BL v StK · WB v FRE · RIC v HAW · ADE v SYD · NM v COL · GWS v PA ·
Read the wrap-up and post your "Liked, Learned, Hated" right here.
??.. you make a claim about the democrats having all these left wing policies... I ask you to provide me a list of these policies.. and all you do is link me to an NYtimes article behind a paywall..
Opinion | How Far Left Is Too Far Left for 2020 Democrats? (Published 2019)
Or is that question beside the point in the Trump era?www.nytimes.com
I already mentioned the Dems have lefties trying to drag the party left. Sanders is just one example. The leadership of the party however, are made up of old guard moderates. There's no way the Democratic establishment wanted to give Sanders the nod. Look at how all the other Dem candidates strategically dropped out just in time to save Biden's ass and then lined up to endorse him. Also take a look at how the so-called Liberal media reacted when Sanders bolted out of the gate during the primaries. They were shitting their pants.
I love it when he does that. When you really own him, he'll give you the love emoji.
too lazy to log into it are you - its free, but here it is
The issue of reparations illuminates the heterogeneity of the Democratic electorate. There are two surveys on reparations, a May 2016 Marist Poll and a July 2018 poll by the liberal group Data for Progress. Both produced similar results.
Whites were opposed 81-15. Latinos were split, with 46 percent in support and 47 percent opposed. African-American voters support reparations, 58-35.
Lelkes conducted experiments that asked participants to rate a number of hypothetical candidates, including a moderate Democrat, an “ideologically extreme” liberal Democrat, a moderate Republican and an “ideologically extreme” conservative Republican.
Lelkes’s conclusion?
There are dangers for both parties is these trends, Lelkes argues, citing a 2015 study of House elections, “What Happens When Extremists Win Primaries?” by Andrew Hall, a political scientist at Stanford.
Gallup data shows the steady ascendance within Democratic ranks of self-identified ideological liberals and a parallel decline in the share of Democrats who say they are moderate or conservative. From 1973 to 2018, as I have noted before, the percentage of Democrats who say they are liberal has grown from 25 to 51 percent, while the share of moderates has fallen from 48 to 31 percent, and the share of conservatives has dropped from 25 to 13 percent.
In a reflection of their importance in primaries, “consistently liberal” Democrats turned out in elections at a 70 percent rate, compared with 47 percent for “mostly liberal” Democrats and 41 percent for Democrats with “mixed views,” according to Pew data.
This dynamic has intensified because the most engaged Democrats, Drutman writes,
The second dynamic, Drutman continued, is that
In a similar analysis, John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University, argues that
Sides also pointed out that the incentives for Democratic candidates have shifted:
In an argument elaborating on a point made by Drutman, Edward Carmines, a political scientist at Indiana University, made the case that the 2016 defeat of Hillary Clinton fostered the shift to the left:
Carmines added:
Carmines believes that “both of these premises are mistaken and could very well lead Democrats to electoral defeat when victory is within sight.”
Strong partisans, however, Huddy writes, “are unlikely to defect from the party in 2020 regardless of its issue agenda,” and political independents
Trump, Jacobson noted, will
The strategic choices facing prospective Democratic nominees are, in the view of Lynn Vavreck, a political scientist at U.C.L.A., even more complex and subtle than those described by Jacobson.
She elaborated:
Matthew Nisbet, a professor of communication, public policy and urban affairs at Northeastern and editor in chief of the journal Environmental Communication, addressed only the support for a Green New Deal by some Democratic candidates. His view is pessimistic.
In an article in the spring edition of Issues in Science and Technology, Nisbet contends that the goal of Green New Dealers
In an interesting development, the momentum behind the more radical Democratic agenda has turned both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi into defenders of the party’s old guard.
Implicit in her comment is the belief that $30 trillion is not acceptable to the American public.
For the moment, both Obama and Pelosi are having minimal influence as far as the leftward thrust of the Democratic presidential nomination goes.
No... i don’t want to read some random New York times article..too lazy to log into it are you - its free, but here it is
In the current election cycle, bets on moderation have few takers. Leading Democratic candidates are supporting bold progressive policy initiatives that are supported by liberal primary voters but may prove to be a tough sell to the general electorate. President Trump and his Republican allies will certainly try to use these initiatives against their Democratic rivals. They have in fact already begun to do so.
A number of Democratic presidential candidates, for example, are calling for the elimination of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and they have declared themselves in favor of such multibillion dollar programs as Medicare for all and a Green New Deal. Growing numbers are supportive of reparations to compensate black Americans for the costs of slavery and segregation.
Why are these candidates willing to buck political tradition and heighten the risk of defeat on Nov. 3, 2020?
