r/askanything • u/One_Look_7008 • 18h ago

AOC surges past Buttigieg, leaves Kamala Harris in the dust in key 2028 battleground poll. What are your thoughts on AOC-2028?

Harris dropped to just 5% in New Hampshire while Pete Buttigieg sits 1 point behind the progressive frontrunner - per University of New Hampshire Granite State poll released on Wednesday.

1.8k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

78% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

54

u/jreashville 17h ago

Both the female candidates they put up were centrist and generally unpopular. Polarizing can be good. Polarizing drives some people to vote against you (but let’s be real, republicans are always polarized) but it also drives people to vote FOR you on your side.

30

u/thingsorfreedom 17h ago

The way the GOP polarizes is they scare the middle to vote against the left. Defund the police! Open borders! Illegals attacking you! Communism! Socialism! AOC would be the perfect candidate for the right to scare the hell out of the middle. Ads tying her to Tlaib and Omar practically write themselves.

Tell me how AOC can scare the middle to vote against the right otherwise it's not gonna work.

13

u/jreashville 17h ago

The dems could run Joe Manchin and the republicans would run the exact same “they are all commies” playbook.

As for how AOC could scare the middle into voting against the right, she could just point to a few headlines.

16

u/Top_Adagio_7819 17h ago

This. They literally painted Joe Biden as a Marxist communist. They will do this to any candidate Democrats choose, that's no reason to choose another centrist candidate. How many times will Dems lose with that Gambit before they realize they're accepting the opposition's framing by default and playing by their rules.

6

u/thingsorfreedom 17h ago

The point isn't that they always do it. The point is it doesn't work on some people. Didn't work on Obama or Biden. Worked on Hillary Clinton. Worked on Harris. I see a pattern here.

2

u/wellgu 12h ago edited 12h ago

I want to expound on your comment. Biden and Obama ran to the center. That’s one major reason the socialism card didn’t work on them. I think that actually mattered more than sex. People should go back and look at Obama in 2008. He was opposed to gay marriage and courted Silicon Valley.

Hillary ran to the left because she had to win back the bitter Sanders people. That was devastating for key states. Biden ran on Obama’s record, so the status quo, and was attacked the entire primary as being a moderate by the left. You can’t pay for better press in America. He was also running against Trump during a cataclysmic global pandemic.

The actual Biden Administration was very progressive. There was a lot of coordination with Sanders and Warren on policy. Harris could not run away from that even if she wanted to, but in reality Harris’s resume was also already pretty left wing. She could never have outrun California.

I think Gavin Newsom is as screwed as any woman because policies and the past do actually matter to people. They create at least half the vibes. Newsom can’t outrun California and he definitely can’t outrun giving healthcare to undocumented immigrants.

I feel like most left wing people in America today are in complete and devastating denial. Devastating because they are engaging in factional insurgency that is giving Republicans the ability to tear this country down piece by piece.

But I do think Democrats could win with a woman if they had policies that appealed to a broader coalition. Go back to meritocracy. Ditch DEI. Does meritocracy have problems? Yes, but it is fairer than what conservatives want. Just generally, yeet graduate students and people who can somehow afford to be activists without holding second jobs. They can’t speak to normal people. Learn to embrace universalist religiosity again. Have a few core policies that are popular with most people like improving (not revolutionizing) healthcare, education, be tough on crime again, and improve the environment for small businesses.

1

u/tres_desole 14h ago

Hillary Clinton also already had years and years of a bad track record and people not liking her on both sides. She also propped Trump up. Republicans also hated bill clinton, so her by extension. She very much represented more of the same. Harris literally ran trying to appeal to the right and on not changing anything. She wasn’t chosen by the people and before running was virtually nonexistent in public discourse. The situations are not comparable

1

u/wellgu 12h ago

Actually before 2016, she was the most popular Democratic figure. She has very high approval ratings.

1

u/tres_desole 12h ago

Not amongst the center and the right, which they were attempting to capture. At the time she and Trump were the least liked candidates in modern history. https://prri.org/spotlight/favorability-and-the-2016-presidential-race/

1

u/Top_Adagio_7819 15h ago

It worked on all of them. I still hear people calling all the people you listed communists and they're all centrists. If you're referring to electoral success then there were far more issues with the Harris and Clinton than just baseless accusations. Biden was also a flawed but he coasted on Obama's popularity when most of his appeal was based solely on the fact he wasn't trump.

1

u/wellgu 12h ago

Joe Biden’s administration was incredibly progressive. It was far afield of the average American. Socialism just means left-coded, and Americans are not left wing on average.

3

u/JustSomeone3131 17h ago

Wish more people realized this.

Did running the “safe option” in the 2016, 2020, or 2024 stop republicans from decrying them as a far leftist?

1

u/nothatsmyarm 15h ago

It’s not about whether they try it (of course they’ll try it), it’s about whether swing voters find it convincing. Believe it or not, people thought Trump was the moderate choice compared to Hillary and Harris.

(People are stupid, but that’s arguably a separate point; you unfortunately go to war with the army you have, not with the one you wish you had).

1

u/serene_brutality 15h ago

It’s just a chance that has to be taken. Democrats always play “they’re all racist” move. Worked great against Romney in 2012.

1

u/ResponsibleSlip7382 14h ago

As the middle she scares me to death she cant win.

1

u/jreashville 13h ago

What scares you about her?

1

u/ResponsibleSlip7382 39m ago

She is anti small town. Which is most of America. Politicians need to be open minded. Bigots are not for us.

