Centrists say this is proof Sanders or Warren can't win. They're wrong

[BlueMTexpat]

For some, Corbyn’s defeat shows that the Democratic party should elect a moderate. But we should be careful about drawing that conclusion.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/sanders-warren-uk-elections

After summarizing some of the points made by those pushing the meme that it is only centrists who can win in the US, this article continues ...

...
But most importantly, all elections are still primarily national rather than global. The British election had its own, partly unique, issues and candidates. First and foremost, the election was about Brexit, an issue irrelevant to the US electorate. Also, Corbyn was an extremely controversial candidate. While very popular within the (new) party base, and among millennials, 61% of Brits had a negative opinion of Corbyn, which included particularly older white men, who vote in large numbers. This unpopularity was only partly related to his “hard left” platform; issues such as his weak stance against antisemitism and his non-position on Brexit didn’t help either. To be fair, Johnson isn’t popular either, but he is much less unpopular than Corbyn.
...
First, unpopular candidates can win elections – a lesson we should already have drawn in 2016. It doesn’t matter whether a majority of the population dislikes you, but that a majority of the voters likes you. Trump’s base might be small, but it is mobilized and united.

Second, internal divisions, over candidates and policies, will harm both support and turnout. While Corbyn has a pretty strong grip on the party membership, which is why he can probably stay on to oversee his own succession, he has been involved in an ongoing and public conflict with much of his parliamentary party. Moreover, the party was internally divided over key issues, most notably Brexit. This all meant that the Labour party contested the elections with an unclear profile. Given the divisions within the Democratic party, and the open animosity between donors and supporters of both “moderate” and “radical” candidates, there is a serious risk that this could harm the Democrats in 2020, too.

Third, the electoral system is key to any successful electoral campaign. Plurality systems are extremely disproportional. In Thursday’s election the Tories got one seat for every 38,304 votes, while Labour needed 50,649 votes for each seat – the numbers for the Liberal Democrats and Greens were 331,226 and 857,513, respectively. Moreover, Corbyn’s “dramatic” result last night was only 3% lower than the 35.2% that won Tony Blair his third election in 2005. The US system is even less democratic, given that the electoral college trumps the popular vote.

Fourth, and most importantly, campaigns matter. Yes, Labour had fantastic short videos, and an incredibly detailed and elaborate election manifesto, but its campaign missed a clear focus and target – obviously, in large part because Corbyn was unwilling to take a clear position on the key issue of the election. In sharp contrast, the Tories had a clear message (“Vote to deliver Brexit; vote to respect the referendum”), however problematic in reality, and spent much of their money on Facebook in the last week of the campaign, when many voters decide whether and who to vote. The Trump campaign has been spending millions of dollars on Facebook for the last year, pushing a very similar message – in the language of its leader, “DEMOCRATS WANT TO STEAL THE ELECTION”. ...

****
This is definitely worth a read.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Corbyn's Defeat Is a Warning Sign to the Left

https://prospect.org/world/corbyns-defeat-warning-sign-to-the-left-everywhere-uk-election/

For the left worldwide, Corbyn incarnated nearly all the dreams and hopes of the 1968 generation that went into politics in the 1970s and 1980s. His manifesto pledged massive state ownership of industries; workers sitting on the boards of companies; a big hike in the minimum wage; and free, publicly financed broadband, as well as new hospitals, schools, and nursing homes.

The manifesto looked back to 1945 and the great nationalizations of the postwar Labour government. But that is 70-year-old history and did not break through to voters.

______ snip ______

The U.K. makes its money from selling services—banking, pension funds, insurance, currency clearing, investment funds—from London to 27 EU markets. U.K. professional services like lawyers, management consultants, TV shows, university education, creative industries, and architectural and other services can operate freely at the moment.


______ snip ______

So as Johnson shapes Britain to become a Trump colony, how long before there is social anger? As he presides over the possible breakup of the United Kingdom and its four constituent nations, will this be acceptable?