Here is one answer, from Julie Wronski, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi:
The issue of reparations illuminates the heterogeneity of the Democratic electorate. There are two surveys on reparations, a May 2016 Marist Poll and a July 2018 poll by the liberal group Data for Progress. Both produced similar results.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
The Marist survey found overwhelming opposition among whites in response to the question
Whites were opposed 81-15. Latinos were split, with 46 percent in support and 47 percent opposed. African-American voters support reparations, 58-35.
The Data for Progress survey found sharp partisan divisions on the issue of reparations. Democrats supported reparations across the board: whites 37.8 to 30.5 percent; blacks 58.5 to 15.0 percent; Hispanics, 49.9 to 18.3 percent. Independents were opposed, 41.0 to 22.8 percent. Republicans were decisively in opposition, 77.1 to 8.9 percent.
Subscribe to The Times
- Thanks for reading The Times.
Among all voters, opposition to reparations was nearly twice as large as support, 47.1 to 26.4 percent.
For the Democrats running for president, African-American backing is crucial both in the primaries and in the general election.
Editors’ Picks
‘Corona-Shamed’: George Stephanopoulos, J. Lo — Maybe You?
How to Help in a Pandemic: Ask Before You Donate 1,000 Pizzas
How the Beleaguered BBC Became ‘Comfort Food’ in a Pandemic
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Nationally, black voters in 2016 cast about one of every four ballots in Democratic primaries. In four states, African-Americans cast the majority of votes: 71 percent in Mississippi, 61 percent in South Carolina, 54 percent in Alabama and 51 percent in Georgia.
Image
Senator Elizabeth Warren posing for photos with diners at The Senator's Place, a restaurant in Cleveland, Miss. Credit...Andrea Morales for The New York Times
Let’s look at another progressive initiative. In August 2018, AP-NORC asked voters if they support or oppose “abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE?” 41 percent opposed abolition and 24 percent supported it.
Medicare for all and the Green New Deal pose a subtler dilemma for Democratic candidates. In the abstract, voters are supportive; the problems arise when the same voters are told key details, including costs.
The best example of this is Medicare for all. In March, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that a majority supported “a national health plan or Medicare-for-all plan,” 56-39, but support vacillates in both directions depending on how the program is portrayed.
If, for example, Democrats posit that Medicare for all would eliminate health care premiums and reduce out of pocket costs, support rises to 67 percent with 30 percent opposed.
Conversely, if Republicans succeed in portraying the program as leading to delays in getting medical treatment, or to the elimination of current private coverage, or to higher taxes, support collapses to the mid-20s and mid-30s, with opposition shooting up to the 60 to 70 percent range.
Bold progressive stands may be risky in general elections, but recent research suggests that policy radicalism pays off in primaries.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
In a forthcoming paper, “Policy Over Party: Comparing the effects of candidate ideology and party on affective polarization,” Yphtach Lelkes, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, reports that voters in primary elections prefer candidates who are willing to take more extreme positions.
“Partisans are reacting most favorably toward ideological extremists,” Lelkes wrote in an email:
Lelkes conducted experiments that asked participants to rate a number of hypothetical candidates, including a moderate Democrat, an “ideologically extreme” liberal Democrat, a moderate Republican and an “ideologically extreme” conservative Republican.
He found that the most ideologically committed voters — who are disproportionately represented in primaries and caucuses — strongly preferred more extreme candidates:
Lelkes’s conclusion?
There are dangers for both parties is these trends, Lelkes argues, citing a 2015 study of House elections, “What Happens When Extremists Win Primaries?” by Andrew Hall, a political scientist at Stanford.
Hall found that when a more extreme candidate beats a moderate in the primary
Gallup data shows the steady ascendance within Democratic ranks of self-identified ideological liberals and a parallel decline in the share of Democrats who say they are moderate or conservative. From 1973 to 2018, as I have noted before, the percentage of Democrats who say they are liberal has grown from 25 to 51 percent, while the share of moderates has fallen from 48 to 31 percent, and the share of conservatives has dropped from 25 to 13 percent.
A 2014 Pew study showed a steady process of ideological consolidation among both Republicans and Democrats since 1994, although consolidation accelerated most rapidly on the left:
In a reflection of their importance in primaries, “consistently liberal” Democrats turned out in elections at a 70 percent rate, compared with 47 percent for “mostly liberal” Democrats and 41 percent for Democrats with “mixed views,” according to Pew data.
These and other trends, according to Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the liberal New America think tank, represent the changing the mind-set of the Democratic electorate. In an email, Drutman wrote:
This dynamic has intensified because the most engaged Democrats, Drutman writes,
The second dynamic, Drutman continued, is that
In a similar analysis, John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University, argues that
Sides also pointed out that the incentives for Democratic candidates have shifted:
In an argument elaborating on a point made by Drutman, Edward Carmines, a political scientist at Indiana University, made the case that the 2016 defeat of Hillary Clinton fostered the shift to the left:
Carmines added:
Carmines believes that “both of these premises are mistaken and could very well lead Democrats to electoral defeat when victory is within sight.”