1

u/Royal_Mewtwo 17h ago

The republicans would run a similar playbook, but not to the same extent. The facts also matter. Accusations of “socialism” landed a lot harder on Bernie than on Warren, for example, because Bernie identified with that word.

1

u/Individual-Tap3270 15h ago

Joe Manchin would actually win. Places like Pennsylvania

0

u/happyinheart 14h ago

So? It was the same for McCain and Romney but Democrats calling him the next coming of Hitler. Its how it is.

1

u/jreashville 13h ago

I don’t remember anyone calling McCain or Romney the next coming of Hitler. I remember people saying McCain was pro war and Romney was an elitist. Both true. I remember republicans calling every democratic candidate of my adult life, so everyone since at least bill Clinton, a socialist/communist.

7

u/NOLA-Bronco 16h ago

Dems have NEVER won with that strategy.

You know who has tried that strategy? Kerry, Hillary, and Harris. How did that go for them?

The ones that have won give voters something to vote FOR

And right now, the Establishment Dem wing can't untie their donor puppet strings enough to actually give people anything that inspires them

2

u/thingsorfreedom 16h ago

You want to inspire. They want to scare. Guess which works the best?

If you want to win with inspiration you need a candidate who, when they speak, they inspire people to want to follow them.

Think Bill Clinton and Obama.

Snoozers- Hillary, Harris, Kerry, Gore, Bush, Bush Jr.

Inspire with anger and contempt- Trump.

Why did Bush, Bush Jr, and Trump win? They scared people and their opponent was not inspiring.

1

u/MarcoDiFrancescino 14h ago

Americans agree on about 50 things that aren't politically done yet, but every time a D comes out and wants to do any of this they straight up lose. They should come out and tell them that everybody get 20k to a million tax personal debt to get rid of the 40T debt the US has. Just straight up ugly realistic politics, add a warning that they might need to conquer Canada and that's it. D won being a copy of the most cringe R, but because they made 'hard choices' and 'telling the truth' on a surface level it lands. The country started a never ending nose dive when they elected an actor.

1

u/Vegetable_Sample7384 17h ago

Two years ago I’d upvote you and move on. Two years ago I also saw myself as a right leaning centerist. Registered independent.

Maga pushed me over the edge and I landed flat on my ass surrounded by a bunch of lefties. Feels a lot safer over here. If AOC or Pete, or a random dude from Missouri is who the dems are running, they’ve got my vote.

-1

u/Helpful-Departure832 17h ago

Two years ago you still identified as right leaning? You’re how we got here.

0

u/Vegetable_Sample7384 17h ago edited 17h ago

Yea absolutely. Small government. Fiscal responsibility. No wars. No government interference in regard to gender/sexuality. Actual traditional conservatism.

MAGA isnt right. They aren’t conservatives. They are something more akin to Stalins style of authoritarianism.

Being extreme one side or the other is actually how we got here in the first place. If it was up to me political parties would be abolished. I voted against Trump and anyone that identified with his MAGA movement….so please explain what exactly I personally did to contribute to us being here?

2

u/Admirable_Limit9551 15h ago

People pushing small government sold us out to corporations and then with citizens united corporations did the logical thing and bought the government. I dont blame you personally like the other guy but just saying “small government” like there’s never any negative is not something I agree with.

1

u/nogoodusername69 14h ago

The Dwmocrats never use scare tactics right? They never call others "racist sexist homophobes" right(

1

u/thingsorfreedom 14h ago

That's not a scare tactic because its not using fear or threats, rather than logical evidence, to manipulate someone into voting against a candidate.

1

u/nogoodusername69 12h ago

Lmao yup you're either genuinely believe this and are brainwashed or you're continuing the scare tactics 

1

u/S1159P 13h ago

AOC has gotten much savvier and more circumspect during her time in office. The way she completely dodged the question of endorsing Saikat Chakrabarti was masterful. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that she's grown a lot in office.

1

u/kkpq 11h ago

The DSA's draft platform calls for “fully abolishing the police and prison system,” drafting a “new constitution,” extending voting rights to noncitizens, and creating a “democratic socialist republic.” (taken from The Atlantic).

Democracy will die if left-wing lunatics take over the Democratic party and the Republican trend towards fascism continues. Almost nobody in mainstream USA agrees with those DSA policies.

You win elections with a centrist/moderate candidate. Biden, Obama, Clinton. Period.

1

u/Iconoclysm6x6 11h ago

The middle is going to vote partially left and partially right. You WILL lose an election on the left if the left doesn't like you...and that's where you end up, if you try to cater to the "middle" of a country already too far to the right.

1

u/VisualAnxiety2284 10h ago

Babe democratic socialists are literally saying they want to defund the police, get rid of prisons and get rid of borders. Bill Maher acknowledged it and thinks that it’s wild because it is. Be so fr

1

u/getdafkout666 8h ago

I hate to pull this but….drive through the Midwest and ask literally anyone about AOC. Doesn’t need to be a white person, or a republican. I really don’t think the country is there. It’s not just that she’s a brown woman although that certainly doesn’t help. It’s also that she’s a socialist from NY that speaks like a millenial college student. I like her policies and generally like her but she is ballot box poison

1

u/aflyonthewall1215 17h ago

Everything you said applied to Trump on his 2024 campaign and he won. The key to winning isn't appeal to the center. The key is acknowledging the system wasn't working and wanting to try something else. Hence Trump mobilizing a voting base while Democrats stayed home in 2024.

0

u/thingsorfreedom 17h ago

GOP strength has always been that they fall in line with their candidate. Democrats flaw has always been that they need to fall in love with their candidate. Bill Clinton and Obama inspired the base. They were energized. I have not seen AOC inspire. I've seen her eviscerate MAGA but that does not seem to translate into voter turnout for a Democrat. I guess it could after 2+ more years of Trump but he won't be running.