[KPN]

11. Nah. This isn't about the 1968 generation at all.

The whole premise of this argument is way wide of the mark. It totally ignores the inescapable truth that we are an increasingly fascist society despite what society wants. Corbin isn’t the model for progressives in our primary — not in the least.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. What society wants

is consumerism, and they spend all they can make and borrow which winds up in the hands of powerful businesses who are, or feed, fascism. But the public by and large that makes up "society" doesn't make the connection and even if they did they would not curtail their material desires in the least, and they have not yet computed how to address income inequality in a politically growing platform.

[KPN]

31. What do you think the Democratic left is?

Ditto the WFP. And what about all those who support Bernie Sanders who are not registered Democrats?

If we discount positions, beliefs, values, etc., entirely because of inconsistencies then we can just discount everything. Not to mention you make vast assumptions. Do we have any reliable data on trade offs people would make between, say, flat panel tv screens and things like higher wages, cheaper obtainable health care, the ability to save for retirement or home ownership. Of course not.

[bucolic_frolic]

32. You vastly assume I know what you're talking about

And really, I can't follow your logic, and other than sewing doubt abd division, I see no point in your post. And yes we do have data. Americans' saving rate is now above 7%, and for decades it languished in the 3-5% range, so we are taking the economic situation more seriously relative to the diminished income streams we expect from diluted pensions, 401Ks, Medicare, and the uncertainty of Social Security.

[BlueMTexpat]

35. The UK election

Was primarily about Brexit. Corbyn failed that test.

[Demsrule86]

2. In order to win a general, we need a moderate for the states that are must win states...MI,

WI and PA. Sorry I think the fact that the right won in UK...is a sign that we will lose with either Sanders or Warren. It was a crushing defeat.

[Doremus]

6. How did the Dem moderate candidate do in those states in 2016? nt

[Demsrule86]

8. She was destroyed by the GOP ...had nothing to do with right or left...but her emails...

Biden can win...the others not so much.

[gab13by13]

10. Hard for me to understand,

the concept that is always out there in the M$M. Republicans continue to move to the right, way right, why is it logical that Democrats need to move to the right with them?

Sorry if this violates rules here but yes Russian propaganda brought down Hillary but I am convinced that Bernie would have won in 2016 without moving right. We haven't had a leftist president since FDR, maybe it's time to get back to our progressive roots?

I call myself an FDR Democrat and no one knows how to answer me.

[KPN]

13. +1!

Right on the mark. The reality is: same old same old isn’t a solution and is bound, as in the past, to fail.

[Demsrule86]

14. Bernie was never vetted and would have lost in 16 (general) and will lose in 20 as well. We

haven't had a leftist president because the country won't vote for one...FDR was not a leftist either when he ran...in fact he tried for a balanced budget in 37 and spiked unemployment...necessity is the mother of invention...he was elected in desperate circumstances and moved left...had he run on those policies...doubt he would have won...and Hoover had allowed folks to literally starve and sicked the army on WWI vets...Look at the states...there is no indication that there is any appetite for leftist policies...the pugs have more states and the senate too...I hate it but it is our reality.

[stopdiggin]

15. have a very hard time seeing Sanders win 2016

More to the point .. I simply don't believe Sanders wins WI, MI, PA.

[Demsrule86]

44. The country is center left. I don't believe Sanders would have won in 16.

And he won't win in 20 either. We are moving right as a country...horrible thing. But we have to win the 2020 election in order to change anything and put us on a better path.

[NYMinute]

41. In the GE, she was also tripped by the extreme left

Don't forget that Sirota, Nina Turner and Brihana Joy-Grey campaigned for and voted for Jill Stein.

Their feefees were hurt because Hillary kicked ass in the primaries so to spite her they riled up millennials and other like-minded people to vote for Trump or Stein.

[Demsrule86]

45. I will never forgive them for this. I despise Stein and all her minions.

[Gore1FL]

20. I've been hearing this since 1988. It's been tested a number of times.

It mostly fails. Yet, in 2008, we defied the "safe choice" argument and won 365 electoral votes.

