Jeffries has been (so far) completely underwhelming. Every public statement appears to have been produced by the Chuck Schumer School of Homogenization. It's the Dukakis lack-of-fire syndrome all over again.
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I voted for one Republican back in the day, long before the party became MAGATS. I'm a Dem of the 1960's kind. What is now called progressive. A moderate Dem, to me, is nothing more than a right-wing sell-out! Because that's how far right the Democrats have moved in seeking that illusive moderate voter over the years. I haven't changed my stance or moved to the left! The damned Democrat leadership and corporate consultants have moved the party to the right! And I've been pissed about it for years! I almost reregistered as an Independent voter after Biden was nominated in 2020. I donate regularly to Dem candidates, nationwide, but not through the damned DNC. Maybe Jeffries needs to worry about all the lapsed Democrats who don't vote anymore. Those who prevented the fascists from taking over earlier! Because us old-fashioned Dems aren't getting a truly Democratic way of thinking in our leaders. A moderate in my book is nothing but a damned mugwump!
If you are a candidate and find yourself on the stage in a debate with a Republican, you just follow those words: If you want things to be better, come with me. If you want chaos, I'm not going to court your vote or waste my time with you.
Stop fretting over leaving people in the cold: they deserve to freeze. I don't have time for someone that is okay with arresting a homeless person for sleeping on a bench or kicking a disabled person off of medicaid. Let them wander the desert, don't try to suck up to them because "we can disagree." That's not disagreement: that's cruelty.
Current democratic leadership are adopting the wrong strategy.. And will be for decades to come
I like this analysis but I have to ask, is it bad math or deliberate practice? While I absolutely second your call for people to focus on recruiting local candidates who match their populations I question whether the party is going to allow that to happen and whether the function of moderation is really neutral.
Consider that Mandami, based upon all available polling and an actual election, *is* the kind of candidate you name. He clearly speaks authentically to the voters he has and is not, at the same time, running on telling other cities or states what to do. And yet he faces calls for purity not from progressives but the so called moderates. And their criticism of him surrounds his call for higher taxes on the rich (which polls well), for public services (which poll well), and the fact that he is not fully on board with Israel (which does not poll well).
Here the "purity test" is coming from people who describe themselves as centrists but oppose popular policies and their argument for this opposition is that the policies would not poll well in, say Texas. Perhaps not, but Mandami is not running in Texas.
If the meaning of a thing is its function, which I think is valid, then the meaning of "moderation" seems mostly to be about keeping people in line with policies that rich donors like while trying to keep the tent as small as possible.
I really agree with this. If bed-wetting was the pejorative assigned to Democrats, moderates became the literal poster child for this unfortunate characteristic. They are afraid of Maga, but positively terrified of Progressives. No one embodies this more than Jeffries. People lament how Progressives have litmus tests ( 'please don't let the Israelis starve children') but feckless moderates who want to straddle every issue come away from almost every discussion looking like they believe in nothing and so they turn their vitriol on Democrats who at least say what they believe. Billionaire donors be damned.
I agree with you though I am no longer sure if it is bed-wetting over MAGA. I really honestly believe it is bed-wetting over funding. MAGA after all will leave people like Schumer and Gilibrand alone and probably Jeffries too. But actually taxing billionaires will cost them a lot of donors. I feel like the litmus tests are not about issues but about the bottom line and whether the consultants get paid. I think that is one of the reasons the Democrats are just not working.
I think it's fine for them to run in districts or states where a progressive can feasibly win. But these candidates don't win in West Virginia, which costs us the Senate, and it means that we can't do anything. I'd rather be able to approve democratic judges and maybe get some bipartisan reforms done than be stuck in the minority forever because "principles".
Thank you so much for this comment. We need to win, and we need votes to win. Because the Democratic Party endorses less than the ultimate progressive doesn’t mean they don’t care about those issues. It’s that they know that they need numbers in congress to defeat trumpism and MAGA, and any way they can get those numbers has to be their top priority.
By this same logic Kamala Harris should be president, right? She filled out the Alliant Energy Center in Madison, WI back in Oct 2024!
Both progressives and moderates need to chill and pick their battles. Moderates shouldn't be as critical about Mamdani until he governs (and only if he does a poor job), progressives shouldn't be critical when reps like Golden hold onto Trump voting seats. Unfortunately everyone views this as zero sum and to grant the other side a win is viewed as problematic for the entire movement. That's the toxic mindset that needs to move from zero sum intra-party rather than zero sum with Republicans, which it is, because they are winning the swing seat elections that determine the presidency and Congress.