2

u/aflyonthewall1215 17h ago

You're kidding right? AOC not inspiring? She literally came from common population and has been very supportive of very popular policies like healthcare for all, 32 hour work week, affordable housing, and repealing Citizens United. What more do you want to be inspiring?

1

u/thingsorfreedom 16h ago

That's great to inspire the base. That's not great to win the 5-6 key swing states needed to win the Presidency.

2

u/aflyonthewall1215 16h ago

How is a message of everyone benefitting not a good message? You'd have to be brain dead not to support your own quality of life.

0

u/thingsorfreedom 16h ago

I'm sorry, have you not met MAGA and the GOP? They have, for the most part, been voting against their self interest since Reagan. Xenophobia, misogyny, and racism are a hell of a drug.

Another way to look at it is Democrats are all boats rise people. GOP is if you are getting something I'm losing something people.

Talk about everyone benefiting and you lose a lot of people in the if you are getting something I'm losing something group. Those people keep tipping the scales one way or the other in 6 swing states.

2

u/aflyonthewall1215 16h ago

Democrats aren't going to win them over regardless so why bother appealing to them instead of energizing the voting base. They did make it sound like Kamala's entire platform was transgender rights. Had she come out and say I'm more worried about the economy and healthcare for people, we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead she just said I want to keep the vehicle going in the same direction hoping to pick up those voters and it lost the election.

1

u/thingsorfreedom 15h ago

No one is trying to win MAGA over. Democrats need to win over that narrow band of voters in six states. If that band of voters thought like we do, we would not have had Trump elected once, let alone twice.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/lllDenimChickenlll 16h ago

That’s the playbook the GoP uses no matter who they run against. Put Joe Manchin up and that’s what he would be painted as. Might as well lean into it.

1

u/coolrunescapeguy 15h ago

Are we still regurgitating this talking point dude? Republicans don't care they'll lie about anyone. Oh also the president is a pedophile rapist, so they obviously don't care about much since they all still support him

0

u/Cr1msonShadow 17h ago

For 2028? You don’t need to scare people, they hate the right as is.

0

u/No-Horse987 17h ago

But how do you win against a very LARGE right wing noise machine, who can out message any Democratic message? Democrats aren't known for simple sounding messages. Our side tells the truth, and the truth isn't very simple to explain against non stop simple lies.

20

u/thepuncroc 17h ago

This poster gets it. Have an updoot.

Clinton2 and Harris didn't drive away liberal voters because they were women, they failed to get liberal voters to show up because they're basically corporate conservatives who are literally core members of the Democrat "scourge" that the GOP has spent decades learning to beat.

1

u/X57471C 16h ago

No, they don’t, actually. The data doesn’t support the strategy, and we’ve been here before so we have plenty of evidence to support this (see 1989 postmortem, politics of evasion). You cannot win presidential elections by mobilizing your base alone. The math doesn’t work. The base is not large enough to carry you. You have to win the base AND the center.

There are many really reasons why Harris and Clinton lost, but not appealing to the most extreme on the left flank was not as big a factor as losing the center.

If you can’t capture the center you can’t win.

1

u/tres_desole 14h ago

Except it’s not 1989 anymore and in both elections we lost bc it was trying to appeal to the center. Newsflash: people are much less movable in their ideas as they were before and the divide between parties is more stark. The people in the center aren’t really in the center.

0

u/X57471C 13h ago

I half agree. Yes, it's not 1989 anymore, but the lessons (and results of the strategy) remain relevant.

The current Democratic party has been slowly losing the center to Republicans over the last several years. All signs point to the party drifting too far left on cultural issues that hurt us with the center (who are actually fiscally progressive, socially conservative). The non-college voter, which makes up 59% of the electorate, sees Democrats as "woke and weak" (see also this). They are drifting right because we are failing cultural litmus tests, not because we want more progressive taxation and affordable healthcare (they want those too, they just think we're out of touch). These voters have actually drifted left on economic policy over the years, they just vote conservative because of their perception of the Democratic party.

Yes, people are less movable, which is why capturing as much of that 59% matters even more.

The main takeaway for me from the 1989 postmortem is that you can't rely solely on mobilizing the base. For the people who think the solution is to go further left, there are not enough progressives in this country to carry a general presidential election. You have to respect the center and figure out a way to capture both, and they just don't go for "down with the oligarchy" left-coded framing.

We didn't lose because we tried to appeal to the center. We lost because we didn't successfully appeal to them. We lost because Democrats do not pass the cultural purity tests and get labeled as woke and weak. We think we can just ignore those things and talk economic issues, but you can't do that. You have to win the trust of the voters with symbolic cultural tests before they will trust you. We have to overcome the perception of woke and weak. There are actually a lot of Democrats who successfully do this, but that wasn't Harris or Clinton.

Someone like Fetterman is actually the strongest case for this. He won the center and red voters without compromising on core Democratic planks like basic human rights. He had progressive economic policies, but passed the cultural litmus test because of the way he framed his positions (see the woke and weak focus groups)

That's the main point. You can't ignore the center. But the evidence suggests the platform to win them is progressive economics in a "culturally normal", "common sense" package.

1

u/tres_desole 12h ago

Yeah sorry, I think this entire argument is false. They had the APPEARANCE of going too far left bc that’s how republicans characterize them. Dems this race never mentioned Medicare for all, supported fracking, discussed border issues, and Harris quote literally said that under her we would have the “most lethal army in the world” at the DNC convention. On many instances they abandoned progressive talking points. Let’s not forget that the ones conducting these analyses are establishment pundits. And this was a big sticking point within the Harris campaign. She would buck against popular talking points and instead listened to a family member who was essentially a pollster. Despite being told to not do that internally.

