I have had my share of disagreements on political analysis with Third Way over the past few months, but they have come out with a new memo, "Where is the Middle", on the 2010 races that is hard to argue with. Its message is that moderates and swing voters still matter in winning elections, and that we can't do well in the competitive 2010 elections without both appealing to the base and to those swing voters.
Like I said, tough to disagree with that. I do have some friends in progressive politics who believe that most elections can be won by focusing totally on registering and turning out Democratic base voters, but no matter how much money, effort, and message you focus on that goal, it is not enough to win most elections. The best example I know of is 2004, where the combination of America Coming Together, unions, ACORN, Project Vote, America Votes, many other non-profit groups, plus all the Democratic party campaigns and committees spent literally several hundred million dollars on black, Hispanic, youth, unmarried women, and other base Democratic groups' turnout. It was several times more than had ever been spent before on such efforts, turnout was very high with those demographic groups, and we still didn't win. We still needed a higher percentage of swing voters, we didn't get it, and we lost. Getting the base vote to turn out in higher numbers is just as important, but you have to win a solid percentage of the voters in the middle to win close races.
The key question the memo raises but then leaves unaddressed is how Democrats in a tough cycle can win over those folks in the middle. It is not an easy task, not with voters this cynical and disillusioned, not with the economy hurting this badly. And unfortunately, what passes for appealing to the middle in Washington, DC has no resemblance to what actually appeals to swing voters out there in the real world beyond the beltway. In Washington, being a moderate means being for raising the retirement age and cutting benefits for Social Security. In the rest of America, fighting to preserve Social Security is a huge plus for voters. In Washington, being a moderate means being for "free trade" deals. In the rest of America, working class swing voters hate the trade deals that they know are shipping their jobs overseas. In Washington, being a moderate means being for extending all of the Bush tax cuts even those for millionaires. In the rest of America, it is those working class swing voters who don't like those kinds of tax cuts.
Most of all, being a moderate in Washington means getting along nicely with all those corporate lobbyists who keep coming to see you (and dropping off checks). In the rest of America, swing voters and base voters are completely united that Washington is too controlled by wealthy and powerful special interests, and that their power needs to be rolled back. The polling numbers on strict new lobby reforms, on rolling back the Citizens United decision, on public financing so that candidates aren't dependent on special interests for campaign cash are incredibly strong. Voters are disgusted by the kind of business as usual described in this article from Roll Call. If Democratic candidates spent their time attacking that kind of special interest funding and the attack ads being generated by corporate cash, they would have swing as well as Democratic base vote standing up and cheering.
The brain-dead DC establishment still doesn't get this, of course. My favorite recent example was the hand-wringing by the "moderates" in DC over the appointment of Elizabeth Warren. Somehow the logic went that because progressives liked her, appointing her would be a political disaster with the middle. Dana Milbank, in one of his classic diatribes no doubt fed to him by a White House insider fearful of losing his influence, did a long piece full of nasty innuendo from unnamed sources about how Valerie Jarrett was leading the President to disaster, and his leading example was that Jarrett was one of the people in favor of the "politically radioactive" Warren getting her job. Having seen focus groups where working-class swing voters react to clips of Elizabeth talking about the financial industry, with them applauding and talking about how they would support her for President if she ran, I can assure Dana: you can stop worrying about Elizabeth's political radioactivity. Swing voters love her for the same reason progressives do: because she pulls no punches and takes on the powers that be. The only folks that she is radioactive with are the Wall Street execs and their friends in Congress.
Democrats need moderate swing voters to win elections: there is no doubt about that. The question is how best we get them. Some Democrats' theory is that they get them by distancing themselves from Obama and Pelosi, and perhaps a few Democrats from very conservative districts will survive by doing that. But what is clear to me from the polling and focus groups I am looking at is that instead democratic candidates should take on the causes that unite and motivate both Democratic base voters and swing voters: rolling back the power of corporate special interests, standing up to the big banks and energy and insurance industries, fighting the outsourcing of jobs. The path toward a winning electoral coalition in most swing districts and states is to reject Washington centrism and embrace the values of working families in the real America.
Read Paul Abrams post this morning on Democrats running on the issue of states setting up their own public health insurance options on their exchanges.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/how-democrats-could-sweep_b_753751.html
The Public Option was the most popular part of the health care insurance mandate bill and if it were set up by even one state, we would see how it would both work and be popular. The public option had wide support and was a "centrist" idea.
Do you think there is any chance some Democratic governor and state legislative candidates could run on it?
It could be a game changer in some cases.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm
Nice try.
It's a useless lable that helps to divide us. What is much more important is the will of the people. In spite of a relentless barrage of media disinformation, 70% are progressive by issue.
It's more important that people understand and support what is best for the common good than to waste time and energy searching for some mythical middle ground.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/obama-administration-congress_n_754062.html
Brown and Boxer are surging in California. Republicans are going to find out when they don't win the House or the Senate that the interests of the "middle" and the interests of their corporate campaign donors are not the same thing.
Compromise when forced to, not preemptively, save the nuance for the staff meetings, and for the gods sakes, buck up and don't keep whining about how it's complicated and all Bush's fault, anyhow.
