Local Elections

[Gredival]

I gave you the logical and correct argument against progressiveness, which is always my default position and has been proven empirically.

Then found a source that backed up my fundamental warrant about cities being the determining factor, even in 2026, rather than shooting from the hip like an arm chair analyst.

People may have a disdain for people from K Street here (mirroring the anti-elitism that propelled Trump's own base), but generally I think professionals have expertise that we should defer to.

[Yabby]

You just admitted that you took a default stance on something and then sought out a source to prove your stance. I can literally do that with any position. Instead of being open to the possibility that the new evidence shows progressives can win these races, you're already trying to dismiss the accomplishment, and they haven't even won the general yet.

[Salodin]

His point is his position has evidence to support it, born out in generations of voting, and not unproven vibes from an (admittedly) growing subsection of the left.

If you're being fair and truthful, you have to admit his calculus has been mostly correct about American politics. Sure, maybe it's changing, but dsa needs to put up or shut up this general election before they have any room to claim the status quo has genuinely changed like BG says it has.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

You just admitted that you took a default stance on something and then sought out a source to prove your stance. I can literally do that with any position. Instead of being open to the possibility that the new evidence shows progressives can win these races, you're already trying to dismiss the accomplishment, and they haven't even won the general yet.

And the rest of you don't take the default stance of fuck the establishment and proceed from there?

My default stance is shaped by empirically proven data. Yours is shaped by frustration.

I arrived in DC as a progressive, and I've been third way for over fifteen years because of my experience on the ground. The establishment deals with reality and plays the game the way it needs to.

Obama was the optimal outcome. Harness enthusiasm (by lying/putting forth a different image), but govern in reality.

[Emphasis]

Historically, more moderate candidates win. Though Trump has shifted the Overton window to the extreme, particularly the far-right, to where people may respond accordingly to their rights and benefits getting cut, along with increasing taxation without representation.

The political climate is now set up for progressives to have their best chances at being elected.

[Yabby]

His point is his position has evidence to support it, born out in generations of voting, and not unproven vibes from an (admittedly) growing subsection of the left.

If you're being fair and truthful, you have to admit his calculus has been mostly correct about American politics. Sure, maybe it's changing, but dsa needs to put up or shut up this general election before they have any room to claim the status quo has genuinely changed like BG says it has.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

And the rest of you don't take the default stance of fuck the establishment and proceed from there?

My default stance is shaped by empirically proven data. Yours is shaped by frustration.

I arrived in DC as a progressive, and I've been third way for over fifteen years because of my experience on the ground. The establishment deals with reality and plays the game the way it needs to.

Obama was the optimal outcome. Harness enthusiasm (by lying/putting forth a different image), but govern in reality.

You guys are putting words in my mouth and creating a stance I don't have. I was pointing out the fallacy in your reply, not saying that your overall stance was incorrect. My stance is that, with all things being equal, meaning money, resources, exposure, etc., a progressive can be just as electable as a moderate. The problem is that all things are never equal, and thanks to Citizens United, they probably never will be.

If we look at the Michigan race between AES and Stevens, it honestly provides more evidence for your side of the argument. Yes, AES won in the end, but there are two things about that victory that are a little depressing.

1. McMorrow dropped out, but not early enough to have her name removed from the ballot or early voting. She received 61,000 votes, which is almost three times the 20,000-vote margin Stevens lost by. We can't say that all of those votes would have gone to Stevens, but considering McMorrow was also running as a moderate, just not quite as moderate as Stevens, it's reasonable to assume a significant portion of those votes would have gone to Stevens. If that's the case, AES would have lost.

2. The amount of work AES had to put in compared to Stevens was MASSIVE. He was doing almost three events a day, every day, for months. Interviews, town halls, in-person gatherings, and everything in between. I rarely saw Stevens doing events, and the few she did, she fact-checked poorly at times, and canceled events when she came under pressure from the media or influencers. She was carried almost entirely by the money backing her, which was nearly $70 million, roughly 10-to-1 compared to AES.

Point number two is why I think the data looks the way it does. At the end of the day, money is king, and moderates tend to attract more of that money, which is a major reason they are considered more electable. The question is whether we should just abandon progressives because of that. I don't personally think so. I think there is a time and place for them, and that time is now.