Excitement wins elections, not centrism.

[Demsrule86]

27. No it hasn't and if there was an appetitie for the left...it would show up in the states and the

Senate...the left cost us 2000,2004...and the worst of all 2016. We would have had no war had Gore been elected or Kerry. And no Trump in 16.

[Gore1FL]

33. OK let's ignore every election for the past 40 years and pretend you are right. nt

[Demsrule86]

40. I am not ignoring past elections . We are winning with moderates and that is reality.

We have the house thanks to them. Why would it be different for a presidential election?

[Demsrule86]

43. And it only took a lame duck president with a 26 % approval rate and a failing economy.

We dont have those circumstances. And Obama ran as a moderate. It is how we win. Both Kerry and Gore were damaged in the primary by the left. And the same folks wanted to primary Obama in 12 after abandoning him in 10.

[Gore1FL]

46. The data doesn't back your claims. But feel free to make the same mistake over and over.

As a Recap:

Dukakis picked Bentsen to get the center and lost
Clinton was exciting
Gore ran from Clinton and Lost
Kerry was chosen over Dean to get the center and lost.
Obama was exciting
Clinton picked Kaine to get the center and lost

You believe whatever you want. It's a free country, after all. Just be aware the data doesn't back your claims. Trying to be GOP lite just doesn't cut it. I find it not dissimilar to Republicans clinging to trickle-down economic policies that have been proven not to work.

[TidalWave46]

3. It's a campaign narrative. Little more.

It works because of an already established narrative, Sanders isn’t electable.

If the election had gone the other way all we would be hearing about is that it’s proof we have to put Danders forward. It’s kind of interesting that my main problem with the argument either way isn’t actually to context, it’s the continual linkage of Sanders to Warren. There isn’t one way in which he tops her.

[NYMinute]

42. Only Sanders can lose worse than McGovern nt

[judeling]

4. We certainly should not over read the UK

at the same time we should not under read it also.
There has been a bit of a worldwide move away from straight progressive policies. While there are individual reasons in most cases the overall trend is there.

This is a reflection of the distrust in institutions and in particular government institutions that progressives rely upon. That is of course aided and abetted by the Right and corporations. What that will lead to is a massive backlash, but not in the near term.

The question is do we want to let it run and force the issue or try and mitigate the damage.

With the great challenges we face and the fact that that turmoil could result in even more of an authoritarian resolution I'm on the mitigation side right now.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

5. UK politics are hard to directly compare to.ours, but Corbyn's support

was weak because hes not 'left" enough. He's actually pro-Brexit.

[Gothmog]

7. Blowback from U.K. election burns Warren, Sanders

Link to tweet

“It’s a lesson for all Democrats who are eager to replace Trump,” said former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. “There was no skimping on the progressive agenda and it was the worst performance in two decades. It’s not just economics. You have to have a candidate and a message that’s close to the zeitgeist of the moment — not just a grab bag of giveaways.”

The thoroughness of Corbyn‘s thrashing revived the longstanding debate within the party over just how ambitious the Democratic agenda should be, and provided fresh ammunition for the arguments of moderates who contend that if the party backs Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, the primary’s leading progressives, they’ll lose the Rust Belt and perhaps even elsewhere.....

"Corbyn was basically a satellite project for Bernie world. If there is one lesson to be gleaned from the devastating loss across the pond, it's that we need more than just soaring rhetoric backed up by bravado of organizing,” said Murshed Zaheed, a Megaphone Strategies partner and former Harry Reid aide backing Warren. “We need to have leaders who have crystal-clear analysis of how to solve problems and leverage power to achieve those solutions. Corbyn never appeared to be a candidate with any sound plans on how to move U.K. forward.”

