I think progressives tend to overestimate their numbers. Maybe Millennials and Gen z are moving the needle a little further to the left, but I don’t think it’s as much as many progressives want to believe. There are many millions of Americans under 40 who are moderate, center right, or right wing. The US in general is further right than most other democracies, I would say. In fact, I think the US overall is center to center right. For this reason, I think it is generally a losing strategy for the Democrats to prioritize progressive policies, especially in the presidential election.
Most progressives live in deep blue states; states that are going to go for the Democrats regardless. Whereas, the states that matter, the swing states/purple states are much more moderate. Those are the states the Democrats have to focus on, because of how our election system works. For this reason alone, it makes more sense for Democrats to try and court moderates, at least in the presidential election. But, it’s probably true of Congress as well. I think moderate candidates do better in most states and congressional districts than progressive candidates.
It brings me no joy saying this. I’m politically left, I would estimate further left than the majority of Americans. I have been advocating for radical changes for years, but it’s mostly fallen on deaf ears, and some of my fellow Americans have been aggressively hostile to the ideas I’ve been advocating for. Americans, generally, like capitalism, they like class hierarchies, and hierarchies in general, because they believe that some people are just inherently superior to others, and that doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon.
There’s a theory called the Overton Window and Dems moving to the center has shifted this whole country to the right. We lost abortion rights because of it and our election integrity and voter access is at risk because of it.
If you want to look at a winning strategy that directly refutes your point look at FDR.
The Overton window is happening because 1/3 of the country doesn’t vote. Repubs are still able to take elections despite a majority of Americans opposing their policies. If it were impossible for the further right party to win, both parties would shift left.
Low voter turnout is a voter access and apathy issue. Disenfranchised voters tend to not vote and that’s a platform and outreach issue for the DNC. Low voter access is shit that elected dems should put first and foremost in their agenda once elected, but only Abrams and Sanders have talked about election reform since Carter was president.
The apathy is directly tied to the DNC pushing conservative and moderate policies instead of progressive ones. When voters see so little difference between the two parties, where neither party is promising the policies they’re looking for, then they see no point in showing up at the polls.
I wish they would prioritize that. It is a bit of a chicken and egg problem currently. Instead we’re losing voter protections from a corrupt SCOTUS, so it is becoming harder to vote overall.
Is there a name for the subject you’re speaking of, or do you just mean as a general part of political science?
Like I’ve seen memes referring to the subject, but I don’t take it as fact.
I do know a bit about the multi-party Parliament and local governance of Sweden, but admittedly nothing deep. What would you suggest I further read up on in their system? And what study of Germany do you suggest I read in relation to this?
My own experiences in studying Vietnam have actually led me to the opposite position, where despite a voter turnout of 99%+, the country is still quite socially conservative.
Theres so few accomplishments for the centrist Dems that I keep seeing Ledbetter paraded around like it was revolutionary. All Ledbetter was was an extension of the statute of limitations on another law. It should have and could have been more than that.
None of these things should have been revolutionary, and yet they still needed laws or court cases to make them happen.
If we didn’t have Republicans trying to drag things backwards and a bunch of idiots finding excuses to not vote for the only other candidate with a chance of winning, things could start to improve.
idiots finding excuses to not vote for the only other candidate with a chance of winning
Some people wont sign on to genocide whether their party will or not. Dont the christians say god over country over party or something like that? These arent idiots, and your saying they are seems a bit petulant. You cant demand the world act like you want it to, unless you are super spoiled rich? You rich, bro?
There’s a theory called the Overton Window and Dems moving to the center has shifted this whole country to the right.
I don’t agree. I don’t think Democrats shifted anything, they were just going where the voters were. Democrats have to win elections and that requires getting people to vote for you. The Democrats didn’t shift voters to the right, the voters shifted Democrats to the right.
We lost abortion rights because of it
I think abortion rights are a winning issue for Democrats, but not because it’s an exclusively progressive policy. I think abortion rights is a very popular policy among moderates.
If you want to look at a winning strategy that directly refutes your point look at FDR.
I’m talking about where American voters are today, not where they were 80 or 90 years ago, and today I think a majority of Americans are politically moderate.
