There is hard data that shows that a centrist Democrat would be a losing candidate

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | There is hard data that shows that a centrist Democrat would be a losing candidate

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #73142
      N2Doc
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,843
      KEITH A. SPENCER
      JUNE 2, 2019 6:00PM (UTC)
      The Republican Party has earned a reputation as the anti-science, anti-fact party — understandably, perhaps, given the GOP’s policy of ignoring the evidence for global climate change and insisting on  the efficacy of supply-side economics, despite all the research to the contrary. Yet ironically, it is now the Democratic Party that is wantonly ignoring mounds of social science data that suggests that promoting centrist candidates is a bad, losing strategy when it comes to winning elections. As the Democratic establishment and its pundit class starts to line up behind the centrist nominees for president — mainly, Joe Biden, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris — the party’s head-in-the-sand attitude is especially troubling.

      The mounds of data to which I refer comes from Thomas Piketty, the French political economist who made waves with his 2013 book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” This paper, entitled “Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right: Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political Conflict,” analyzes around 70 years of post-election surveys from three countries — Britain, the United States and France — to comprehend how Western politics have changed in that span. (Note: I wrote about this paper in Salon last year in a slightly different context, before the 2020 Democratic Primary really got going.)

      First, the sheer amount of data analyzed in Piketty’s paper is stunning. He and his researchers analyze voters in those three countries by income (broken into deciles), education, party, gender, religion and income disparity. The final 106 pages of the paper consist of graphs and charts. This is a seriously detailed data analysis that took years of work, and any intelligent political party operative should take it very seriously.

      Now, for the findings. Piketty’s basic thesis is that poorer and less educated voters were historically the kind of voters who voted for left and left-liberal parties. These voters understood that their class interests did not align with the right-wing parties of the rich; thus, historically, the “high-income, high education” voters picked the right-wing parties.

       

      more

      https://www.salon.com/2019/06/02/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-that-a-centrist-democrat-would-be-a-losing-candidate/

    • #73183
      jbnw
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,338

      I don’t think the DNC wants to win.  They are happier without the responsibilities of governing.  This way they can whine and “resist” and collect donations.

      It makes me very sad.

    • #73184
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 12,932

      This shifted in the past 70 years: “high-education elites now vote for the ‘left’, while high- income/high-wealth elites still vote for the ‘right’ (though less and less so),” Piketty notes. Note the scare quotes around “left”: part of Piketty’s point is that the so-called left parties, like the Democratic Party in the U.S., the Socialists in France and Labour in the U.K., have in the past two decades not really been that left, at least on economic issues. With the exception of Jeremy Corbyn’s contemporary Labour Party, the aforementioned are aligned with the same kind of neoliberal economic policies that rich elites favor.

      “This can contribute to explain rising inequality and the lack of democratic response to it, as well as the rise of ‘populism,'” Piketty argues. “Globalization and educational expansion have created new dimensions of inequality and conflict, leading to the weakening of previous class-based redistributive coalitions.”

    • #73289
      Satan
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,191

      Turd Wayers are notoriously bad at math.  Even if you accept that the 2000, 2004, and (at least in their eyes) 2016 elections were stolen, the fact is that the Turd Way/DLC candidates didn’t bring the turnout which would have been enough to override the theft. In Hillary’s case, she literally repelled millions of voters.

      Bill Clinton won in 1992 for three reasons: 1) People were tired of the Bush Crime Family after 12 consecutive years. 2) Three way split between him, Poppy, and Ross Perot. Perot actually led the race for a while, but fucked himself when he dropped out of the race, and then back in. 3) Bill campaigned as a 90s version of FDR with all his “New Covenant” rhetoric. Still have a copy of his campaign mailer stashed away somewhere. Obviously this is NOT who he was when he actually got into office. And Bill’s 1996 win? Not even most Republicans thought Bob Dole was up to the job. He looked half dead at the time. Actually can’t believe he’s not in Hell yet!

      Aside from the Florida theft and Supreme Court dragonshit, I have no doubt that Al Gore would have served his 8 years in the White House if he had chosen a better running mate. Liberdouche probably alienated as many voters from that race as Hillary did in 2016.

      The 2004 election was stolen in Ohio, but it was lost in Iowa when the DLC rigged the caucus. Howard Dean would have beaten the Chimp. Judas IsKerryot voted for his entire PNAC war & Reichland Security dragonshit, and had nothing to debate Monkey Man (except for that whole controversy of the Chimp allegedly owning a timber company or whatever that was. “Anybody want some wood??” – G.W. Chimp

      And then there’s Barry….. who convincingly portrayed himself as a transformative candidate in 2008 – and certainly a better choice than Hillary – but then failed to deliver on about 95% of what he promised. And no, lurking DLC bots…. his choice of a running mate had NOTHING to do with him being elected.

      Meanwhile, the right wing “centrist” candidates in Congress & state offices have lost literally thousands of seats.  Most of them deservedly so.

      So there you have it. The only two centrists to win elections had to lie and pretend to be “liberals” to get elected. And – as the Queen of the Weathervanes proved last time, nobody’s buying that dragonshit again.

       

      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". - John F. Kennedy

    • #73312
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 21,758

      Piketty is one of the greatest political economists of our times, and is probably smarter than anyone running for President, including Bernie. This isn’t a bash on Bernie, just saying the guy is brilliant. He’s right up there with Noam Chomsky and Richard Wolff in my book. By ignoring him, the DNC proves that they are either idiots or don’t care about winning, or both.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.