Let's be real: Far-left candidates were not the driving force behind the blue wave. Moderates were.

[LBM20]

Last edited Sat Nov 17, 2018, 08:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Folks this is just the fact, indisputable, and we all know it. Sure there were some far-left gains. But it was mostly won in the more moderate suburbs with more moderate candidates that could win in those purple-ish districts.

If we are going to be a viable NATIONAL party, we must be a large-tent party that can field candidates who fit their districts. And in this election, we did that.

In Maine, we have such a candidate who was able to win my district. A former combat marine who fits the more moderate to conservative northern Maine House district. And he is WAY better than the corrupt corporate toady RePUKE that he beat. So GOOD!

BUT, MAKE NO MISTAKE. Compared to RePUKEliCONS, they are ALL much more PROGRESSIVE! Progressive means PROGRESS.

And the RePUKES are the minions of their hero Donny Rotten. So any Dem is much better than ANY RePUKE. PERIOD!!

I would MUCH rather have Joe Manchin in there than ANY ReSCUMliCON.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Let's be clear: Any candidate to the left of Joseph Stalin contributed to the blue wave. nt

[LBM20]

11. Well, some would say Stalin was the ultra left. Hitler would be a better analogy. :-)

[Xipe Totec]

13. Both work.

Nothing leftist about Stalin, but I won't argue the point further.

[Small-Axe]

47. Huh?

[DBoon]

30. to the left of Attila the Hun

nt

[dem4decades]

2. Protecting health care and preexisting conditions won this election.

Are those far left or moderate positions?

[LBM20]

7. Both, but you needed the right messengers and there were other issues too. This is the plain fact.

[GulfCoast66]

14. They are Democratic positions!

[Sgent]

38. Moderate

Medicare for all is the leftist position.

[Hortensis]

42. The question is who the winning candidates were.

You're right of course that the goal is the same for both the far left and the mainstream.

But what we need to know to keep winning is that

* in a few districts far left candidates railing against Democrats were elected,
* in almost all blue districts strong but mainstream liberals were elected, and
* in conservative or purple districts candidates running as centrist mixes of liberalism and mild consrvatism won, not far left.

All candidates of course ran on progressive goals, though the last limited it to what appealed to local voters, always healthcare and other accepted programs of course.

It's important to note that, although the big mainstream Democratic group includes people who waved their fists for change and used some rhetoric similar to the far left's, they ran on the Democratic Party being the party who fight for democratic values and government of, by and for the people. They did not run against the Democratic Party as a problem to be conquered, but for the party as the solvers of the problems created by the Republican Party.

This is a huge, defining difference to keep in mind in 2020 as we storm those Republican fortresses that are weakened but still stand. It's the Republicans, stupid. Because it is.

[safeinOhio]

3. What were the winners in OC?

I’ll call them Blue Wave Reagan voters the newest group to swing a party. Most likely a wide group of middle to Progressive. The one thing they share, anti crazy trump.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. You missed the whole point of the o.p. didn't you? This has nothing to do with the DCCC & primaries.

The candidate must fit the district. What's so hard about that?

[Eric J in MN]

12. Primary voters should decide who fits their district without the DCCC.

I understood the OP. Praising moderates for defeating Republicans. My point is that many leftists never got that chance because of DCCC interference.

[George II]

16. You are 100% correct. PRIMARY voters should decide, not outsiders who fly in to campaign.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. That is such crap. You're continuing 2016 memes that caused the division we continue to suffer.

The only difference is that you're not blaming the DNC for this one, but the DCCC. Like I said, you missed the entire point of the o.p.

[yardwork]

43. What DCCC interference? What are you talking about?

[LBM20]

8. We DO NOT HAVE "RIGHT WING" candidates. That is hyperbolic nonsense. Cut it out.

[Eric J in MN]

10. I wrote 'more' right-wing. NT

NT

[George II]

17. Bazinga!

[blogslut]

5. I think voters were behind the blue wave

[LBM20]

9. And they had to vote for someone. And in many districts far left candidates would NEVER have won.

We needed people who fit the districts. In some cases it was people father to the left. In many, it was more moderate people. That's the plain fact.

[blogslut]

19. First of all, the words "far left" don't scare me.

Second of all, Joe Manchin's win margin was less than 4%.

Third, nobody is saying every single Democratic candidate should have a scary far left platform.

Maybe it's time to stop framing good, solid policies as far-left frights and get better candidates who can sell them.

[melman]

15. Used to be that the 'far left' was something talked about on the O'Reilly Factor

and you never would have seen such a phrase thrown around on a place like DU.

In recent times that's changed though. Kinda sad.