Marc Pocan (very progressive) - 269k votes, and his opponent did 2k better than Trump. And for a state like Wisconsin, 2k votes do matter! Perception matters for swing voters and most of them swing between moderates, not progressives or conservatives
We will probably never agree on this. I think Trump is in power at least to a great extent because Democrats haven’t been presenting clear enough alternative, progressive messages. And moderate Democrats are still not playing hardball against Trump’s dictatorial takeover.
You just proved my point. The most progressive of the three got more votes than either Harris or Baldwin. I am from Wisconsin and still live across its Western border, across from the most conservative part of the state, where I lived myself for 30 years. I do get Wisconsin politics. Just because Pocan’s opponent got lots of money from Trumpists doesn’t mean he had the wrong message.
Not just the other party. Sinema campaigned on raising the minimum wage, fighting climate change, and a whole host of other issues. Then she yanked the ball time and time again and claimed it was about "centrism" and "bipartisanship". The fact is that the endless quest for this perceived centrism (or the endless use of it as an excuse) functions primarily to stop action, not make it.
Case in point. “Centrism” is a wet dream fantasy for some in Dem leadership. The only party that gets tingled with sexual pleasure by the word/term are the Democrats.
For some, yes. But at the end of the day I really care about housing and I would lose it if progressives or MAGA types caused the ROAD to Housing act to not pass, despite Warren and Scott both openly championing it, because "the other side supports it and that means we can't".
There's a time to call out despicable behavior, and there's other times to focus on getting shit done and doing something good. I think this act does that and it's not a stain that some Republicans agree.
W Virginia is lost for the Dems no matter the candidate for many years to come. Forget it and don't waste money or good candidates on it. The focus has to be on close to 50 : 50 states like Georgia or North Carolina. There the right kind of moderate can have substantial advantages.
I know it's a joke, but Synema was a good example of WAR! She was an awful senator for the state she represented, she got primaried, and Gallego won! Please do more of that!
But if you can't find the equivalent "Gallego" for Louisiana/Nebraska/North Carolina/Florida then stay out of it!
Sinema didn't run in a primary. She decided not to run before she would have to face Dem voters. She knew she would lose, and that doesn't fit her narcissistic self image. Sinema betrayed her constituents, voting against policies that even Rs like.
Brian, here’s a question for a future chat. Is there a comparable process in the Republican Party for recruiting candidates, determining how they should talk about issues, identifying and trying to persuade likely voters, etc? And if so, do you know much about it? It seems to me that they don’t concern themselves overmuch with fine-tuning their rhetoric in response to polls and focus groups, or even with trying to appeal to specific voter demographics (aside from white men with authoritarian personalities, of course,) at least not in the same way that Democrats seem to be obsessed with. Even their “voter outreach” to, say, Hispanic communities, mostly seems to involve capturing the local media and making sure everyone there knows how hateful and perverse the Democratic Party is, irrespective of the truth of things. They seem much less concerned with fielding candidates designed to appeal to the median voter than they do in managing what information and what rhetoric actually reaches voters. In a way, Democrats are concerned with developing players who might compete very well under a certain set of rules, while Republicans are much more interested in altering the rules whenever it suits them, and making sure that the game is broadcast under their terms or under their control. It’s alarming to me that Dems still worry so much about whether this or that candidate will turn off voters because of their supposedly extreme rhetoric when the Republican Party has proven repeatedly in recent years that you can field outright Nazis as candidates if you can convince voters that the other guy is somehow worse. So what does it look like on the Republican side and why don’t Democrats take the hint?
Most voters who are political nerds have incoherent positions, and they might hold both progressive and conservative views, and I think a lot of consultants interpret that as a need to appeal to the squishy middle. But to me, Mamdani shows voters are thirsty for change and big ideas. (I live in the district adjacent to Jeffries', so I can't yell at him directly, but he gets on cable news daily all "kitchen table issues!" but can't get behind the candidate who made affordability the cornerstone of his campaign? It's mind-boggling. And no one is really opposing Mamdani on the merits anymore; they just hear "socialist" and spin out.)
But also, take Sherrod Brown. I wouldn't call him a moderate, but he does have a set of values he communicates authentically to voters, which is what I think people respond to. It's less about specific policy positions and more about authenticity and whether a candidate seems to be fighting for "people like me." Brown only lost in November by a couple of points; I like his odds in '26, when the electorate will be more engaged, high-propensity voters, who lean Dem.