A candidate that has these qualities has no problem getting elected in 80% of Congressional Districts across America. The American people want candidates that have true conviction about their responsibility to represent the American people not special interests groups. The American people would much rather vote for a Harry Truman or a Ronald Reagan than they would a Harry Reid or a other whimp candidate. If you want to win elections say what you believe and make sure the voters know that you believe in them and have their best interests in mind if they send you to Washington.
Thanks, Mike. Keep up the good work.
The reality is that most of those people simply don't have the time to think about, or interest in, political policy, and are just looking for someone straightforward and decisive with a simple message, which is pretty much the exact opposite of Centrism.
If we turn left, like the Democrats want, we will go down the road to greater government control, bigger and more powerful government, more government employees, higher taxes, less private sector jobs and more dependence, less individual responsibility, rewards for failure and punishment for successes.
If we turn right, we will see a growing private sector, individual responsibility, American ingenuity, innovation, hard work and a meritocracy. In the economy, taxes would be drastically reduced, controls and regulations on small businesses would be drastically limited, and human energy, enterprise, and markets set free to create and produce in exchanges that would benefit everyone and the mass of consumers.
Entrepreneurs would be free at last to compete, to develop, to create. The shackles of control should be lifted from land, labor, and capital alike. Personal freedom and civil liberty should be guaranteed against the depredations and tyranny of the government or the minions of the left.
The Dems are working hard to turn us left. It is every Americans’ duty to say "NO."
We turned right. What we got wasn't that soft focus view you just moonshined us with. We got debt based on unfinished wars and tax breaks to people who didn't need them. We got out of the way of business only to have them jump the curb and run over us. When we asked for aid. The ambulance came and took them away and left us on the road. Are you so blinded by your ideology that you forgot about the Bush era? DId you forget that the only other time we allowed the republicans to have both houses and the presidency was right before the great depression. Did you forget that the great recession started on Bush's watch. Does anyone on your side even bother to appeal to common sense, reason or our better nature? If you honestly believe ANY political movement will create the utopia you describe above then you are a gullibilly.
If the Democrats really want to win elections, the prescription is quite simple:
GIVE US SOMETHING TO BE ENTHUSED ABOUT. This doesn't mean pass an HCR bill that is arguably as beneficial to PhRMA and AHIP as it is to the public. This doesn't mean stalling the Warren appointment until it becomes symbolic only. This doesn't mean kvetching about DADT (which the President could effectively end with a stroke of his pen). This doesn't mean scapegoating Rahm (who is a slime, but still was only one man). This means GIVE US SOMETHING REAL. How about:
* Re-enact Glass-Steagall -- boom. Financial crisis solved. There, I fixed it.
* Repeal DADT (or at least immediately suspend actions against gay servicemen and women)
* Expand Medicare to younger folks (at cost) OR enact a public option OR revoke the insurers' antitrust exemptions OR back the FDA the f*** down from drug reimportation prosecution
* End Afghanistan and Iraq wars FOR REAL (not: issue a press release but keep 50,000 combat troops ad infinitum)
* Balance the budget by cutting, oh, say, DEFENSE SPENDING
* Back the f*** off of constant civil liberties encroachments and reassert the rule of law
ANY of these things, many of which are within the President's power as head of the Executive branch, would really get us enthused. But these would all p*** off the corporate sponsors, so... not holding my breath.
The right-wing has zero interest in doing ANYTHING but their own and that has been PROVEN by their ZERO votes for anything Obama and ZERO of Obama's agenda has been 'extreme liberal'
It is a joke
Liberals have worked for generations to move the country to the left. The founding principles are the center, not socialism.
The power and wisdom of American constitution is that it isn't left or right It's an extreme arrogance of the right to claim the Constitution as their property. In reality their "bible" is Ayn Rand's - Spencer's radical reactionary ideology.
What; you get to pretend the ACLU is doing something bad again? It takes a lot of willful ignorance just to get through the day anymore apparently.
When it was the Left going rather nuts in the 60's and 70's, those who opposed them spoke of a "Silent Majority." Perhaps it's time to resurrect the term - with slightly altered ownership.
Over 57% of Americans want out of our wars. That includes the middle. It's just math.
Over 60% of Americans support the repeal of DADT. That includes the middle. It's just math.
It's the catering to special interests in the NAME of centrism that's hurting Democrats. They don't care about the middle or the center of voters. They care about the corporate donations of the very few. Of insurers, military contractors, and extreme homophobes in the military. Those people aren't the middle. They're outliers.
Progressives taking a long honest look at the first stimulus and where 100's of millions of dollars were wasted would be helpful. Saying that "SPENDING will not come from a broad brush from the progressive caucus, but taxpayer money will be treated with respect" is a way.
Obama bringing people into his white house that have run major corporations would be a signal. Drop any talk of Amnesty, the DREAM ACT, etc without first dealing with the economy and the broken border would bring some back into the fold.
in other words, stop thinking that the middle will run back to you as you keep pushing every issue that is important to the progressive base. Where are you having trouble? PA, Ohio, Ill, obviously the south...you think keeping left will win them back? Good luck.
There is an assumption by many that 2012 is a given-that the President wins, loses seats in the mid-terms, and wins re-election...2012 won't be 2008. The GOP will be winning many important Governors races. Obama is not a given in OH, PA, FLA, and obviously Texas.
Think about it Mike. Obama needs a dose of the DLC way of thinking...Clintonism...because Obamaism (whatever that is) ain't working!