[George II]

18. Sad? Why? I don't think so. DU is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[Garrett78]

22. And it does us no good to feed that narrative.

What gets dismissed as "far left" is mainstream in much of the developed world. Some Twitter user who goes by Schooley made a spot-on observation: "The media is really excellent at treating popular progressive ideas as kind of wacky and unpopular conservative ones as the norm."

Even if one agrees with the OP's premise, the "far left" vs. moderate narrative does not serve us well.

[Judi Lynn]

26. Yes, that expression itself reeks of hostility toward progressive people. Democrats.

Some "Democrats" need to spend some time researching what intense changes have been wrought in this country behind Democratic thinking and effort. With a grasp of reality, a true foundation to work from, they would find it impossible to turn to primitive, ignorant accusatory words like "far left" to throw around.

Absolutely absurd, and disgusting to find that here, you are certainly right.

The message board was created, as expressed long ago, for Democrats, progressives, liberals, what's not to grasp?

Thank you.

[Awsi Dooger]

20. We can't afford to have 46% dismiss our candidate as too liberal

I know that much. This cycle is always going to sting as a Floridian. I thought Gillum ran a very good campaign but bottom line when 46% of the electorate rejects your ideology as too liberal then it was not a good pick. Maybe if we are playing to 300% instead of 100% it is okay.

The same question was asked about Abrams in the Georgia exit poll. She was listed as too liberal by 41%. Not great but 5% fewer is huge in a situation like that. At least Abrams had a positive net on that question. She was 49% "Just Right" to 41% Too Liberal." With Gillum it was a negative net of 3%, as in 43% saying "Just Right" and 46% "Too Liberal."

If Gillum had Abrams' numbers on that question, he would have won.

[JonLP24]

34. Could you link those poll numbers

Because when you originally did it said 46% said he was just right while 45% he wasn't.

If they were both white they probably could have won. That's what I'm coming across when trying to find the exit polls you mention.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Bill Nelson is white, and it looks like he won't win either, so your hypothesis doesn't quite....

hold up. My guess is vote suppression, amateurs acting as handwriting experts, a very confusing ballot in PBC, and outright cheating are more to blame.

[JonLP24]

40. I'm basing it on exit polls

Those that don't feel it is important to elect minority candidates overwhelmingly went to the Republican 87%.

[SunSeeker]

21. Exactly. It is how we flipped Orange County from red to blue.

Our winning Democratic candidate against Dana Rohrabacher is a former Republican.

[Blaukraut]

23. What did your candidate run on? What made his platform different from AOC's, for example? n/t

[Thekaspervote]

24. Oh thank you! A reasonable conclusion

[leftstreet]

25. WHOA. There were Communist and Anarcho-syndicalist candidates?

What states were they running in?

First I've heard of this

[onecaliberal]

27. If this "far left"

Healthcare
Social Security
Environment
Jobs
Equal rights
Voting rights
Minimum wage
Gun control
Free press
Nation of Laws, not men



These reflect my values, if that’s far left then I’m guilty.

[marylandblue]

28. What makes a Democrat a progressive vs. a moderate these days?

I looked at a few websites for "moderate" Democrats and they mostly looked pretty progressive to me. I think the biggest divide in the Democratic party right now is where you stand on "identity politics." (I don't mean that pejoratively). And at the moment it seems to come down to Nancy Pelosi: If you think people hate Pelosi because she is a woman, you are a progressive. If you think people hate Pelosi because she's been up there too long, you are a moderate. If you think people hate Pelosi because of the right-wing attack machine, you are a DUer.

After the leadership battle, we'll find other things to fight over, but I think one way or another it will come down to that identity politics thing.

[JHan]

37. I think it's only become a thing once non-white males and women demanded representation..

Because identity politics has always been a feature of our politics from inception. When white men thoroughly dominated the political arena, "identity" often featured highly in campaigns, from anti-catholicism, projecting masculinity to contrast with an opponent's perceived homosexuality, archetypes like the "Outsider" the "dude you can have a beer with", the "Log cabin and hard cider candidate", and channeling the "silent majority" - all identity based, and crafted to resonate as such. When non-whites and women entered the arena and demanded representation, the modern idea of "Identity Politics" arose. I'd even say identity politics has become a euphemism for civil rights.

I won't go into the dynamics of Pelosi's popularity and negatives and the connection with gender, however I think what complicates the discussion as well are the simplistic ways we define our politics.

The prism through which people are viewed - left, center left, center right right is no longer adequate when I think we need a more granular understanding of political movements to sort through undercurrents in our politics. Sometimes we recognize the tribes like "tea partiers" "federalists" and NeverTrumpers, TERfs (and many others), but in the past we were better at it - we had some great names: Northern democrats, Copperheads ,Mugwumps , Locofocos, Nullifiers, Barnburners, Goo-Goos, Recusants, The Irreconcilables , the Sons of the Wild Jackass etc etc etc.