Could a Mamdani win in a swing state? Maybe not, but I'd like to see someone try, because I think the centrist theory of the case is wrong. I'm probably biased because I live in deep blue Brooklyn, but Mamdani is also out here making compelling content mostly about everyday problems New Yorkers face, and that's persuasive! (The new one from last week where he raced a crosstown bus on foot in order to talk about adding dedicated bus lanes to 34th Street is such a niche thing, but it speaks to the broader themes of his campaign: stuff in this city doesn't work, but I've got some tangible ideas for how to fix it. Seems like a good model for Dem campaigns generally!)
It’s frankly impossible for this discussion to be productive if we keep throwing around the meaninglessly unqualified term “moderation.”
The Democratic Party, as it is known and hated today, is already PLENTY “moderate.” And that kind “moderation,” it hardly needs to be explained, consists of the various expressions of fealty to the major funders of the Democratic Party.
The party is widely detested by conservatives and progressives alike for the same reasons its major funders love it.
Movements to concentrate *that* kind of “moderation” in the party will only concentrate the public’s distaste for it.
While I’m sure that these WAR analyses come from sources with impeccable qualifications as Democratic strategy insiders, it surprises me not one bit that they have chosen to measure the problem in ways that leads to such a conclusion about the need for “moderation,” i.e., more of what the party already is. But I can’t imagine a community of people with a more glaring conflict of interest. Billionaire funders of the political status quo are paying for their houses, and their second houses, and their beach houses.
Forget anything that you hear from Democratic Party political consultants. If they’re already established enough to have their views considered on this topic, they are already too invested in the status quo to have a credible opinion on it.
Regardless of what they say, the prevailing definition of “moderation” is exactly the party’s problem.
The Democratic Party’s class of large funders mostly consists of media, tech, and finance billionaires who are basically libertarians. Their views on “cultural issues” (minoritarian, demographic injustice politics) are considerably more liberal than the American electorate. But their views on “economic issues” (majoritarian, economic populism) are well to the right.
The rise of the MAGA faction, displacing the neoliberals from their catbird seats in the Republican party, is good information about the American electorate‘s attitude toward libertarianism broadly.
Americans are not just sick of billionaires rigging the rules in the GOP. And it is not only conservatives who are sick of billionaires, rigging the rules. Pretty much everyone, except the billionaires themselves, are sick of the billionaires rigging the rules.
I don't think that "ideological purity" juices turnout so much as _appearing to actually believe the things you say_. I think that voters do punish the Dems for so plainly trying to grade-grub for their votes. When Dems try to "moderate" on immigration by supporting a draconian anti-immigrant bill, it gets Dems basically nothing because voters who were planning to vote based on wanting to see immigrants harmed know that Trump is their candidate, while voters view Dems as insincere and nakedly pandering.
If Dems can appear more moderate in a sincere way, that would help them. But if the way they appear moderate is just changing positions willy-nilly, they seem slimy and like they will say anything to get elected, which voters hate.
Amen, and so well said. Do those professing the importance of "moderation" (whatever they mean by that, and I will continue to argue that it may be problematic how fuzzy my understanding of that is as a sympathetic and engaged lay person), do they truly believe as you say that Amy Klobuchar would have wiped the floor with Donald Trump? No matter how beautiful the strategy, one should occasional take stock of the results, and all that. Also, the Moderate concern that their approach hasn't "worked" because it has never really been "fully implemented" reads to me like the defense of Communism as a more prosperous and equitable economic system than any other invented if only it had been tried . . . I truly don't mean to be insulting here, but not for nothing, things actually have to work IRL in order to . . . work . . . And as someone with an undergrad degree and continuing super wonky interest in economics - but/and who actually lives, and works, in the real world - the ceteris paribus construct I once loved for its clarity now seems almost absurdly simplistic and academic . . .
The vast majority of voters start thinking about their vote probably no more than ninety days before using it. We spend too much time involved in debating stances rather than having a framework that you would use in carrying out your obligations as an elected official. As to those decisions most time it no more then a yes or no vote. What standard should be used to determine the direction you choose.
The obvious one is the greatest good for the greatest number of people I represent. Further be neither liberal or conservative rather be politically open minded to exclude the money interests rather publicly declare your only obligation is to use your conscience and the input from your electors in making all yes or no decisions on any bill. This is the best way for the voters to know who you are voting for as to the direction the official is going. Example should we continue medicare either yes or no and state why it is the best for the greatest number of the people you represent.
It is disgusting that rather than concentrating on the issue at hand rather you seek personal enrichment and use of power. When did elective officials starting to ignore they are not the dictators of the people rather their servant.
In what world do Klobuchar and Collins have similar political ideas? ThIs constant demonization of the Democratic Party, will result in getting fewer votes, and right now if we don’t get the votes, we will never defeat trumpism. A simplistic analysis here.
