Run left in the primaries, move to the center in the GE

[redqueen]

I've seen this said countless times, but it was only recently that I started wondering - if this is what we expect, why is there a push to nominate someone moderate? So they can then move even more to the center in the GE?

Do Republicans gravitate around their most moderately right nominees or do they go for what they want?

Why shouldn't people vote for who they really want in the primaries, if it's understood the candidate will move more to the center in the GE anyway?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Because they'll have to explain the positions they took in the primaries.

If a candidate promotes unicorns for everybody in the primaries and is asked in the general how those unicorns will be paid for, he/she is in the awkward position of either admitting that taxes will have to increase, or backtracking and saying they weren't really promoting unicorns, just pretty horses. And then they will be called flip-floppers. So it's a whole lot easier for a so-called moderate because they can just stay where they were in the primaries.

[redqueen]

2. Well I don't think anyone is promising unicorns

I do think some candidates haven't sufficiently spelled out the MATH behind their ideas, but there's a big difference between giving more details / spinning ideas as more moderate and backpedaling.

[Chemisse]

3. Just because it is conventional wisdom doesn't mean it will happen.

Our most to-the-left candidates are quite zealous. I don't think they would shift centerward if nominated.

[redqueen]

4. An interesting point.

The most leftward candidates are both very experienced politicians, so surely they would understand the need to run differently in the GE vs the primaries, right?

[Chemisse]

10. It's possible but I am dubious.

Warren, for example, seems to think if she fights hard enough, her plans will win approval. Those kinds of comments, in addition to fierce opposition any tweaking of her plans, suggest a lack of flexibility and perhaps a lack of understanding that middle-of-the road voters may not agree, no matter how convincingly she presents herself.

Sanders might be amenable to modifying his plans for the GE; it's hard to tell with him, but he seems more political savvy.

[Teach-only-love]

23. Warren did not say how she would pay

for M4A because she plans to shift to a Medicare for all who want it plan. M4A is the goal to be achieved through natural market forces. Since there is no profit and minimal overhead built into M4A; commercial insurance can not compete with it and will disappear. Bingo, M4A has been achieved.

[Chemisse]

31. Why not say it now then?

Because that would be more attractive to many on the left as well.

I guess she can't allow any room on her left for Bernie.

[Teach-only-love]

32. This is the plan she will announce shortly.

After reevaluating the cost. In theory, she liked Bernie's program for M4A. However, after consulting with union leaders and being told how important benefits are to organizing efforts, she decided this was the way to go.

[DCofVA]

5. The most electable candidates stick to their principles through the primaries...

and the general election.

[redqueen]

6. Any data to back that up? nt

[DCofVA]

7. Barack Obama

[redqueen]

8. That's an anecdote, not data. nt

[NurseJackie]

17. So is the OP.

[redqueen]

18. LOL - it's literally not

thanks for the laugh though.

[NurseJackie]

26. LOL!

I've seen this said countless times,

Literally it is.

[boomer_wv]

20. It's not even true.

Obama made lots of shifts after winning the primary.

"Obama has been providing plenty of plastic for the flip-flop factories with the adjustments he’s been making as he retools his campaign for the general election. Under headlines like “in campaign, one man’s pragmatism is another’s flip-flopping,” the big papers have been assembling quite a list of matters on which the candidate has “changed his position,” including Iraq, abortion rights, federal aid to faith-based social services, capital punishment, gun control, public financing of campaigns, and wiretapping. Most of them are mere shifts of emphasis, some are marginal tweaks, and a few are either substantive or nonexistent. Let’s do a quick tour d’horizon."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/21/flip-flop-flap

[redqueen]

21. Yeah, I was pretty sure that was common knowledge,

but why even get into it?

When I perceive someone is less interested in facts than promoting a particular viewpoint I normally don't put much effort into engaging.

[Chemisse]

12. Most electable?

Most principled, perhaps. Most honest and forthright, I would say. But most electable?

Modifying one's positions to appeal to a different demographic increases the chances of being elected. That's why it's always done.

[HeartlandProgressive]

9. "Do Repubs gravitate around their most moderately right nominees or do they go for what they want?"

Excellent rhetorical question that highlights the point that Republicans go for what they want.