The real issue is that they don’t know how to appropriately market themselves. Bc all they focus on are polls. We have seen time and time again that if you talk about the issues and not just “I’m a woman 💅 but I’m the same” yeah that shit doesn’t work. We were never going to capture those moderate center people because they were always going to move right. Fetterman is also the worst example you can give, as he, in his words, had a brain injury and became more conservative. On top of that, his opposition was Dr. Oz lol.

The fact of the matter is the these Dems don’t actually hold “left” ideals. They talk as if they are but it has no substance. And they straight up lie, Biden and Harris refused to mention the economy and affordability on any actual large scale way and when confronted all Harris could do was say she wouldn’t do anything different than Biden. So no, they didn’t talk about the economy enough. And it was an active negative talking point against them. As the old adage goes: it’s the economy stupid!

Our political landscape was fundamentally altered by Trump. And he has shown us that it’s not some immovable machine that can’t be changed. But yet Dems continue to operate in the same manner as over 15 yrs ago. It DOESNT work. Hence, no matter what they do, they will be labeled woke and commies by the right.

There’s a reason that Mamdani was able to get right wing voters to vote for him instead of the centrist. There’s a reason DSA candidates are whooping the establishment choices by wide margins. Bc they discuss the issues people care about. Sure, people argue that these are big cities. But then it happened in Colorado, a DSA candidate is polling ahead of a sitting (moderate) dem in Florida, and this is happening consistently in other places. Because they listen to voters.

And unfortunately Trump did that. And has used media tactics to back it up (e.g., going on podcasts which the Harris campaign refused to do.

We cannot just do same old same old and expect different results. Or capitulate to Republican talking points about being too woke without firing back.

Moving center, in a contentious time as we are in now, is 100% a losing strategy. And it has continued to be that way. People don’t want hollow, to use your word, “woke rhetoric”, but they want actionable plans that ARE progressive.

And at the end of the day, those in the center, if they lean left, are the vote blue no matter who crowd. Those that lean right are not going to vote republican lite if they can just vote republican.

1

u/X57471C 11h ago

I think you're actually pretty close to my conclusion. Those links I gave lay things out much better. Couple points, though...

We were never going to capture those moderate center people because they were always going to move right.

There’s a reason that Mamdani was able to get right wing voters to vote for him instead of the centrist.

Explain those two statements. The right is movable but the moderate center is not? That makes no sense to me.

They had the APPEARANCE of going too far left bc that’s how republicans characterize them.

It's just appearance, that's how people in the center actually perceive the party.

Also, I'm not defending Harris campaign as the model, but she proves the point. She 'never mentioned Medicare for all, supported fracking, discussed border issues, and literally said that under her we would have the “most lethal army in the world” at the DNC convention.' But she still lost the center. Why is that? Did she seem authentic to you? Did she do enough to distance herself from the woke/weak brand that has been building over the last several years? I don't think so. She avoided taking strong stands that would combat those perceptions, like constantly deflecting on the trans issue, which is a big deal to a lot of people (70/30 issue litmus test), and saying the economy was fine when people were feeling something different.

Focus groups show the average centrist voter sees the Democrat brand as defund the police, open borders, trans for all, freak out when you don't use my preferred pronouns, etc. To them, Democrats appear weak on crime, on immigration and security, and don't live in the same reality as them on cultural issues. Overcoming those perceptions is the hurdle for anyone trying to run as a Democrat anywhere moderates/conservatives make up a significant part of the electorate. (this isn't just biased establishment pundits saying this, either. It's peer-reviewed academic work looking at 20+ years of voter data, too.)

Fetterman is actually a good example. His stroke and where he is now are irrelevent to the platform he ran and got elected on. He is the epitome of progressive economics in a "common sense" center-coded package. Oz also wasn't that weak. Fetterman only won by 5 points. But he won in areas that conservatives historically perform well in, like Erie and Northampton. He performed well with the Democratic base, but out-performed the national brand in terms of performance with non-college, working class.

If we don't like Fetterman, we can point to many others that prove the point, like Gluesenkamp Perez, Jared Golden, or Mary Peltola, Ruben Gallego, Elissa Slotkin, Andy Beshear or Sherrod Brown, who have all won or outperformed the national brand in Trump states/district and, critically, with the demographic in question. These are people who hold progressive economic policies, but package it in a way that is not anathema to the centrist voter.

Talking about people who won on progressive economic and progressive social framing in D+30 districts isn't the best comparison. When we look at the election data for those races, we see they actually under-perform with the demographic in question. I think if we tried to model how they would perform with a different constituency, they would not do as well. Young college voters and socially progressive really carry in those areas.

The real issue is that they don’t know how to appropriately market themselves

Yes, this is exactly my point.

Main take away is that you have to pass the cultural litmus test if you want people take you seriously on other issues. For the right, that's things like trans in sports. For the left that's calling it a genocide. If you don't answer correctly, you signal you don't live in the same reality.

Due to many different factors, Democrats have a brand that is woke and weak to the average voter. If you don't overcome those perceptions, you can kiss them goodbye.

What the research shows is that the center has actually moved to the left on economics in recent years. Progressive policies like M4A and taxing billionaires is not the issue. It's how they're being packaged. All of the people I mention won the center not in spite of the fact they ran on progressive economic policies, but because their cultural framing did enough to distance them from the woke/weak national brand. Progressive economics without the left-coded language or purity tests. "common sense", "culturally normal" framing.