Collins doesn't have ideas but she is the ultimate "centrist" weather vane. I think the point is that if "perceived moderation" was the key to winning she would be the best example Republicans have.
This is a good commonsense approach. One political technique that can make a good local
Democratic candidate work for an electorate is to show leadership. We forget in all this data analysis, that people's opinions and beliefs are malleable. Even today, they are open to persuasion.
A real leader knows how to speak from the heart and say things that his audience may not like. But as long as they like him or her, they will keep an open mind. Trump has been faking this. Provide the real deal and see what happens for Democrats. Stop assuming all us red-staters are closed minded. We aren't.
The other thing we need is a truly adversarial and fair primary. It is within the testing of competitive ideas in a professional and good faith manner that voters obtain a meaningful exchange of material information. The "compare and contrast" done on a level playing field will give voters a way to test the true mettle of a candidate. Again, Republicans have been faking this as well with their performative hostility. It does demonstrate "fight" but not in a good way.
Mamdani does present a clear contrast to Jeffries (who only once recently spoke with pace and fervor), BUT candidates like Mamdani outside NY will mostly feed the Republican motto that the Democrats are all "woke," "too woke" for comfort, and could propel Republican candidates among the general American electorate, who remain moderate and interested in kitchen table issues. The predicted increasing inflation with more unemployment (called "stagflation") will also raise more questions about how Mamdani can pay for all his free government offers.
Jamie Raskin focuses on "common sense for the common good." Dems should find candidates who subscribe to that kind of moderation-with-changes.
Mandami clearly is running a campaign that speaks to New York voters which is where he is running. Some of his proposals (like raising taxes on the rich to fund infrastructure) do poll well in most places but he has not, in his campaign, claimed that everyone needs to be like him. Nor for that matter have major national progressive figures. What they have argued is that the party needs to embrace him and support his voters.
Figures like Jeffries on the other hand or more explicitly Gillibrand have pushed the opposite perspective of your question, that he shouldn't be supported there because he cannot win everywhere. In effect they are the ones seeking to nationalize his race wither in opposition to his views, fear of a loss, or both.
I would argue that whether he can win everywhere is immaterial. He is speaking to voters where he is and needs to do just that. The centrists need to stop demanding purity tests around Israel and supporting Wall Street and focus on listening to actual voters in each place.
Right. It's weird to impose the whole country's hopes and dreams on one guy running for mayor. There are a lot of specific circumstances at play in NYC. But I think Mamdani is doing a lot of things Dems should emulate rather than shun. (Oy, Gillibrand. I've called her office a couple of times to register my disappointment.) People keep getting bogged down by the word "socialist" but the gist of his campaign is: some things in this city don't work, I've got ideas for how to fix them. (A lot of what doesn't work is related to affordability—rent is too high, grocery prices are too high—but it's local niche-y stuff too like food truck permits and dedicated bike/bus lanes.) Why couldn't a Dem in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin do something similar: this thing in our region/country doesn't work, here's what I'll do to fix it if you elect me. I think that gets Dems out of the trap of supporting the status quo.
Yes, very much so. Indeed I have seen local Democrats try to do that. What it feels like to me is that there is a litmus test but it is really about whether you play along with the funding machine not whether you can win your race or respond to your constituents. Or if it is about winning it is because they have become so accustomed to doing all their "campaigning" on CNN that they forget how to listen to local voters. I think this explains Jeffries continued backhanded attacks on Mandami certainly.
The funding and rolodexing has been an issue for a while with the Democrats.
The "big tent" idea is a good one when it means this: Run progressives wherever progressive Democrats can win. Run conservative or big-business aligned Democrats only where they are the most winnable candidate. Manchin is an example. Better him than a Republican.
Let's not refer to big-business aligned Democrats as "moderates." Or "centrists." They are "big-business aligned" or perhaps "conservative." Being aligned with big business does not make one a moderate. A "centrist" can mean anything; it's a non-descriptor, intentionally blurring ideology.
Jeffries has been (so far) completely underwhelming. Every public statement appears to have been produced by the Chuck Schumer School of Homogenization. It's the Dukakis lack-of-fire syndrome all over again.
He’s worse than Dukakis
Yaaaas! Give me more of the weak sauce of Hakeem Jeffries! 🤣
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I voted for one Republican back in the day, long before the party became MAGATS. I'm a Dem of the 1960's kind. What is now called progressive. A moderate Dem, to me, is nothing more than a right-wing sell-out! Because that's how far right the Democrats have moved in seeking that illusive moderate voter over the years. I haven't changed my stance or moved to the left! The damned Democrat leadership and corporate consultants have moved the party to the right! And I've been pissed about it for years! I almost reregistered as an Independent voter after Biden was nominated in 2020. I donate regularly to Dem candidates, nationwide, but not through the damned DNC. Maybe Jeffries needs to worry about all the lapsed Democrats who don't vote anymore. Those who prevented the fascists from taking over earlier! Because us old-fashioned Dems aren't getting a truly Democratic way of thinking in our leaders. A moderate in my book is nothing but a damned mugwump!
