if we move sharply left, we hurt our effort to take the house...the districts we are trying to win are mostly moderate districts...this is our reality.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Because in populism there is an us and a them

Liberalism at its best has only an us. For right wing populists the boogeymen are immigrants, people of color, lgtbtq people, et cetera. For left wing populists the boogeymen are the rich.

[ProfessorPlum]

34. As in real life

But really, isn't "healthcare for all", "education for all", "clean water for all" . . . the most "US" kind of policies?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Those are liberal not populist.

Almost every American politician who has embraced the populist label has been a right winger from George Wallace to Pat Buchanan to Sarah Palin To Donald Trump.

[ProfessorPlum]

37. FDR was accused of being a demogogue

of course. he was doing things that saved people's lives, at the expense of the elite. The New Deal was definitely and obviously populist. though you may be correct that he never embraced the term.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. He was accused of a lot of things but he was a liberal who saved capitalism from itself.

[ProfessorPlum]

41. I'd be more than happy to support that again.

regardless of the label

[George II]

42. Sure those are "US" policies, but....

....it's not "FREE healthcare for all" or "FREE education for all".

We keep hearing those terms thrown around and anyone who doesn't jump in 110% are criticized, but woe be to the person who asks the simple question "how are they funded, how to we pay for it?"

[peggysue2]

36. Yes!!

And that's one of the unintended consequences. For populism to get off the ground and thrive, it requires a boogieman, the monster under the bed to pit its righteous rant against. The rhetoric invariably ramps up and then things get dicey. And increasingly dangerous and unhinged.

[exboyfil]

31. I was thinking good old fashioned demagoguery

and not populism per se.

Wave the bloody shirt.

Some examples:

Feature the following groups of people when campaigning and in ads.

*Family members of those who died in Puerto Rico
*Sandy Hook family members accused of being crisis actors (especially good against Cruz in Texas given the Alex Jones situation)
*Find individuals suffering from mesothelioma to talk about GOP reintroducing asbestos into manufacturing

etc

Keep surrogates going out and hammering on these points.

[JHan]

43. It seems we've forgotten that the biggest populist movement in America was the KKK

"hooded populism" https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2702817.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ac7abe46871e5f62e278dd9120d711ee3

Populism does not exist within a solely economic framework . The argument the populist always make is one for "the people" and he gets to define who "the people" are and who "the elite" are.. The gag is the populist just wants to replace one set of elites for another - of his choosing. In 2016 the big concern was the "white working class", seen as the ones who are really hurting in America. Working class people of color were erased in the many columns written during and after the election. "white working class" became synonymous with "The people", once again the mythical blue-collar white worker was elevated, other groups merely an afterthought. Despite Trump losing the popular vote, Kremlin fuckery and GOP chicanery, Trump is STILL being written about as if he connected to "The people" even though the average Trump voter makes 75k. It's all a sham.

Populists must demonize, reformation is not their language. They always need an enemy and they get to decide who it is, and I ain't here for that.

[betsuni]

44. +1

[brer cat]

46. +10000 nt

[Hekate]

61. What you said, JHan

[VOX]

45. The term has been tainted by too many authoritarians.

Which is no more “populist” than Trumpists are true conservatives.

Too many wretched historical figures have claimed the mantle of populism. Per Merriam-Webster: “A member of a political party claiming to represent the common people.”

From there, it’s just a short step to claim, “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.”

[GulfCoast66]

47. Populism is nationalism in a different guise.

They have one thing in common. The problems we face are always the fault of some described group. Those can include but are not limited to:

Jews(perhaps the most common historically)
Blacks
Catholics
Italians
Irish
Millionaires and Billionaires
The Media elite(perhaps a sub-group of Jews)
Immigrants
Mexicans
Liberals
Atheists
Wall Street Fat cats(might also mean Jews)
Socialists
Unions
Muslims

Seems to me you are asking why we can’t emulate Trump just pick out different boogie men.

[Recursion]

48. Because it is always white supremacism dressed up as class consciousness

If you go in attempting to reform it, they either reject you or pull you in their direction like happened to George Wallace.

Populism is white resentment. That's not going to win Democrats elections.