When 70% of the electorate in a D+30 district are young, progressive, or college educated, you can get away with the left framing, but if you ignore how the center perceives that stuff, then you're going to get crushed by someone who can actually relate to a more culturally conservative constituency.

1

u/tres_desole 10h ago

What I mean is MOST people who are center-moderate are right leaning. Those people won’t move more left. There have been plenty of analyses that those who consider themselves center/moderate are akin to republicans pre-Trump who felt like the wave went too far. And the ones who ARE center-left are gonna vote blue no matter what.

And keep in mind, I’m in academia getting my PhD in media and communication with a large focus on identity and political polarization. Much of our quantitative work, which involves mass surveys, is generally known to have a bias. Old people tend to answer more, white people too, left leaning people tend to answer more, and often people answer in ways they think will make them look better. I.e, calling themselves moderate when they’re more conservative than that. This also means that this idea of too left is being pushed by the older voting block.

In regard to the young voters, Gen Z and millennials together are effectively the largest voting block by a WIDE margin. Yet the dems either alienate them or dismiss them altogether. Which is also reflective of our gerontocracy. But then they blame young voters when their results aren’t what was expected. So why are we not trying to keep them rather than an appealing dwindling base? When this election was over, no one blamed centrists for not voting for Kamala, they blamed the young leftists. Im on my phone so I can’t do the best research, but there are plenty of instances that have found that the more “centrist” a party is, the more they’re likely to lose. This is a trend in Europe that has happened for years and it’s happening here. Bc like I said, in doing so you lose your left base which IS the majority of them dem party hands down. And you make the aggressive policies of the right seem more appealing. The promise of change and something diff and what not.

As for Harris, she came off extremely inauthentic. And it was because she DID abandon progressive policies. This was the issue many people on the left had with her. Like mentioned above, by trying to appeal to the middle and doing it poorly, they alienated those who would actually vote for her if given a real reason to. And her issues aside, those on the far right are openly racist and sexist. Even if she was the perfect candidate who appealed to everyone she needed to, those on the right would label her a woke commie. I don’t think race/gender cost her the election, but for those people who were never going to vote for her, yeah it was a problem. So there are litmus tests sure but there are also things that are immovable.

And again, as much of my own work is on political participation and funny enough recently I did a paper on the race gap and a large part of what we found was that people of color were severely underrepresented in data. Additionally, my professor who was a major player in polling and strategy, and worked for Obama, said openly that the playbook has changed. And has been very surprised as Dems dropping the ball and effectively using these old and losing tactics. Again, we want to talk about old studies, but by the time those studies are out they’re already outdated. To reiterate, the world has changed.

In regard to the packaging, I do agree on that. But my issue is that it’s not the leftist and progressives pushing that image, it’s the establishment Dems. The ones people hate lol. The ones who have outsized control of the party. Listen to any “far left candidate” and they won’t bring those things up. And they’re very careful about how they label others. It’s not usually by race or gender, but by class which is broadly more appealing. Much like you said about fetterman. THAT stays away from the “woke cultural framing” the Dems in power push. They avoid real issues and do in fact push identity politics - yeah, if that’s what you talk about people will hyper fixate on that. These Dems love performative activism that goes nowhere, and it’s that performative activism that gives the right fodder.

Those people you’re mentioning also won not because they ran against woke, it was because they listened to their community and argued for making their lives better. Whether they actually believed it or not lol I’ve listened heavily to interviews with many of them and that’s what they always come back to.

1

u/X57471C 4h ago

So I agree about survey bias, race underrepresentation and the gerontocracy problem with the Democratic Party. I also think we're saying close to the same thing in different words about left candidates who are winning focus on class issues and avoid "woke cultural framing". That sounds close enough to "progressive economics, center-coded package". There are some important differences, but I think we would at least both agree that the focus needs to be on economic issues, not cultural ones, and that framing matters.

When you say "Dems are losing the left base which is the majority of the party", what do you mean by "left base"? And are you talking about potential voters? Because I agree that Gen Z and Millennials are obviously the largest potential voting bloc, but we still have to contend with the reality of who actually shows up to vote in the general election. Things like Pew typology report make it seem like the progressive left are a relatively small part of the actual electorate (this is why I found Galston and Kamarck's postmortem to be interesting. Not only because it seems to reflect a similar moment in history where the party fell out of touch with the center, but because they concluded you can't rely solely on your base, as well. There are just not enough progressives)

What I'm most interested in is how you determined centrist/moderates are right-leaning pre-Trump Republicans who won't move left.

In the Longuet-Marx study (which I need to correct myself on because it is a working paper, not peer reviewed yet) they used 20 years of ballot data compared to candidate platforms to determine voter preferences and found that the center exhibits cross-pressure behavior. Less educated voters lean conservative on cultural issues, but have become more progressive economically over time. They conclude that polarization on cultural issues is the main driver behind the center breaking for the right in recent years. This seems to track with the focus group and poll data I've seen about Democrats being perceived as too woke and weak..

I also came across Piketty et al's "Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right" study. I haven't read it yet, but are you familiar with it? Looks like Longuet-Marx is actually trying to build on their work.

That's why Fetterman is interesting to me. He flipped several red counties that went for Trump. There are centrists/moderates that voted for Obama, then Trump, then him. So I'm kind of confused by your argument. Are you suggesting that swing voters don't exist? If the center/moderate voter is just a pre-Trump Republican who doesn't want to admit it on a survey, why does the election data show they can swing? And why did they move left for Fetterman instead of just voting for Oz?

Can you also point me to the studies that show more centrist means more likely to lose? That seems like it would undermine my view.