Before the polls closed on Thursday, Sanders’ national organizing director, Claire Sandberg, had tweeted that the “Bernie team says #VoteLabour” with a picture attached of campaign staff. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a top congressional ally who has campaigned with Sanders in Iowa, also tweeted in support of Labour. Two 2016 aides to Sanders, Becky Bond and Zack Malitz, had traveled to London earlier this year to help the pro-Corbyn group Momentum as well.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. Fear based speculation that omits critical facts

Such as Corbyn was highly unpopular, and the reports of thousands of micro targeted false Facebook ads by the Conservatives, lying with promises to build hundreds of new hospitals and create thousands of new nursing jobs, when the Conservative's platform stated it would barely maintain the status quo (and will likely move to privatize part or all of the NHS).

Biden's support is shallow in many areas, and, unfortunately, he is vulnerable to the smears being generated by the GOP, with more yet to come from Rudy.

All the top tier candidates can beat Trump, and don't have that vulnerability.

If the Dems take advice from Rahm Emmanuel, they will lose.

[stopdiggin]

19. "All the top tier candidates can beat Trump, and don't have that vulnerability."

Neither of these statements holds water. Polling doesn't show "all" of our top tier candidates beating Trump. National polls mean nothing .. you have to win the electoral college, and that means swing states. Period. And smears and vulnerabilities will be exploited, with absolute guarantee, against any eventual Democratic selection. Biden is not at all unique in that regard.

(back to the OP .. I do agree that this "warning to the left" should be taken with a big grain of salt. could mean a lot .. but it also might mean very little.)

[Demsrule86]

22. So not true...you have to be able to win the rust belt and Warren, Sanders won't end of story.

Only Biden can win.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. Last poll I saw showed Sanders beating Trump by more than Biden in 2/3 Rust Belt states

So there goes your fear based theory

[Demsrule86]

36. That is just not true...abd he doesn't do well with AA voters

We lose with Sanders...just like corbyn.

[Fiendish Thingy]

52. Latest polls show Biden losing support with AA voters in SC nt

[Demsrule86]

58. Polls show no such thing actually...

How about you post this poll and I will post 10 or 12 showing the opposite.

[Demsrule86]

39. Obama won now didnt he?

[Fiendish Thingy]

51. Obama was 20+ points behind Hillary in December 2007

There was lots of hand wringing and Pearl clutching here and in the media that he wasn't ready, America wasn't ready, he would lose in the general for sure.

Voters who choose a candidate primarily because of fear generated by early polling and media horse race coverage (this week's corporate media messages: "UK election means liberal Dem candidates are doomed", and "will impeachment doom Dems chances for WH?" ) are playing into the same trap laid by the GOP and the media for the past 50 years.

[Demsrule86]

59. There were only two candidates...and AA wanted to support him if he could win...and they like both

candidate...the Clinton had a relationship with Black voters...Warren, Sanders, Buttigeig don't have this.

[BlueMTexpat]

47. I very specifically agree

with your last statement!

[Gothmog]

53. Washington Post-It's easy to see how Trump can win reelection

Trump can easily win next year if the economy is strong. I strongly disagree with the concept that any candidate that the Democratic party nominates will easily win.

From Larry Sabato https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-economy-got-nixon-reagan-and-bush-reelected-it-could-do-it-for-trump-too/2019/04/23/b8920d34-65e6-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.a35b315730d2

Ultimately, Trump may turn out to be at the mercy of conventional factors. In 2016, academic predictive models based on fundamentals such as the state of the economy suggested that Trump, or any other Republican candidate, was in position to win the election or come very close. This time, such models (once they become operative next year) could make Trump the early favorite despite his poor approval ratings.

Credit the powers of incumbency and a strong economy, the state of which may matter more to Trump’s odds than nearly anything else. Incumbency and the economy, among other matters, ended up being more than enough for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Despite Trump’s unprecedented outlandishness, that same combination might work for him, too. [/d]

[LanternWaste]

57. Other than your own lens, what specifically leads you to allege fear?

Seems rather fearful to allege it where none exists.

But I'm certain you'll allege a rationalizations sans evidence to support it.