This is exactly the kind of small-tent infighting this piece is arguing against.
The last paragraph is the way to win.
If you are a candidate and find yourself on the stage in a debate with a Republican, you just follow those words: If you want things to be better, come with me. If you want chaos, I'm not going to court your vote or waste my time with you.
Stop fretting over leaving people in the cold: they deserve to freeze. I don't have time for someone that is okay with arresting a homeless person for sleeping on a bench or kicking a disabled person off of medicaid. Let them wander the desert, don't try to suck up to them because "we can disagree." That's not disagreement: that's cruelty.
Current democratic leadership are adopting the wrong strategy.. And will be for decades to come
I like this analysis but I have to ask, is it bad math or deliberate practice? While I absolutely second your call for people to focus on recruiting local candidates who match their populations I question whether the party is going to allow that to happen and whether the function of moderation is really neutral.
Consider that Mandami, based upon all available polling and an actual election, *is* the kind of candidate you name. He clearly speaks authentically to the voters he has and is not, at the same time, running on telling other cities or states what to do. And yet he faces calls for purity not from progressives but the so called moderates. And their criticism of him surrounds his call for higher taxes on the rich (which polls well), for public services (which poll well), and the fact that he is not fully on board with Israel (which does not poll well).
Here the "purity test" is coming from people who describe themselves as centrists but oppose popular policies and their argument for this opposition is that the policies would not poll well in, say Texas. Perhaps not, but Mandami is not running in Texas.
If the meaning of a thing is its function, which I think is valid, then the meaning of "moderation" seems mostly to be about keeping people in line with policies that rich donors like while trying to keep the tent as small as possible.
I really agree with this. If bed-wetting was the pejorative assigned to Democrats, moderates became the literal poster child for this unfortunate characteristic. They are afraid of Maga, but positively terrified of Progressives. No one embodies this more than Jeffries. People lament how Progressives have litmus tests ( 'please don't let the Israelis starve children') but feckless moderates who want to straddle every issue come away from almost every discussion looking like they believe in nothing and so they turn their vitriol on Democrats who at least say what they believe. Billionaire donors be damned.
I agree with you though I am no longer sure if it is bed-wetting over MAGA. I really honestly believe it is bed-wetting over funding. MAGA after all will leave people like Schumer and Gilibrand alone and probably Jeffries too. But actually taxing billionaires will cost them a lot of donors. I feel like the litmus tests are not about issues but about the bottom line and whether the consultants get paid. I think that is one of the reasons the Democrats are just not working.
We need more candidates like Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Mamdani, NOT “moderate” Democrats who have let Trump takeover our cities and our country.
I think it's fine for them to run in districts or states where a progressive can feasibly win. But these candidates don't win in West Virginia, which costs us the Senate, and it means that we can't do anything. I'd rather be able to approve democratic judges and maybe get some bipartisan reforms done than be stuck in the minority forever because "principles".
Thank you so much for this comment. We need to win, and we need votes to win. Because the Democratic Party endorses less than the ultimate progressive doesn’t mean they don’t care about those issues. It’s that they know that they need numbers in congress to defeat trumpism and MAGA, and any way they can get those numbers has to be their top priority.
Bernie Sanders just played to a packed crowd in West Virginia. I think that you are behind the times in your thinking.
By this same logic Kamala Harris should be president, right? She filled out the Alliant Energy Center in Madison, WI back in Oct 2024!
Both progressives and moderates need to chill and pick their battles. Moderates shouldn't be as critical about Mamdani until he governs (and only if he does a poor job), progressives shouldn't be critical when reps like Golden hold onto Trump voting seats. Unfortunately everyone views this as zero sum and to grant the other side a win is viewed as problematic for the entire movement. That's the toxic mindset that needs to move from zero sum intra-party rather than zero sum with Republicans, which it is, because they are winning the swing seat elections that determine the presidency and Congress.
Harris is another one who was too moderate for her own good.