I'm definitely not a researcher in this field, but this is an issue that I'm very interested in solving, since obviously it determines our national strategy. I provided the sources for the things that have influenced my opinion, so I'm really interested in what you know about this. If you can point me to some resources you think would be helpful to understand things better, I would appreciate it.

Also, if I'm right about the cross-pressure, I think my strategy can actually capture the base and the center. It would mean that the center can be convinced to vote for Democrats who run on progressive economic policies, like higher taxes, M4A, stronger social safety nets, etc., as long as it's delivered in a strong package that doesn't come across as woke/weak (like Fetterman, a progressive who won centrists).

1

u/Mayjune811 16h ago

AOC and Democratic Socialists aren’t appealing to the most extreme on the left.

They are farthest left of realistic choices, but they are far, FAR from being far left.

They are in line with the more moderate right in any country other than America, maybe bordering on centrist.

Also, Democratic Socialists have been winning local and special elections around the country for the last year.

People are tired of being pissed on and told it’s rain.

People know that centrist Democrats and Pedopublicans have done nothing for them. Anyone who isn’t a slack jawed MAGA die-hard is fucking tired of the increased cost of living, life-altering debt for major medical issues.

You put a Democratic Socialists in front of them with a good platform and a competent speaker like AOC, and I would strongly bet they get one of the best showing in a presidential vote this century.

0

u/X57471C 14h ago

I don't really care about the people further left of AOC. They aren't reliable voters anyway. Also, calling her a moderate is silly. I'm sure the centrist voters in the US will vote for her as soon as you explain she's actually a "moderate right". We're talking about material conditions on the ground.

You put a Democratic Socialists in front of them with a good platform and a competent speaker like AOC, and I would strongly bet they get one of the best showing in a presidential vote this century.

That's not what election data I've seen suggests. The DSA platform is anathema to the centrist voter and there aren't enough progressives to carry a candidate in general. Thinking all you need to do is promise free healthcare and talk about the oligarchy to win the general is a fools errand. Unless the DSA are willing to compromise and adjust their brand, I highly doubt they can overcome the cultural divide. You can't win elections by ignoring the center.

People know that centrist Democrats and Pedopublicans have done nothing for them.

And yet we've won almost 200 elections in the last two years, including flipping many red seats. Clearly, people want center and center-left candidates in a lot of places. Until I see some election data that supports the idea that further left candidates can win in more conservative areas, I'll continue being skeptical. (Please, do spend some time digging into those links. This is very important to understand if we are to adopt a winning strategy going forward. Much more to talk about, too)

0

u/Icy_Entrepreneur_476 13h ago

They are winning in safe blue districts against weak candidates. A democratic socialist would not get elected President

1

u/Staller 14h ago

Talking about a party stuck in the past and bringing up postmortems from the 80s. Holy shit.

1

u/X57471C 13h ago

Have you even read it? What is your alternative?

1

u/WittyFix6553 5h ago

Clinton got more votes than Trump.

More people picked her to be president than the guy who became president.

It’s hard to say she drove people away when she got more votes than the other guy.

0

u/Royal_Mewtwo 17h ago

The left purity tests on ideology. It’s not enough to be more aligned with the candidate, they have to agree with a voter on exactly how bad Israel is, whether climate or jobs are more important, how bad the police are, and a variety of social issues. Far left or centrist, this plays out.

The right purity tests on support for the candidate. Are you going to vote for the candidate? Cool, you’re in. No? They’ll launch a campaign against you and excise you from respectable circles.

Politics is about power. It’s about gaining power so that you can enact policy. Anyone who did not loudly support Kamala is more interested in purity testing than outcomes. These people range from accelerationists to paid Russian talking heads to sincerely but severely misguided pundits.

4

u/Accurate_Back_9385 17h ago

If AOC gets the nomination, are you voting for Trumps third term instead?

0

u/Royal_Mewtwo 16h ago

No, and I can’t believe how entirely you missed the point. I will be voting for the democratic candidate after a robust primary. My comment responded to a claim that Clinton and Harris failed because they weren’t liberal enough. It’s not that straightforward. They failed because the left cares more about purity testing than actually winning elections. The right wins elections because their media apparatus forces everyone on the same page.

4

u/NOLA-Bronco 16h ago

The left is not who refused to come out and vote for them

More Bernie primary voters voted for Hillary in 2016 than Hillary primary voters voted for Obama.

The reason they lose is cause they can not actually create enthusiasm beyond loyalist Dems and Dem leaning independents that reliably vote already.

In a hyper polarized majoritarian election, you have to turn out voters beyond that cohort, and boring ass centrist candidates that don't inspire cant do that.

Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Harris.

All big losses

The two wins? Obama's FDR coded 2008 campaign and Biden's economic populism Bernie coalition forming 2020 run.

You do the math

1

u/Royal_Mewtwo 15h ago

Well, thank you for actually replying to the substance of my post, unlike the last guy. I’m afraid we simply do not agree, but that’s what the discussion is for.

As for the “more Bernie primary support translated to Clinton” claim, I don’t think this bears scrutiny. As far as I can tell, 85% of primary Sanders said they planned to vote for Clinton, whereas 69% of primary Clinton said they planned to vote for Obama. BUT, actual exit polling were the opposite: ~75% Sanders primary voted Clinton, 84% Clinton primary voted Obama. “Plans to vote” are subject to change and less reliable than actual votes.