Identity politics will always be with us, *especially* as more groups emerge and approach crafting politics drawn upon their experiences. Understanding how it operates in its modern incarnation is key.

[marylandblue]

45. You make some good points

But I am concerned lies with how identity politics can be used by elites to obscure class and economic inequality. And dividing ourselves into too many different identities can create social fragmentation which can lead to violent extremist movements, which is something we are seeing right now and will outlast Trump.

[JHan]

46. Yes, because the starting point is identity.

This is inevitable I feel because it often occurs to me we talk about identity (racism, sexism) in America the way other countries talk about class. This is the inexorable result of our history itself which was rooted in a racial caste system economically. A rising tide is important, and focus on economic justice is important, but a rising tide which continues to contain unfair disparities won't be good - which is where social justice becomes the medicine in the protection of groups by law.

But you are correct about the way identity is used because we begin with the Identity in question ( media practitioners particularly - and notoriously pundits) who make up the "elites". As for "elites" I'm wary of just calling out the elites as "elites", because complaints about the "elites" as some broad ill-defined group means those criticisms can be repurposed for more nefarious purposes e.g. like what Republicans often do when they criticize "elites", when they themselves buttress the sorts of elites which worry me on a daily. The elites that worry me know how to shape narratives to prevent transformational change. They've done this with climate change where they've portrayed climate change activists as yuppies and crunchy lefties who are unamerican and ( lol) elitist. So to be a real American, you gotta be a coal loving driver of a gas guzzling vehicle. That's just one example or many.

And it goes down the line ..... where mobilization and actual policy discourse are sidelined because identity - whether you're a white evangelical or whatever, becomes the defining thing, not the actual impact of econ policy and laws on your actual life on a daily. That's a risk too great to take for these "elites" because it ushers in accountability.

[Trenzalore]

29. Jim Jeffords (R) of VT would be far left at this point as defined by our opponents.

Some very progressive candidates made for some very competitive races in places they have never been competitive.

My congresswoman (she ran for both the seat and a special election to replace a retiring rep) ran as the most progressive candidate we have put up. She decidedly won in a seat the republicans have held since 1998.

If we talk about issues people care about (healthcare, fair wages, the environment) we tend to win. If we allow the debate to happen on their turf (immigration right now) we tend to lose regardless of how far left on the needle the candidate is on those issues.

[mjvpi]

31. Candidates ran on issues.imagine that. And they won.

Our country has started o break free from Reagan’s meme that the scariest thing that you can hear is that we are from the government and we are here to help.

Markets, our economic system, can create great wealth and innovation. Some things don’t work well in the free market system, like health care. The majority of American people are looking to our government to come up with fixes. Labels like “far left” and “socialism”are going to be thrown around by big money as we fulfill our mandate to create a health care system that works for everyone.

We won by talking solutions to problems. We Ill continue to win if we can legislate real solutions regardless of what labels the other side tres o put on us.

[mvd]

33. I don't think the blue wave was defined like that at all

Many of the winners are economic progressives. Donnelly, Heitkamp and McCaskill all lost. If the candidates supported a living wage, making health care and prescriptions affordable, protecting Social Security and Medicare, protecting choice and equal rights for all then I would say that is progressive. Many of the candidates did. There were exceptions like Max Rose, but I am a Bernie guy and am not that unhappy.

[JonLP24]

35. I like Heidi Heitkamp

She has a moral compass you don't see in a lot of politicians.

[customerserviceguy]

36. Agreed

I have not yet seen a congressional district that flipped from red to blue that did not involve a heavy presence of suburbanites. Let us remember, these people are fickle, and they flit from R to D and back again on a whim.

[octoberlib]

41. I don't think anybody on this forum

is stupid enough to think that we don’t need to win red districts with moderate/ right leaning candidates to take back the House . What IS objectionable is trying to sabotage the current , successful Speaker of The House . Moulton , especially has made some nasty remarks. Fuck that.

[retread]

44. What the hell is "far-left"??

[Small-Axe]

48. The divide isn't so much "moderate" vs "far-left"...but wheter candidates took the populist road...

or not.

The new OC Democratic House members range from Katie Porter, who is a protege of Elizabeth Warren, to Harley Houda, who positioned himself as a successful moderate-liberal businessman.

What they had in common was they spoke to the best in people and seem truly progressive (in the actual meaning of the term).

They all avoided going down the populist road. They did not stoke anger and resentment. They did not incite class warfare. They did not engage in demagoguery. They did not point to some groups as the scapegoats for all our nations problems.

Had they done so they'd have lost.

Instead, disaffected Republicans and inspired optimistic Democrats came out and changed the political landscape.

These are people who will make positive change.