American’s support “progressive” policy when it’s not framed as a political question.
That article you linked to supports my point. From the article:
Consider: Ordinary people in both parties turn out to like ordinary people in the other party well enough. In a 2021 study in the Journal of Politics, researchers found that when a person in one political party was asked what they think of someone in the other party, their answer was pretty negative. That certainly sounds like polarization. But it turns out the “someones” respondents had in mind were partisans holding forth on cable news.
If told the truth—that a typical member of the opposite party actually holds moderate views and talks about politics only occasionally—the animus dissolved into indifference. And if told that the same moderate person only rarely discusses politics, the sentiment edged into the positive zone. These folks might actually get along.
“There are people who are certainly polarized,” says Yanna Krupnikov, a study co-author now at the University of Michigan. “They are 100% polarized. They deeply hate the other side. They are extraordinarily loud. They are extraordinarily important in American politics.” But those people, she adds, are not typical Americans. They are people who live and breathe politics—the partisans and activists whom academics refer to in this context as elites.
That hardly recommends today’s politics, and goes a long way toward explaining why many people avoid partisans. “They dislike people who are really ideologically extreme, who are very politically invested, who want to come and talk to them about politics,” says Matthew Levendusky, a University of Pennsylvania professor of political science.
But, yes, moderates can, like progressives, want to improve the healthcare system and address climate change. Where they differ is in how they would go about it, and I think most moderates would prefer to go about addressing those issues by making as few radical changes as possible.
We differ on a salient point I think. You view progressives as radicals.
I really don’t, and that’s not the point that I’m making at all. I’m saying, the majority of American voters view progressives as radicals. Bernie Sanders and AOC, and any other politician who identifies as a socialist, Democratic or otherwise, as well as politicians who advocate for Medicare for All, a green new deal, etc, are seen by a majority of American voters as radicals. That’s what I’m saying.
I think progressives tend to overestimate their numbers. Maybe Millennials and Gen z are moving the needle a little further to the left, but I don’t think it’s as much as many progressives want to believe. There are many millions of Americans under 40 who are moderate, center right, or right wing. The US in general is further right than most other democracies, I would say. In fact, I think the US overall is center to center right. For this reason, I think it is generally a losing strategy for the Democrats to prioritize progressive policies, especially in the presidential election.
Most progressives live in deep blue states; states that are going to go for the Democrats regardless. Whereas, the states that matter, the swing states/purple states are much more moderate. Those are the states the Democrats have to focus on, because of how our election system works. For this reason alone, it makes more sense for Democrats to try and court moderates, at least in the presidential election. But, it’s probably true of Congress as well. I think moderate candidates do better in most states and congressional districts than progressive candidates.
It brings me no joy saying this. I’m politically left, I would estimate further left than the majority of Americans. I have been advocating for radical changes for years, but it’s mostly fallen on deaf ears, and some of my fellow Americans have been aggressively hostile to the ideas I’ve been advocating for. Americans, generally, like capitalism, they like class hierarchies, and hierarchies in general, because they believe that some people are just inherently superior to others, and that doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon.
There’s a theory called the Overton Window and Dems moving to the center has shifted this whole country to the right. We lost abortion rights because of it and our election integrity and voter access is at risk because of it.
If you want to look at a winning strategy that directly refutes your point look at FDR.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt,_third_and_fourth_terms
The Overton window is happening because 1/3 of the country doesn’t vote. Repubs are still able to take elections despite a majority of Americans opposing their policies. If it were impossible for the further right party to win, both parties would shift left.
Low voter turnout is a voter access and apathy issue. Disenfranchised voters tend to not vote and that’s a platform and outreach issue for the DNC. Low voter access is shit that elected dems should put first and foremost in their agenda once elected, but only Abrams and Sanders have talked about election reform since Carter was president.
The apathy is directly tied to the DNC pushing conservative and moderate policies instead of progressive ones. When voters see so little difference between the two parties, where neither party is promising the policies they’re looking for, then they see no point in showing up at the polls.