[Odoreida]

12. The UK election was about Brexit, not the whole Tory program.

Socialism in the UK is not historically tied to the EU or to continental Europe.

Once they are good and out of the EU, I seriously expect socialism to make a comeback.
And probably the Labour Party, maybe one of the other left wing parties.

[Demsrule86]

38. You are completely misreadinng this. Corbyn ran on

policy not brexit. The very progressive policies were rejected in the worst showing for labour since the thirties.

[oldsoftie]

17. Warren cant win because people dont like to be told "I know what you need, you dont"

When large numbers of people with insurance say they like their plans and they hear Warren repeatedly say "No one likes their current health plan", they bow up.
Not to mention the FACT that none of her revenue plans raise nearly enough money to fund all her proposed programs.

Trump should be easily beaten. But polls show its NOT going to be easy. And its not because of racism or Russians. Democrats HAVE to realize that & adjust to what changes the majority of the US will accept.

[emmaverybo]

54. What I don't like about Warren repeatedly contending that no one likes his or her plan is that

this insistence shows that either she didn’t do her homework or refuses to listen. Admittedly, many private plans are way too pricey and, unregulated, rip off consumers when they most need help.
She is right about their failures. On the other hand, many millions have affordable and high quality plans they feel they worked for, some carrying over with retirement, even quite early retirement, and then entirely benefits paid for—no deductible, low drug costs, 100 percent coverage,

A better argument then is to acknowledge that many have excellent plans, but that they can have equally good and thorough coverage for themselves without paying more in taxes, and that, in any case, their fellows deserve, as a right, as a public health matter, to have equally good care.

She and Bernie also need to concede that as in other countries offering universal healthcare, taxes will get raised, greater demand mean challenges to supply, all treatments, screenings, medications not necessarily offered. Wait times, especially in the first years of roll out, might be longer for some procedures and screenings, to see specialists, top-tier care in complex cases might mean going out of pocket.

Further, M4All will not be immediately or easily implemented. In the meantime, both Sanders and Warren should propose a plan to ensure as many as possible are still covered. They need to promise to protect Medicare, expand Medicaid, reverse Republican’s gutting Obamacare.

[Awsi Dooger]

18. I have no idea how anyone can set aside Gillum's 46% and Abrams' 42%

As in 46% of exit polling Floridians saying Gillum was too liberal for the state, and 42% of exit polling Georgians the same toward Abrams.

Those are not foreign elections. They are not in hard right states. Those are unfathomable numbers. I have never seen anything like it since studying political math beginning in 1992. Those numbers were attached to 2 of our nominees in a cycle with a heavy pro Democratic slant. We will not enjoy that type of slant again in 2020.

The socialism tag is mostly silent right now. That is hardly a coincidence. Republicans are saving it so it is not worn out. They will bombard our nominee with that word, no matter who it is.

They have a far easier time with Warren and obviously Sanders. I'm not saying it's impossible those two could win. But Trump would probably have to retreat to his late 2017 approval level in the high 30s. That simply is not likely to happen.

I would expect his approval number to bump toward the mid 40s once impeachment is concluded. The senate going last is a massive, massive, massive advantage for him. That is not being fully recognized by the public or media. It is like having the second political convention. The bump is always more decisive than estimated beforehand. Trump will control the dialog in the senate. It will be a shameless framing of what took place. Many Americans will emerge from the senate hearing believing Trump has been vindicated. He will shout and tweet that dozens of times every day. Witch hunt and wasted time and all the rest.

I am merely trying to prepare others for the inevitable. I have an excellent grasp toward projecting situational realities, since I'm not caught up in day to day specifics. Those who follow every detail have overwhelming tendency to get stuck in today.

Once Trump emerges from impeachment, we are running against an incumbent again. I say again only because somehow that reality has been ignored or downplayed. Nobody wants to treat Trump as true incumbent or recognize all the advantages of incumbency. Only those of us who don't pay attention to trivial day to day developments fully understood since November 2016 that we would be facing an incumbent in November 2020.