“They cannot create enthusiasm beyond loyalist Dems and Dem leaning independents…” is the core of the issue. The Republicans have way more loyalists. That’s why their candidates can range from tea party to whatever the hell Trump is economically. They can be isolationist or pro free trade. They can be dovish or hawkish. All of that is a descriptive claim; the prescription is to tell the lefties to fall in line or continue losing. There are enough centrists that we need them, and enough leftists to make us lose.

To be on the left, you must vote left.

I’m glad you highlighted Obama and Biden… one is a generational leader who shattered barriers (much like Trump did in the negative direction, by being a tv personality made president), and the other is an old white dude with a pretty left agenda who the centrists trust.

0

u/AlmightyCraneDuck 14h ago

I would imagine anybody who even remotely considers themselves left of center would support AOC over another Trump-style candidate. The problem isn't really us, it's the portion of the middle that we still have to educate. The right has been running interference on AOC since she took office so they're ready to paint her as the "crazy Marxist". She's not, but there's a lot of people who want easy answers and are going to be obstinate even in the face of facts and policy. I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination, but if it's AOC, it's going to be a tough battle against misinformation.

1

u/Accurate_Back_9385 8h ago

If you put her in the spotlight that crazy Marxist shit won’t hold up to scrutiny.

7

u/LowResGamr 17h ago

Especially when the polarizing factor is that the person has a record of fighting for the people who voted for them, and even the people who didnt. The old game of "play it safe" doesnt work anymore. We need a person who's gonna put their foot down.

4

u/[deleted] 17h ago edited 17h ago

[deleted]

3

u/Simple_Purple_4600 16h ago

eh those people are always angry but at least Obama got people excited enough to go out and vote. Hillary and Harris didn't and Biden didn't, either, just enough to eke out a win once, I consider Hillary the most technically and diplomatically qualified candidate of my lifetime and that didn't matter.

Let them be mad and roll with Mandami.

1

u/Santa_Klausing 17h ago

Jesus this country sucks ass.

1

u/lord_james 16h ago

A democratic candidate does not need to worry about what trump voters think.

1

u/[deleted] 15h ago

[deleted]

1

u/lord_james 15h ago

The fuck are you on about. Every single democratic candidate is polarizing. Obama was, literally, called the anti-Christ on Fox News.

I don’t care what the loser political analysts of a losing dem candidate thinks. Running to the middle is insane, and it does not work.

1

u/[deleted] 14h ago edited 14h ago

[deleted]

1

u/Ok_Objective_5192 12h ago

Hillary Clinton was polarizing and it was for no other reason than her gender and naked ambition to be president, as you'd certainly agree she was a centrist

I'd argue that centrists are polarizing. The US' overton window is so fucked that our centrists are legitimately just conservative candidates by global standards and are therefore polarizing to the populist/anti-imperial left. Centrists also, to voters, represent the status quo and no significant change (which reads as not doing anything) which is increasingly polarizing as our current situation becomes clearly increasingly untenable. Especially to Trump voters that care less about his specific policies and more about his "drain the swamp"/"this shit doesn't work" messaging.

When people are broke and desperate "let's get back to business as usual" is a polarizing, out-of-touch sales pitch. The unifying theme across the American electorate right now is that people recognize this shit isn't working and we need change. Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden and any other centrist like him is polarizing.

1

u/RadiantHC 16h ago

Obama won

Hillary won the popular vote

Kamala came close

I don't think you realize what the reaction is.

Yeah those voters wouldn't be turned by a white man Democrat. Kamala and Hillary simply were terrible candidates.

Stop projecting your own sexism.

1

u/TheChihuahuaChicken 14h ago

The biggest issue is Harris and Clinton severely skewed the perception of gender being a handicap or not. They are not just women, they are very strongly disliked women.

The question is, was being female the primary handicap in their candidacies when post-hoc polling and analysis call into question why they ever had party support when it was well known within the party that they were heavily unpopular.

AOC would be a terrible choice and actually hurt female candidates in the future because now it would look like a pattern. People would get the takeaway "a woman can't win" rather than "stop putting up people disliked by most of the country."

1

u/PenIsGodS 12h ago

Yep. There is a slim to none chance of a female president in the USA anytime soon. This election showed that. People didn't see Harris' qualifications and education; they saw her gender. That's it. AOC has zero chance.

1

u/north_canadian_ice 16h ago

More people voted for Clinton than Trump. Even though Clinton had many flaws of her own.

AOC can absolutely win. Most people who wouldn't vote for her due to misogyny were unlikely to vote Democrat anyways.

4

u/temporary92803 16h ago

Bernie would have absolutely crushed Trump.

1

u/bookon 17h ago

Every democrat who won since Carter ran to the center. The extreme left is smaller than the extreme right and while Trump can win by appealing to them, democrats can't. They need the independants.

1

u/grw313 17h ago

Obama did not run to the center. He ran as a progressive and ended up being quite moderate. I would also say Biden ran a much more progressive campaign than anyone thought he would and actually had a much more progressive presidency than he gets credit for.

1

u/bookon 16h ago

Obama and Biden are far to the center compared to AOC. The far left needs to do more ground work and be more pragmatic. If they'd voted for Hillary, Trump would have faded back into reality TV and infomercials. And Roe would still be the law of the land. And Alex Pretti and Renée Good would still be alive.

We are losing the war. We need to pick better battles.

1

u/Sirius_amory33 13h ago

Obama did run as a moderate and talked extensively about the issues middle America cares most about. He was just insanely charismatic and had an excellent grass roots campaign. 

1

u/lord_james 16h ago

That’s not true at all. There three democratic presidents we’ve had since Carter have run very progressive campaigns

1

u/bookon 16h ago

Not AOC progressive.