I think she was perceived as more progressive and that sank her. But to give you Madison/Dane County specifics:
Kamala - 274k votes
Tammy Baldwin (incumbent, "more moderate" perception) - 274k votes
Marc Pocan (very progressive) - 269k votes, and his opponent did 2k better than Trump. And for a state like Wisconsin, 2k votes do matter! Perception matters for swing voters and most of them swing between moderates, not progressives or conservatives
We will probably never agree on this. I think Trump is in power at least to a great extent because Democrats haven’t been presenting clear enough alternative, progressive messages. And moderate Democrats are still not playing hardball against Trump’s dictatorial takeover.
You just proved my point. The most progressive of the three got more votes than either Harris or Baldwin. I am from Wisconsin and still live across its Western border, across from the most conservative part of the state, where I lived myself for 30 years. I do get Wisconsin politics. Just because Pocan’s opponent got lots of money from Trumpists doesn’t mean he had the wrong message.
The word “bi-partisan” has become a very triggering word because of the “Lucy pulling the football” connotation to it with the other party.
Not just the other party. Sinema campaigned on raising the minimum wage, fighting climate change, and a whole host of other issues. Then she yanked the ball time and time again and claimed it was about "centrism" and "bipartisanship". The fact is that the endless quest for this perceived centrism (or the endless use of it as an excuse) functions primarily to stop action, not make it.
Case in point. “Centrism” is a wet dream fantasy for some in Dem leadership. The only party that gets tingled with sexual pleasure by the word/term are the Democrats.
For some, yes. But at the end of the day I really care about housing and I would lose it if progressives or MAGA types caused the ROAD to Housing act to not pass, despite Warren and Scott both openly championing it, because "the other side supports it and that means we can't".
There's a time to call out despicable behavior, and there's other times to focus on getting shit done and doing something good. I think this act does that and it's not a stain that some Republicans agree.
W Virginia is lost for the Dems no matter the candidate for many years to come. Forget it and don't waste money or good candidates on it. The focus has to be on close to 50 : 50 states like Georgia or North Carolina. There the right kind of moderate can have substantial advantages.
Give us more Kyrsten Simenas! We need more of that 🤣
I know it's a joke, but Synema was a good example of WAR! She was an awful senator for the state she represented, she got primaried, and Gallego won! Please do more of that!
But if you can't find the equivalent "Gallego" for Louisiana/Nebraska/North Carolina/Florida then stay out of it!
Sinema didn't run in a primary. She decided not to run before she would have to face Dem voters. She knew she would lose, and that doesn't fit her narcissistic self image. Sinema betrayed her constituents, voting against policies that even Rs like.
She was my senator. Good riddance.
She was a piece of work. I’m sure she’s somewhere being legal counsel for a private equity firm dolled up in something f’ugly like Cruella Deville.
*Sinema
If Jeffries is leading with fear and compromising real values that many of us hold he is no longer representing us and our values.
Brian, here’s a question for a future chat. Is there a comparable process in the Republican Party for recruiting candidates, determining how they should talk about issues, identifying and trying to persuade likely voters, etc? And if so, do you know much about it? It seems to me that they don’t concern themselves overmuch with fine-tuning their rhetoric in response to polls and focus groups, or even with trying to appeal to specific voter demographics (aside from white men with authoritarian personalities, of course,) at least not in the same way that Democrats seem to be obsessed with. Even their “voter outreach” to, say, Hispanic communities, mostly seems to involve capturing the local media and making sure everyone there knows how hateful and perverse the Democratic Party is, irrespective of the truth of things. They seem much less concerned with fielding candidates designed to appeal to the median voter than they do in managing what information and what rhetoric actually reaches voters. In a way, Democrats are concerned with developing players who might compete very well under a certain set of rules, while Republicans are much more interested in altering the rules whenever it suits them, and making sure that the game is broadcast under their terms or under their control. It’s alarming to me that Dems still worry so much about whether this or that candidate will turn off voters because of their supposedly extreme rhetoric when the Republican Party has proven repeatedly in recent years that you can field outright Nazis as candidates if you can convince voters that the other guy is somehow worse. So what does it look like on the Republican side and why don’t Democrats take the hint?
Most voters who are political nerds have incoherent positions, and they might hold both progressive and conservative views, and I think a lot of consultants interpret that as a need to appeal to the squishy middle. But to me, Mamdani shows voters are thirsty for change and big ideas. (I live in the district adjacent to Jeffries', so I can't yell at him directly, but he gets on cable news daily all "kitchen table issues!" but can't get behind the candidate who made affordability the cornerstone of his campaign? It's mind-boggling. And no one is really opposing Mamdani on the merits anymore; they just hear "socialist" and spin out.)