Leonie Huddy, a political scientist at Stony Brook University, argues that the liberal tilt of the Democratic candidates is, in fact, a rational political strategy. “There is real change afoot with the most recent generations,” she wrote, citing a Pew study released in January:
Strong partisans, however, Huddy writes, “are unlikely to defect from the party in 2020 regardless of its issue agenda,” and political independents
Image
Senator Bernie Sanders at a campaign rally in North Charleston, S.C.Credit...Travis Dove for The New York Times
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego, has a somewhat different take on the changing character of the Democratic electorate and the party’s presidential candidates.
The candidates, Jacobson wrote by email, “are playing to their activist base whose enthusiasm helped produce their House victory in 2018.”
He warned, however, that “leaning left does carry risks; there are not enough liberals (or progressives, if you prefer) to form a majority nationally or in the Electoral College.”
In contemporary presidential campaigns, according to Jacobson,
Trump, Jacobson noted, will
The strategic choices facing prospective Democratic nominees are, in the view of Lynn Vavreck, a political scientist at U.C.L.A., even more complex and subtle than those described by Jacobson.
Taking very liberal stands on contested issues, she wrote me,
She elaborated:
Matthew Nisbet, a professor of communication, public policy and urban affairs at Northeastern and editor in chief of the journal Environmental Communication, addressed only the support for a Green New Deal by some Democratic candidates. His view is pessimistic.
In an email, he wrote:
In an article in the spring edition of Issues in Science and Technology, Nisbet contends that the goal of Green New Dealers
In an interesting development, the momentum behind the more radical Democratic agenda has turned both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi into defenders of the party’s old guard.
Pelosi, who has been trying with mixed success to tamp down the left wing of the House Democratic caucus, recently described her views on Medicare for all in an interview with The Washington Post.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
At first she said, “I’m agnostic. Show me how you think you can get there.” But then she cautioned:
Implicit in her comment is the belief that $30 trillion is not acceptable to the American public.
Obama, speaking at a town hall in Germany earlier this month, warned of the dangers of uncompromising ideology for the progressive wing of his party:
For the moment, both Obama and Pelosi are having minimal influence as far as the leftward thrust of the Democratic presidential nomination goes.
Three years ago, Trump threw out conventional wisdom and went on to win the nomination and the presidency. Maybe, this time around, Democrats can gamble successfully on a similar strategy and win. Or maybe not.
wow..just wow. So you could not be bothered to read the article that outlines the progressive left positions candidates are taking and that from a very left leaning Paper. go read it for yourself - seems like you might learn something
You don't think the democrats are center left?
Center left by US standards. Center right by Australian standards.
Why would I read the article?... you made a claim. I asked you to provide a list of democratic policies that are left wing, as per your claim, and you just lazily link me to a media article.. That is ****in embarrasssing..wow..just wow. So you could not be bothered to read the article that outlines the progressive left positions candidates are taking and that from a very left leaning Paper. go read it for yourself - seems like you might learn something
As for Bernie Sanders..sure he is an independent senator but funnily enough he was endorsed by a number of democrats to run against trump and had a fair old number of democratic electoral college votes
What it said was it was buried in a mass of proper stimulus measures a bit of a Trojan horse and maybe they just waved it through not wanting to bog down the whole package.
Bernie Sanders maybe. He’s so left that the yanks think he’s from a hippie commune
fify
Yes agreed
you must be living under a rock if you have got no idea what policies the US Democrats have run on leading up to the election and now you double down on your own inability to read..well done you. Why the f** should I bother to recreate the wheel when it is open knowledge what policies the democrats hold and if you think their immigration policies, social policies or energy and welfare policies are right wing or even centre ground..I go back to the first line of this paragraph
It's mind boggling to me that people in here actually believe the Democrats are a left wing party. You should hear the way lefties over there talk about them. They basically see them as diet-Republicans.
You made the claim... I’m simply asking you to back it up.
they certainly tried (and succeeded) in getting changes to the stimulus packages and Pelosi herself nearly stonewalled it at the death and that is whey there was a time delay in passing it. Trojan horse??? very very unlikely considering the dems were pulling the stimulus package apart before supporting it
I have but you didn't like the answers and that is your bad luck..go back read the article. But maybe you should read a paper or watch some news..as I said, their positions are not being hidden
No. Just look at healthcare as an example, Democrats wouldn't support a public option so it died on the floor. They instead favoured the ACA which was an insurer-based option which is for profit. That isn't to say there aren't members of the party who are left leaning but the leadership certainly isn't.
I mean they aren't even technically centre left by US standards. I think people mistake the Democrats for left leaning because they have a vocal minority of lefties who are pretty good at marketing themselves. It doesn't hold up if you actually try to marry the definition of centre left politics with democratic party policy though.