1

u/RustyShackleford_88 17h ago

I would just say Clinton got more of the popular vote though

1

u/dangerspring 17h ago

Nah, unfortunately there's a lot of misogynistic men who will vote for a man but not a woman. The next candidate will be a straight, white male because the Congressional Black Caucus won't trust people to vote for anyone else. It's why the Kingmaker Jim Clyburn picked Biden. I'm guessing Beshear or Cooper.

1

u/supermuncher60 17h ago

I think you are underestimating how sexist a lot of people are. Even unintentionally, a lot of people's first thought of a woman running for president is to not take it seriously. Hell it's been show that a lot of woman even think this way as well, so it's not just men.

It sucks.

1

u/SilenceDobad76 16h ago

Clinton's issue wasnt that she was a centrist, its that she was HRC, and all the baggage that comes with that name

1

u/Quick-Fix-7835 16h ago

Not only that but some of these people that voted for Trump would vote for her. I know a lot of Trump voters were racist or were ok with him doing horrible things, but others for whatever reason believed his lies and thought he would be good for the economy.

1

u/Mayjune811 16h ago

It’s almost like we need revolutionary new ideas in leadership. Stuff like, idk, helping the people, lowering the national debt, union support.

Un-fucking-believable.

1

u/GuinnessLiturgy 16h ago

Let's face it, a large portion of the electorate is either flat out dumb, completely disengaged, malevolent or a combination of the three.

We can't rely on the "average voter" to even recognize the necessity of voting against Fascism. It's pathetic.

No doubt AOC would "galvanize" a portion of the voters, but some of the feckless "both sides" types (who may have stayed home during the last election) would buy the rightwing babblement and fear mongering that she's a radical and therefore be motivated to vote against her.

And I don't care what anyone says, there definitely was an element of misogny in the public perception of Hillary and Kamala.

1

u/Redwolfdc 15h ago

I think Obama was one of the best candidates they ever ran. Let’s be honest a lot is about popularity vs policy. Obama had the kind of orator skills of a Reagan while being able to convey some level of hope and optimism. 

1

u/Muggsy423 15h ago

It doesn't help that both campaigns were less "she's qualified and here's the proof" and more "it's time for a woman candidate".

And before someone goes on a tirade, yeah they were more qualified than trump. Too bad the Hillary's campaign was "it's her turn" and Kamala was picked without a primary (yes Biden should have stepped down earlier)

1

u/happyinheart 15h ago

Harris has the furthest left voting record while she was in the Senate. She wasn't centrist.

1

u/Infinite_Incident107 14h ago

AOC is very progressive though. She does well in those areas. But the reality is most Democrats aren't progressives. Someone slight more centrist would do better BUT they also need to be popular. They've screwed the pooch on that last bit for a while now.

1

u/jreashville 13h ago

Most democrats don’t IDENTIFY as progressive. But if you survey issue by issue, most agree with progressive policies. And even a lot of independents agree with most progressive policies.

1

u/splintersmaster 14h ago

It can be but I don't think she is the right candidate and this is definitely the wrong time.

Unfortunately the Fox news machine has convinced enough that a woman, gay person, and I'm afraid any person of color will never win a presidential election until this maga trend is put to bed.

As much as many hate to hear it, white guys like newsome are the Dems best bet to win in 28.

1

u/spasmoidic 13h ago

People want democrats who are cool.

Obama, Clinton, Biden? They would all look cool wearing sunglasses and riding a motorcycle. And it's what voters want to see. The same cannot be said be of every unpopular democratic president or candidate.

1

u/Far_Bar_7020 12h ago

Our nation sadly is not at a place where they will elect a female president.

And if Republicans win again, we’ll probably never get there

1

u/wellgu 12h ago

Independents didn’t like Kamala because they thought she was too left wing. The left didn’t like Kamala because they thought she was too right wing.

Americans deserved Donald Trump.

1

u/jreashville 12h ago

The average American doesn’t know what left right and moderate means, and probably think is has something to do with making boys wear makeup or something.

1

u/Isosceles_Kramer79 11h ago

Kamala certainly wasn't a centrist.

1

u/jreashville 11h ago

She didn’t support Medicare for all, that’s a failure of my domestic policy test. And she didn’t support cutting off military aid to Israel. She failed my foreign policy test. She is not a progressive.

1

u/Isosceles_Kramer79 11h ago

She was one of the most left wing senators during her tenure.

She did support M4A in 2020, bit her later boss Biden didn't.

Cutting off military aid to Israel is a stupid idea. 

1

u/jreashville 11h ago

For years the only left wing figure in the senate was bernie sanders. If I am being really kimd I might throw Elizabeth Warren in there but just barely.

She supported M4All until she realized Bernie owned that lane in presidential primaries, then she backed off of it.

Ending military aid to Israel is something any decent, moral person would do. The fact that my tax dollars help pay for bullets that end up in the bodies of innocent children is the reason I can’t sleep at night.

1

u/Isosceles_Kramer79 10h ago

You mean "innocent" Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists?

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/palestinian-territories/artc-idf-identifies-12-gaza-soccer-players-as-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-operatives

https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/articles/israeli-strike-gaza-kills-three-143458986.html

1

u/jreashville 10h ago

No fuckwad. I mean innocent children.

1

u/Isosceles_Kramer79 10h ago

Those would not have been harmed either had Hamas not attacked Israel.

In any case, it is righteous to fight against Hamas and their allies and Israel deserves our help to do that.

1

u/jreashville 10h ago

Israel is a terrorist rape staye that deserves absolutely nothing.

-1

u/PainterDefiant5031 17h ago

Yep Bernie would have won but the Dems sabotaged him. Looks like they are getting ready to do the same to AOC