That is how they have successfully moved the national conversation further to the right year after year.

Compromising before negotiations even start is a sure way to get the short end of the stick, and that is what we Democrats have been doing on the issues.

[redqueen]

11. That is exactly how I see it.

We have weakened our support for what we want so often. This country is now so far to the right that Nixon is liberal.

Time to stop it, maybe?

[bluewater]

28. +1000

[Chemisse]

13. Giving in to the far right has led us to where we are right now.

Which is not a good place at all.

Of course there is no comparison between what is considered far left nowadays and the harsh, cruel tactics of the far right. But it is good to think of where the country is right now, and lead them gently leftward. They might just say 'no' to a good, hard yank.

[abqtommy]

14. The reTHUGS have destroyed the political center, just like thye destroy everything they touch.

There might be room in the political center for Independents these days but that doesn't give them anything. The REICH and Left on this country are polarized and there is no center since the reTHUGs shifted right leaving Democrats nothing to do but turn out the lights, figuratively, on the center.

Yeah, I read about "moderate Democrats" but they're supporting the right more than the left, IMHO.

[Amimnoch]

15. Like it actually matters either way..

If there was honesty in politics the only position that would matter when it comes to the vast majority of the issues would be:

“I support the Democratic Party’s platform, and will sign into law any bills that promotes that platform, and is supported by the majority of the Democratic party members in Congress.”

The vast majority of the “policies” that people are arguing over aren’t even within the authority or powers of the presidency, but will rest upon the shoulders of Congress to pass.

National policy,
Executive orders,
Foreign affairs,
And good appointments.

How the next president will repair our national image, repair the damaging unqualified appointments, treatment of immigrants.. you know, things that the POTUS actually has the power to effect..

[NurseJackie]

16. The only candidates who can do that are the ones who haven't painted themselves into a corner...

The only candidates who can do that are the ones who haven't painted themselves into a corner... by continually smearing, denigrating and lying about the Democratic party. Such a candidate would justifiably set themselves up as being a hypocrite if suddenly, that candidate is now moving to the center after having already called the Democratic party "feeble" or "corrupt" or "ideologically bankrupt". Nobody would believe the candidate who embraces the party when previously they described Democrats as being "no different than the GOP" and the "party of the elite".

All I'm saying is, some candidates might try to "move center" after being nominated... but other candidates would find that to be an impossible task to achieve and still be able to get votes. That's why I only support loyal Democrats.

[redqueen]

19. Yeah, that has almost nothing to do with the OP

you seem to be fixated on a couple of candidates, and hence are inferring messages about them into generic statements where none is intended.

[NurseJackie]

22. I'm providing a perfectly valid example that's entirely in keeping with the topic of your OP.

you seem to be fixated on a couple of candidates

I'm providing a perfectly valid example that's entirely in keeping with the topic of your OP. It was specifically related to your last question in which you asked:

Why shouldn't people vote for who they really want in the primaries, if it's understood the candidate will move more to the center in the GE anyway?

... and I explained WHY they shouldn't if their "preferred candidate" has painted themselves into a corner from which there can be no graceful (or believable) way to move back to the center.

Fixated, eh?

[Hortensis]

24. CENTER LEFT is where the vast majority of Democrats either are

or are near enough to in both directions to accept. All studies show that in various ways.

So I don't see the problem. This is a democracy, remember?

No matter how loud and angry members of small factions outside that range, right and left, get during the primaries, losing to the will of the majority of liberal progressive Democrats is not a perversion of representative government. It IS what representative has to mean.

The (most) people decide.

Those who can't accept that are much more fortunate than they ever realize. Majority liberals really want democracy to find answers that are as acceptable as possible for everyone. That's more than ideologues on our party fringes, or the Repub hard right, are willing to do.

[redqueen]

25. Right but my point is why do people push other dems to stop favoring their preferred candidates

and instead back more moderate voices, in a primary.

It makes no sense. At all.

[Hortensis]

27. I can only speak for myself. I feel a handful of candidates are

very unfit for the enormously important position of president of the United States.

Again and again I've stated my belief that it's critical to examine candidates records and histories, personal character, morals, and competence and make sure their campaign rhetoric matches what's been learned.