But also, take Sherrod Brown. I wouldn't call him a moderate, but he does have a set of values he communicates authentically to voters, which is what I think people respond to. It's less about specific policy positions and more about authenticity and whether a candidate seems to be fighting for "people like me." Brown only lost in November by a couple of points; I like his odds in '26, when the electorate will be more engaged, high-propensity voters, who lean Dem.
Could a Mamdani win in a swing state? Maybe not, but I'd like to see someone try, because I think the centrist theory of the case is wrong. I'm probably biased because I live in deep blue Brooklyn, but Mamdani is also out here making compelling content mostly about everyday problems New Yorkers face, and that's persuasive! (The new one from last week where he raced a crosstown bus on foot in order to talk about adding dedicated bus lanes to 34th Street is such a niche thing, but it speaks to the broader themes of his campaign: stuff in this city doesn't work, but I've got some tangible ideas for how to fix it. Seems like a good model for Dem campaigns generally!)
It’s frankly impossible for this discussion to be productive if we keep throwing around the meaninglessly unqualified term “moderation.”
The Democratic Party, as it is known and hated today, is already PLENTY “moderate.” And that kind “moderation,” it hardly needs to be explained, consists of the various expressions of fealty to the major funders of the Democratic Party.
The party is widely detested by conservatives and progressives alike for the same reasons its major funders love it.
Movements to concentrate *that* kind of “moderation” in the party will only concentrate the public’s distaste for it.
While I’m sure that these WAR analyses come from sources with impeccable qualifications as Democratic strategy insiders, it surprises me not one bit that they have chosen to measure the problem in ways that leads to such a conclusion about the need for “moderation,” i.e., more of what the party already is. But I can’t imagine a community of people with a more glaring conflict of interest. Billionaire funders of the political status quo are paying for their houses, and their second houses, and their beach houses.
Forget anything that you hear from Democratic Party political consultants. If they’re already established enough to have their views considered on this topic, they are already too invested in the status quo to have a credible opinion on it.
Regardless of what they say, the prevailing definition of “moderation” is exactly the party’s problem.
The Democratic Party’s class of large funders mostly consists of media, tech, and finance billionaires who are basically libertarians. Their views on “cultural issues” (minoritarian, demographic injustice politics) are considerably more liberal than the American electorate. But their views on “economic issues” (majoritarian, economic populism) are well to the right.
The rise of the MAGA faction, displacing the neoliberals from their catbird seats in the Republican party, is good information about the American electorate‘s attitude toward libertarianism broadly.
Americans are not just sick of billionaires rigging the rules in the GOP. And it is not only conservatives who are sick of billionaires, rigging the rules. Pretty much everyone, except the billionaires themselves, are sick of the billionaires rigging the rules.
That’s what people should be paying attention to.
I don't think that "ideological purity" juices turnout so much as _appearing to actually believe the things you say_. I think that voters do punish the Dems for so plainly trying to grade-grub for their votes. When Dems try to "moderate" on immigration by supporting a draconian anti-immigrant bill, it gets Dems basically nothing because voters who were planning to vote based on wanting to see immigrants harmed know that Trump is their candidate, while voters view Dems as insincere and nakedly pandering.
If Dems can appear more moderate in a sincere way, that would help them. But if the way they appear moderate is just changing positions willy-nilly, they seem slimy and like they will say anything to get elected, which voters hate.
Amen, and so well said. Do those professing the importance of "moderation" (whatever they mean by that, and I will continue to argue that it may be problematic how fuzzy my understanding of that is as a sympathetic and engaged lay person), do they truly believe as you say that Amy Klobuchar would have wiped the floor with Donald Trump? No matter how beautiful the strategy, one should occasional take stock of the results, and all that. Also, the Moderate concern that their approach hasn't "worked" because it has never really been "fully implemented" reads to me like the defense of Communism as a more prosperous and equitable economic system than any other invented if only it had been tried . . . I truly don't mean to be insulting here, but not for nothing, things actually have to work IRL in order to . . . work . . . And as someone with an undergrad degree and continuing super wonky interest in economics - but/and who actually lives, and works, in the real world - the ceteris paribus construct I once loved for its clarity now seems almost absurdly simplistic and academic . . .
The vast majority of voters start thinking about their vote probably no more than ninety days before using it. We spend too much time involved in debating stances rather than having a framework that you would use in carrying out your obligations as an elected official. As to those decisions most time it no more then a yes or no vote. What standard should be used to determine the direction you choose.
The obvious one is the greatest good for the greatest number of people I represent. Further be neither liberal or conservative rather be politically open minded to exclude the money interests rather publicly declare your only obligation is to use your conscience and the input from your electors in making all yes or no decisions on any bill. This is the best way for the voters to know who you are voting for as to the direction the official is going. Example should we continue medicare either yes or no and state why it is the best for the greatest number of the people you represent.