I already heard the argument here in Florida that nominating from the left with Gillum was incredibly wise. It was a bold move that would energize the base, as opposed to the blase moderates who lost against Rick Scott in 2010 and 2014. Meanwhile those moderates lost by razor thin margin as underdogs in midterm cycles that heavily favored the Republicans. Andrew Gillum blew a race a favorite in a cycle with heavy tilt toward Democrats. It should have been impossible to lose that race given the situational landscape yet someone from the Sanders wing accomplished it, and almost certainly took Bill Nelson down with him. Cubans were gullible to the socialism tag on Gillum and dumped on Nelson as well.

[Demsrule86]

37. You are exactly right which is why I am lukewarm about impeachment.

Sure Trump deserves it and more, but it may help him win four more years. Many are in denial. Not only could Trump win, he is likely to win as he is an incumbent. We must run our most electable candidate. And moderates are winning in places we need to win...that is our reality. I see no appetite for policies such as MFA, free college or what the GOP will brand as open borders.

[Thekaspervote]

21. Here are some eye popping numbers that say Dems are looking at the more centurist view

Voters are fairly clear about what they would like from a Democrat. They prefer, by 82% to 11%, one who promises to find common ground over one who promises to fight for a progressive agenda; and they prefer a moderate over a liberal, 75% to 19%.


They support Biden over the president, 38% to 27%, but prefer the president to Warren, 37% to 20%. Sanders is in between, with the president leading him, 34% to 32%. This group voted for Trump by a smaller margin in 2016, 37% to 30%, with the rest casting ballots for minor candidates.

NY/Sienna poll

The link with in the DU does not work but you can find it via internet search

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287336368#post2

[UniteFightBack]

23. Forget all that the proof is in the swing states ! Didya hear Biden is leading dump in

Texas.

Enough of all this....time to come round the person who will win by the largest margin IN THE SWING STATES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

And that person is Joe Biden.

[mjvpi]

24. Untapped votes are people under 35

They only vote in the 50% range. With everything so polarized, the numbers of swing voters is small compared to the number of young people who don’t vote. A candidate who can fire up young people about the future will win.

[LongtimeAZDem]

25. I have a lot of reasons why Sanders and Warren can't win, and none of them involve the UK

[AncientGeezer]

26. Yeah...no....I'm not going to take the Guardian as my source for..anything

[tberry65]

28. Welcome to America! (we're NOT British!)

The British are apparently stupid.

[LongtimeAZDem]

30. With a president like we elected, you might not want to throw stones

[BlueMTexpat]

50. See my response below.

[stonecutter357]

29. lol fail !

[BlueMTexpat]

48. lol, not!

[BlueMTexpat]

49. Having read through the

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2019, 09:07 PM - Edit history (1)

responses that I can see - some posters are apparently on my "Iggy" list and will stay there - it seems that most did not even read the article, but simply responded in ways that reflect their own biases.

That is their loss.

Having resided abroad for the most part for the past 25 years where I have been exposed to news that is not constantly US-centric, having taught university level comparative politics to international students for a spell after my "official" retirement from international organizations, and also having close UK friends who reside both inside and outside the UK, I find that this article is spot on. But after all, who am I compared to all the instant experts in the punditry and on DU?

Btw, one thing that came as somewhat of a shock to me when I was teaching the comparative politics course, almost NONE of my international students found the US system to their particular taste - and that was even BEFORE 45 got into office! Of the world's most prominent democracies, Germany's was favored the most. But some - not a small number - preferred systems like that in Singapore. https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/singapore/constitution-politics

I personally believe that if there is NOT a STRONG Democrat who wins the Presidency in 2020 and Dems do not control both houses of Congress, our entire political system will ultimately self-destruct - and "not with a bang but a whimper." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Men

[redqueen]

55. It seems that is usually the case.

Not just on DU but everywhere - which makes it that much easier for these media megacorps to influence rather than inform.

[BlueMTexpat]

56. ...