And of course believe truth, whatever it is. Exactly what we all feel Trump voters should have done.

That has absolutely nothing to do with urging anyone to support "moderate" liberal candidates.

[redqueen]

29. On that we agree.

The only sticking point is that people have different ideas about what is acceptable in a candidates' background, regarding decision-making, effectiveness, or experience.

My point was spurred by the (unsourced) claim recently posted that "moderates are terrified".

[Hortensis]

30. Ah. :) Yeah. Calling Democrats "moderates" identifies a propagandist

trying to deceive and splinter away those on the farther left by suggesting most mainstream Democrats are practically conservatives. The barrage of this specific lie from much of the wealthy-owned and wealthy-serving MSM, the Repubs-Russia, and shockingly from some who claim to share our values, was tragically successful for them all in 2016, so they all continue.

I get angry at them, but not at all confused by this old and evil strategy. Because I know who we are.

Just look at the Dems we elected to the house for an indication. Most of the 27 members in the little (out of 235) blue dog caucus could sloppily but fairly honestly be called plain old "moderate" because, though most identify conservative, they and their districts tend to be only moderately so and liberal on progressive social services issues specifically. Most vote with Repubs only roughly half the time or so. (A couple vote consistently very conservative. A handful, last year at least, voted heavily with moderate liberals.)

To the left of the conservative blue dog caucus, though, BOTH of our large ideological house caucuses, to which nearly 200 members belong (some identifying with both), are solidly liberal and progressive. One is a bit more hostile to business and committed to strong progressive actions than the other, but anyone claiming the other is "moderate" instead of "moderately liberal," or pairs them with the blue dogs, is self-identifying as a liar with an agenda.

[redqueen]

33. But isn't this the reason given for not going straight for single payer?

Because moderate Dems in Congress won't go for it?

[Hortensis]

34. Our liberals in congress ALL support universal healthcare. EVERY ONE.

Not just the strong liberals, but the moderate liberals as well.

It's not a fringe movement, it's mainstream. Our Democratic Party has been committed to universal healthcare for a very long time, literally decades.

The opposition is the Republican Party and the anti-taxation powers it serves. It used to be almost the entire conservative half of our nation. But now that RW voters have better healthcare they want more, a lot more.

Btw, "going straight to single payer" would be adding that option to the ACA quickly after we take power in 2021, instead of over the 7 years it would take to create a new program. (What if the Republicans took over in 2024 before it was in place?) So strictly speaking, the opposition to "going straight to single payer" also includes those on the left who don't want it added to the ACA.

Btw, back in 2010 before it was blocked, I had every intention of signing up immediately for the ACA's single payer option and was sure that over time by far most Americans would choose to get their healthcare through that. But we still will get single payer, whether quickly or delayed yet more years. Because now almost everyone wants it, even those on the right who don't know it.

:

[redqueen]

38. I said single-payer, though, not universal healthcare.

There are real reasons for categorizing democrats - we are not all the same.

We do have the same long-term goals, but the paths for how to get there vary, sometimes greatly.

[Hortensis]

40. Well, we would have single payer now if Hillary was president,

and as expected had brought a senatorial majority and at very least a strong house minority into office on her coattails. Right? America would be a very different place today.

So speaking of paths taken, all we can do is vote Democrat ourselves and hope that most of those who claim to want single payer but joined in the sabotage of the 2016 election now realize Republicans aren't just mostly Tweedledum to the Democrats' Tweedledee after all.

Hard lesson, but as long as it's learned we'll eventually be able to dig our nation out of this hole.

[Dem4Life1102]

35. Republicans/Conservatives tend to stay loyal

And will vote for their nominee even if that person is not 100% aligned with their views.

Democrats/Liberals don't do that. Many demand purity and will either stay home or vote 3rd party if the nominee is not liberal enough in their opinion.

[redqueen]

36. Seems like more of an argument to vote for what we want,

rather than give in to demands or scare tactics saying we had better nominate a moderate or we'll lose.

[Dem4Life1102]

37. Maybe

It all depends on swing voters in the end

[redqueen]

39. Indeed.

It's definitely smart to consider those voters.