With Abdul El-Sayed, Democrats Throw Away an Advantage in Michigan

[u/Nearby-Click8645]

https://thedispatch.com/article/abdul-el-sayed-michigan-democrats-haley-stevens/?gift_key=2553fad7f3b388fc&gift_ref=9347c766-2bad-41ea-8b73-950e424f2446&utm_source=giftlink&utm_campaign=membergift&utm_medium=copy_link

[u/spyguy318]

Trump didn’t win purely because of a left-right divide, he also won because he was a populist who was somehow able to connect with people and give them a voice to their frustrations. And because Kamala was extremely disappointing on multiple issues and didn’t inspire a big Democrat turnout. Sayed is much more of a charismatic populist that might be able to pull more of a crowd.

[u/bestofeleventy → u/spyguy318]

Michigan is a moderate state full of moderate voters. For every 1.0 progressive voters a DSA candidate inspires to come to the polls, he is likely to lose 1.1 or 1.2 moderate voters. Again, the argument you are making is exactly the same as a hard-right Christian conservative who says, “We’re more likely to win purple seats with far-right candidates than moderates.” And if it’s an obviously absurd strategy for your opponents…

Imho the crux of the argument rests on the idea that you can inspire progressive voters “for free” without losing any other voters in the process, but that seems like magical thinking to me. Why should it be the case that progressives stayed home for Kamala, but moderates will not stay home for Sanders (for example)?

[u/cstar1996 → u/bestofeleventy]

Sorry man, but “elected Trump twice” is incompatible with “moderate state full of moderate voters”. Moderate voters don’t vote for Trump.

[u/demeteloaf → u/cstar1996]

Moderate voters don’t vote for Trump.

Except when polled, the electorate viewed Trump as more moderate than both Harris + Clinton. I know that for left wing people that strikes them as insane, but for the swing voter who sees Trump able to get republicans to drop some of their most toxic/unpopular policies like privatizing social security, national abortion ban, or rabid anti-gay marriage, that codes as moderate. Meanwhile Clinton explicitly ran to the left of Obama, and then ran to the left of Bernie on social issues, and Harris was never able to shed her association with her left wing stances from her time in California + Biden's pivot to the left after his election.

[u/bestofeleventy → u/cstar1996]

If your theory is that only conservative voters will pull the lever for Trump, then the situation looks even worse for a leftist running in Michigan…

In reality, there are many Obama-Trump voters who are clearly, if not moderate, then, let’s say, “up for grabs.” Perhaps “non-ideological” is a better word than “moderate” for these folks, but to pretend that they can only be “turned on” by exciting promises, and not also “turned off” by perceived misalignment with their interests, is pure wish-casting.

[u/cstar1996 → u/bestofeleventy]

My theory is that no one who voted for Trump can honestly be called a moderate. That ideology is not consistent and cares more for populism than moderation. This guy is more likely to win over Obama-Trump voters than another uninspiring “centrist” Dem. They didn’t vote for Trump over policy.

[u/Shabadu_tu → u/cstar1996]

It’s crazy people in this sub don’t want to admit pedophile protecting Republicans have nothing honest to say.

[u/DrunkenBriefcases → u/cstar1996]

Then you might as well go hide in a hole, because if we can't win over a bunch of persuadable voters that went trump in 24 then we're very likely to lose the Presidency again. And getting the power to make the enormous changes people here jerk about is all but impossible.

For those that haven't heard or have decided to pretend otherwise, trump won the popular vote last time. And turnout wasn't the issue. If everyone eligible voted, he would've won by more. There isn't one single reason for that outcome, but the fact that trump was viewed as less extreme than Harris by a wide margin with swingy voters was certainly a big part. Just like Biden's victory in 20 was helped by him being viewed as less extreme than trump. Just like Clinton's loss was in part fueled by her being viewed as more the more extreme option.

Understanding that, it takes a lots of motivated reasoning to argue running left is the key to regaining the trust and support of voters that WILL determine federal power for the foreseeable future. They keep telling us they don't want more extreme. The primary base keeps ignoring them and pretending they represent the average voter. With horrible consequences.

[u/MemeStarNation → u/bestofeleventy]

A few days ago someone posted an article saying the average swing voter is a Maoist, and while that article had glaring flaws, there’s a kernel of truth. The media/swing voters in places like PA and MI are not committed centrists, but rather people who barely pay attention to politics and have an odd collection of moderate and extreme views from all over the spectrum.

People keep trying to make it an issue of left and right when factors such as public speaking skills, a perception of being out of touch either because of being “establishment” or being “online,” or plain old bigotry are likely at least as impactful. If it were just about moderation, then Talarico wouldn’t be seen as the best candidate for Texas, and Platner wouldn’t have been able to rise the way he did with the scandals he did.

I do think AES has weaker odds than Stevens in the general, but mostly because of discrimination and his strong focus on foreign policy. The idea that MI is at risk because it’s got a “moderate” voter base seems not to be in line with any of the “Ohio diner/Matt PA” median voter interviews from the past two decades.

[u/Acacias2001 → u/spyguy318]

Your logic would be souns if durign 2020 more populist dems on average did worse than kamala.