[Oneironaut]

49. Because. imo, populism is a sham. It's exploitative and stupid.

Populism isn't just about offering people help. It's about exploiting a populace's greatest fears, dividing society into "us vs. them," and making promises you know you can't keep. It's a cheap form of gutter politics meant to get the votes of the ignorant and uninformed.

Populism and the Democratic Party's mission are mutually exclusive. We do not act as carnival barkers. I would not want to be in a party that stoops to that level.

[ProfessorPlum]

50. I think most of you are confusing

right wing populism, a la trump, which is racism, xenophobia, essentially fascism

with left wing populism, which is aimed at helping people who don't have money and power.


just my 2 centavos

[raging moderate]

54. Well, there was Henry Wallace, Roosevelt's last Vice President, right?

Henry Wallace was a left-wing populist, wasn't he? And there was Woody Guthrie, and there were others, too, back then. I get the feeling that left-wing populism was gaining some traction during the Great Depression. Many people were starving back then, including members of my family who went without food for a couple of days sometimes. There were children who starved to death in this country back then. And some of them were white children. And, for awhile, it seemed as though some working class white people wised up. Also, some wealthy people wised up and realized that they needed to just lift their feet a little because those were actual real people's necks they were standing on. And that other people would appreciate them for doing so.

[raging moderate]

58. Trump voters keep saying that Hillary Clinton had no plans.

Hillary Clinton did have plans, detailed and copious plans about everything. Furthermore, another DU OP today tells how the Heartland Institute just dominated a conference of climate-change deniers, in which they complained that many US companies are proceeding with climate-change abatement procedures advocated by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, "as if Donald Trump had not been elected President." So the heavyweights on the right do know that Clinton had plans. They have just succeeded in keeping their faithful Trump voters from learning about these plans. Apparently, a large segment of our population has been trained to listen only to extreme right-wing "news" organizations. They are responding to racist signals, both overt and subliminal.

[Gothmog]

52. Down Goes Socialism

This article in Politico Magazine really made me smile https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/08/democratic-socialism-sanders-ocasio-cortez-2018-primary-results-219161

The most glaring defeat came in Michigan’s gubernatorial primary. This is the state where Sanders defied the polls and edged out Hillary Clinton, raising hopes that he had a magic touch in the Rust Belt. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez tried to catapult the young and brash newcomer Abdul El-Sayed, who trailed in polls, endorsements and money to former state Senate Democratic leader Gretchen Whitmer. They could only nudge him up to second place, with 30 percent of the vote.

In fact, Clinton’s endorsement appeared to carry the most weight in Michigan. Her late robocall in support of Haley Stevens helped take Stevens from second place in polls to an election night victory in the suburban 11th District, a top Democratic target, while Fayrouz Saad, backed by Ocasio-Cortez, placed fourth. In two other House primaries in Michigan, candidates backed by the party’s official campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, coasted against supporters of Sanders’ signature Medicare for All proposal.

El-Sayed’s defeat may have been the most noticeable loss for Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, but the defeat of Brent Welder in Kansas is far more politically significant. Welder, a former Sanders 2016 campaign staffer, hoped to carry the Democratic banner in Kansas’ 3rd Congressional District. The largely urban district is a top party priority, one of a handful of Republican-held seats that Clinton won in 2016.

The Berniecrat left desperately wants to convince naysaying political veterans (and annoying political pundits) that a democratic socialist platform holds the ticket to victory in heartland districts like this one—so much so that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez gave a full-throated endorsement to Welder over another compelling and fairly liberal candidate in Sharice Davids.

The endorsement of Hillary Clinton carried a great deal more weight compared to the support of the Our Revolution group.

[ehrnst]

53. +1000. (nt)

[George II]

57. I'm beginning to think the support of Our Revolution does more harm than good.

They've been endorsing candidates for three years now. Each year their success rate has dropped.

[Gothmog]

60. Agreed-these two candidates opposed by Our Revolution are the face of the Democratic party

Link to tweet

[WhiskeyGrinder]

55. Because at its core it's inherently racist.

[ProfessorPlum]

59. WTF

[calimary]

63. Bookmarking for further study. This one I wanna take some time with.