This is my understanding of the problem as well. Moderate dems are selling the party to billionaires
I wish they would prioritize that. It is a bit of a chicken and egg problem currently. Instead we’re losing voter protections from a corrupt SCOTUS, so it is becoming harder to vote overall.
That seems like a bit of an oversimplification based on the frequency of Dem wins to the voting percentage.
If true though, wouldn’t the US have been the more right wing under 2012 Obama than Trump since he had a lower voter turnout?
You can’t use evidence of a trend as evidence of political motivations is kinda what I’m getting at.
It’s a well regarded theory in political science. It also is present in many other democracies, look at Germany or Sweden for a current example.
Is there a name for the subject you’re speaking of, or do you just mean as a general part of political science? Like I’ve seen memes referring to the subject, but I don’t take it as fact. I do know a bit about the multi-party Parliament and local governance of Sweden, but admittedly nothing deep. What would you suggest I further read up on in their system? And what study of Germany do you suggest I read in relation to this?
My own experiences in studying Vietnam have actually led me to the opposite position, where despite a voter turnout of 99%+, the country is still quite socially conservative.
Oh, no. I was referencing the Overton window in general. Not voter turnout as a function of conservatism vs liberalism vs progressivism.
Here’s a quick article that will give some jumping off points for further research.
https://brockpress.com/the-overton-window-on-media-criticism-is-not-as-wide-as-it-needs-to-be/
Democrats are not the party responsible for the massive shift in the Overton Window. They didn’t do much to stop it, but they weren’t driving it.
And what have they done to stop it?
Gay marriage, the ACA, the Ledbetter act, more would be better, but they aren’t doing nothing.
Let’s not give Congress credit for something that the courts did.
Ah, sorry. I thought you were referring to election reform or presidential messaging. Yes, Dems in Congress have been a slight net positive.
I was just jumping into the middle of the conversation. It does look like the other threads were more focused on the presidential level.
I need to get better at reading usernames
Theres so few accomplishments for the centrist Dems that I keep seeing Ledbetter paraded around like it was revolutionary. All Ledbetter was was an extension of the statute of limitations on another law. It should have and could have been more than that.
None of these things should have been revolutionary, and yet they still needed laws or court cases to make them happen.
If we didn’t have Republicans trying to drag things backwards and a bunch of idiots finding excuses to not vote for the only other candidate with a chance of winning, things could start to improve.
Some people wont sign on to genocide whether their party will or not. Dont the christians say god over country over party or something like that? These arent idiots, and your saying they are seems a bit petulant. You cant demand the world act like you want it to, unless you are super spoiled rich? You rich, bro?
I don’t agree. I don’t think Democrats shifted anything, they were just going where the voters were. Democrats have to win elections and that requires getting people to vote for you. The Democrats didn’t shift voters to the right, the voters shifted Democrats to the right.
I think abortion rights are a winning issue for Democrats, but not because it’s an exclusively progressive policy. I think abortion rights is a very popular policy among moderates.
I’m talking about where American voters are today, not where they were 80 or 90 years ago, and today I think a majority of Americans are politically moderate.
Buying power and income disparity are at the same levels they were 80-90 years ago.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/4/1/18286084/gilded-age-income-inequality-robber-baron
Americans support “progressive” policy when it’s not framed as a political question.
https://time.com/6990721/us-politics-polarization-myth/
Lastly, you think Americans were more progressive on average 90 years ago?
That article you linked to supports my point. From the article:
But, yes, moderates can, like progressives, want to improve the healthcare system and address climate change. Where they differ is in how they would go about it, and I think most moderates would prefer to go about addressing those issues by making as few radical changes as possible.
We differ on a salient point I think. You view progressives as radicals.
I don’t think what the progressive wing of the party are asking for is radical. Neither does the article I posted.
I really don’t, and that’s not the point that I’m making at all. I’m saying, the majority of American voters view progressives as radicals. Bernie Sanders and AOC, and any other politician who identifies as a socialist, Democratic or otherwise, as well as politicians who advocate for Medicare for All, a green new deal, etc, are seen by a majority of American voters as radicals. That’s what I’m saying.
Progressives aren’t the majority, but there’s enough of them that democrats can’t win without them.