It is disgusting that rather than concentrating on the issue at hand rather you seek personal enrichment and use of power. When did elective officials starting to ignore they are not the dictators of the people rather their servant.
In what world do Klobuchar and Collins have similar political ideas? ThIs constant demonization of the Democratic Party, will result in getting fewer votes, and right now if we don’t get the votes, we will never defeat trumpism. A simplistic analysis here.
Collins doesn't have ideas but she is the ultimate "centrist" weather vane. I think the point is that if "perceived moderation" was the key to winning she would be the best example Republicans have.
This is a good commonsense approach. One political technique that can make a good local
Democratic candidate work for an electorate is to show leadership. We forget in all this data analysis, that people's opinions and beliefs are malleable. Even today, they are open to persuasion.
A real leader knows how to speak from the heart and say things that his audience may not like. But as long as they like him or her, they will keep an open mind. Trump has been faking this. Provide the real deal and see what happens for Democrats. Stop assuming all us red-staters are closed minded. We aren't.
The other thing we need is a truly adversarial and fair primary. It is within the testing of competitive ideas in a professional and good faith manner that voters obtain a meaningful exchange of material information. The "compare and contrast" done on a level playing field will give voters a way to test the true mettle of a candidate. Again, Republicans have been faking this as well with their performative hostility. It does demonstrate "fight" but not in a good way.
Mamdani does present a clear contrast to Jeffries (who only once recently spoke with pace and fervor), BUT candidates like Mamdani outside NY will mostly feed the Republican motto that the Democrats are all "woke," "too woke" for comfort, and could propel Republican candidates among the general American electorate, who remain moderate and interested in kitchen table issues. The predicted increasing inflation with more unemployment (called "stagflation") will also raise more questions about how Mamdani can pay for all his free government offers.
Jamie Raskin focuses on "common sense for the common good." Dems should find candidates who subscribe to that kind of moderation-with-changes.
Yes, I prefer Mamdani, but can one like him WIN everywhere? And now, defeating trumpism has to be our number one goal.
But is that the right question?
Mandami clearly is running a campaign that speaks to New York voters which is where he is running. Some of his proposals (like raising taxes on the rich to fund infrastructure) do poll well in most places but he has not, in his campaign, claimed that everyone needs to be like him. Nor for that matter have major national progressive figures. What they have argued is that the party needs to embrace him and support his voters.
Figures like Jeffries on the other hand or more explicitly Gillibrand have pushed the opposite perspective of your question, that he shouldn't be supported there because he cannot win everywhere. In effect they are the ones seeking to nationalize his race wither in opposition to his views, fear of a loss, or both.
I would argue that whether he can win everywhere is immaterial. He is speaking to voters where he is and needs to do just that. The centrists need to stop demanding purity tests around Israel and supporting Wall Street and focus on listening to actual voters in each place.
Right. It's weird to impose the whole country's hopes and dreams on one guy running for mayor. There are a lot of specific circumstances at play in NYC. But I think Mamdani is doing a lot of things Dems should emulate rather than shun. (Oy, Gillibrand. I've called her office a couple of times to register my disappointment.) People keep getting bogged down by the word "socialist" but the gist of his campaign is: some things in this city don't work, I've got ideas for how to fix them. (A lot of what doesn't work is related to affordability—rent is too high, grocery prices are too high—but it's local niche-y stuff too like food truck permits and dedicated bike/bus lanes.) Why couldn't a Dem in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin do something similar: this thing in our region/country doesn't work, here's what I'll do to fix it if you elect me. I think that gets Dems out of the trap of supporting the status quo.
Yes, very much so. Indeed I have seen local Democrats try to do that. What it feels like to me is that there is a litmus test but it is really about whether you play along with the funding machine not whether you can win your race or respond to your constituents. Or if it is about winning it is because they have become so accustomed to doing all their "campaigning" on CNN that they forget how to listen to local voters. I think this explains Jeffries continued backhanded attacks on Mandami certainly.
The funding and rolodexing has been an issue for a while with the Democrats.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/31/democratic-party-political-fundraising-dccc/
The "big tent" idea is a good one when it means this: Run progressives wherever progressive Democrats can win. Run conservative or big-business aligned Democrats only where they are the most winnable candidate. Manchin is an example. Better him than a Republican.
Let's not refer to big-business aligned Democrats as "moderates." Or "centrists." They are "big-business aligned" or perhaps "conservative." Being aligned with big business does not make one a moderate. A "centrist" can mean anything; it's a non-descriptor, intentionally blurring ideology.