If we're coming out of a government controlled by Democrats, moderates make sense as candidates because they tend to come with the money and institutional support that allows them to avoid taking hard stances against the establishment. But times like now are different. When the right controls every branch of government, the cost of everything is rising rapidly, people are losing access to healthcare, and we're watching a generation grow up realizing that the promise of unchecked capitalism isn't necessarily making their lives better, progressives have talking points that can resonate with voters without requiring nearly as much money to get the message across.

I'm not saying we need to run progressives everywhere. I'm saying that when we see pockets where a more progressive candidate has a realistic path to winning, we should be willing to push them there and use those races to help realign the political center when we can.

Edit: I should also add to point 2 that we need candidates who are actually willing to fight for the position, not people who phone it in like Stevens did or like Hillary did. I would take a progressive who is willing to work their ass off and fight for every vote over a moderate who relies on their PACs, outside money, and name recognition while expecting to simply sail to victory.

[Kaslo]

And the rest of you don't take the default stance of fuck the establishment and proceed from there?

My default stance is shaped by empirically proven data. Yours is shaped by frustration.

I arrived in DC as a progressive, and I've been third way for over fifteen years because of my experience on the ground. The establishment deals with reality and plays the game the way it needs to.

Obama was the optimal outcome. Harness enthusiasm (by lying/putting forth a different image), but govern in reality.

SupportiveClap.gif

[arus2001]

Willfully ignorant conservatives/moderates are hard to convince. Film at 11.

[Tyrath]

People may have a disdain for people from K Street here (mirroring the anti-elitism that propelled Trump's own base), but generally I think professionals have expertise that we should defer to.

And they don't have a shred of bias of course.

[Gredival]

And they don't have a shred of bias of course.

The ones that stay in business are the ones that get results. The establishment wing may be biased to itself, but the Democratic strategists, pollsters, and campaign managers they hire are ambivalent. Their job is to deliver wins to whoever hires them.

They are advising the party to stay moderate because evidence indicates that's the best tactic because going progressive lost us the Dukakis election and the McGovern elections. Then going to the center brought us Clinton.

Obama is up for grabs since he campaigned in 08 as the progressive but definitely governed as a centrist. However lying tends to be a bad tactic since progressives get mad that things aren't fixed then they don't show up at the polls next election

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Yabby]

The ones that stay in business are the ones that get results. The establishment wing may be biased to itself, but the Democratic strategists, pollsters, and campaign managers they hire are ambivalent. Their job is to deliver wins to whoever hires them.

How did that work out in 2024?

Edit: I’m in a snarky mood, apologies. I’m going to take an edible and hit the hot tub.

[Athas]

Claiming the center got in Clinton and Obama while ignoring centrists lost two of the most recent three national elections is pretty damn galling.

[Tyrath]

The ones that stay in business are the ones that get results. The establishment wing may be biased to itself, but the Democratic strategists, pollsters, and campaign managers they hire are ambivalent. Their job is to deliver wins to whoever hires them.

They are advising the party to stay moderate because evidence indicates that's the best tactic because going progressive lost us the Dukakis election and the McGovern elections. Then going to the center brought us Clinton.

Obama is up for grabs since he campaigned in 08 as the progressive but definitely governed as a centrist. However lying tends to be a bad tactic since progressives get mad that things aren't fixed then they don't show up at the polls next election

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

They're getting results for their billionaire overlords alright.

Why do you keep referencing old ass elections when going moderate is what allowed Trump to get re-elected?

[Kaslo]

How did that work out in 2024?

Edit: I’m in a snarky mood, apologies. I’m going to take an edible and hit the hot tub.

Record inflation happened leading up to 2024

I swear ya'll always forget "its the Economy stupid"

[Salodin]

Record inflation happened leading up to 2024

I swear ya'll always forget "its the Economy stupid"

Makes one curious that if Biden was replaced with a moderate that wasn't in his administration for said inflation, if that person would have won the election.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

[Yabby]

That, and instead of doing what the centrists wanted and running on “Everything is fine,” maybe running on “Let’s fix this shit, get you healthcare, and tax the fuck out of the rich” might actually do better.

[Tyrath]

Nah, instead they cozied up with republicans and stopped calling Maga weird.

[Yabby]

Still funny to me how well that played.

[Kaslo]

Makes one curious that if Biden was replaced with a moderate that wasn't in his administration for said inflation, if that person would have won the election.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Probably not, people generally just vote against the party in power when shit is bad.

[arus2001]

Can't really claim the D's were in power with a perpetual 50/50 split and economic downturn being the direct result of conservative policies and botched covid response, but I'll just circle back to my last post.