Biden & Dem Moderation Cannot defeat Trumpism

So far, the whole spectrum from progressivism to socialism hasn't shown the ability to beat either Trumpism OR Bidenism. Until progressivism can show it knows how to message and win outside of solid-left districts, it's going to remain where it is now. This was a great test case and was a massive failure. Biden-ism flipped the district by 10 pts vs 2016, while the same progressive candidate did worse than two years ago:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kara...ouse-seat-nebraska_n_5fd507e5c5b663c37596ff87

Kara Eastman was supposed to win this year. The polling looked good, she had come so close to winning the Omaha congressional seat in 2018, and this time, the national party was all in for her. Progressive activists were eager to show that their ideas could win outside heavily blue areas. And Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes metropolitan Omaha and a more rural area around a military base, was as good a place as any.

But the vindication progressives had hoped for never materialized. Eastman lost last month to Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) by more than she had in 2018 (4.5 percentage points compared to 2 points two years ago). President-elect Joe Biden’s 6.5-point win in the district, four years after President Donald Trump won there, made Eastman’s defeat that much more frustrating.

Eastman’s loss was a blow to Democrats hoping to expand their majority in the House. But it was an especially painful loss for the party’s progressive wing, which wanted to show it could do more than just oust incumbent Democrats in ultra-liberal seats. It wanted to demonstrate the viability of its preferred policies in the swing seats and states that determine control of Congress. The left touted Eastman’s race as a marquee opportunity to show that progressive policies designed to excite the party base are assets, rather than liabilities.

...

 

If we’re not careful, we’ll get creamed again in 2022. A majority of Democrats and like minded independents, in my opinion, expected this election to not only elect Biden, not only gain control of the Senate, if by a narrow margin, but also to result in large Democratic gains down ballot.

Instead, the only “plus” that came from the 2020 election was defeating trump. The polls, again, were very misleading with regard to the Senate. We’re left with needing to win the two Georgia runoffs to barely have a Senate majority, no sure thing at all. In fact, a miracle if it’s pulled off. The House? Instead of holding on to the majority we had, or even adding to it, it was a disaster. We lost numerous seats, not all of them first term House seats taken from the GOP in 2018, and are in real danger, in my opinion, of losing the majority in 2022.

Why? Typical Democratic complacency. If trump isn’t running, if he isn’t in the White House, then getting the turnout needed to retain the House will take an effort akin to what we just had getting Biden elected. Don’t for a minute think that there won’t be a huge turnout from the GOP side, unless trump somehow alienates those voters from the Republican Party to such an extent that they stay home. Don’t expect it.

One other thing? Being smart with spending campaign funds in 2022. A huge amount of money, I read somewhere that it was in the neighborhood of $100 million, was spent attempting the impossible - beating McConnell in Kentucky. Think of how that money could have been used in down ballot races in Texas and in other states, and I don’t doubt that other funds weren’t spent wisely elsewhere. The McConnell race stood out to me. Nice candidate in a hopeless cause.

A message for everyone that cares?
Wake up, people. Start working for 2022’s election NOW. Also do what we have done, which is contributing to winning those two Georgia Senate seats. I think they are winnable, but it’ll take money and effort, and time is running short.

 

Yeah that's the reason for the midterm wipeout and not the fact that Republicans demonized the ACA.

How can anyone take you serious using that type of logic.

The Democrats have had the presidency 12 out of 16 years and just got control of the house back, so how if that failing?

 

Good catch.

Prime example.

 

Another way to look at it....

Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9M.
Biden won the popular vote by 7.1M.

From that perspective, Trumpism was soundly rejected in 2020 relative to 2016.

 

I don't think it's fair to just automatically put a purity test on "Lincoln Project Folks" especially at the voter level who we are generalizing as moderates & immediately assume they are Bill Clinton types from a corporate elite policy perspective. Where the Bernie supporters are wrong is in the purity conundrum, and instead trying harder to engage with folks that aren't inside the Bernie bubble.

I RARELY find people who are moderates or swing voters who aren't just as progressive in concept to the thought of investing in green infrastructure for jobs, and helping the planet, having expanded access to and bringing the cost WAYYY down on Health Insurance, making education a priority for ALL, and getting money out of politics.

The issue I find is the low information and detail that often those who describe themselves as independents or the case of the "I'm fiscally conservative, or socially liberal" person we all know and love who basically agrees with us, but their information sources often are flanked with talking points.

Those are people who... when engaged with Democrats.... are the key in getting that coalition together to be able to enact real change by swinging their votes back to Dems at the ballot box, and then legislation being passed to get good changes in government.

Winning elections, and making change happen isn't about the purity test. Unfortunately there just isn't enough people like you and me. The "Lincoln Project/Fiscal Conservative/socially liberal" people we all know who aren't pure are what is needed to win elections.

(Also note that the Democrats do not win swing states without African American voters turning out in massive numbers. Can't forget about that too"

I know because I was one of those people prior, and now I'm someone who donated to Elizabeth Warren, and whose wife voted for Bernie Sanders. However previously I was a George W. Bush (1st term) voter, and a non-voter for his 2nd term. But I had people around me that engaged me in the political process not by a purity test, but by focusing on things that were broad and agreeable first.

So my point about the "Dem 2022 Strategy" is it should be about how to engage simple concise and on engaging issues. Topics should be bold, but they should be agreeable from everyone from the Bernie bros to the "Fiscally Conservative/Socially Liberal" Moderate voters. If the Dems are allowed to be classified in whatever radical nature the Republicans want to classify them as, those voters that are needed will not be there on election day, and the Dems will lose in spectacular fashion again down ballot.

 

So true. I do think though that Dem "base" voter turnout will still be high in 2022. I also think African American turnout will also be high in those key areas. If the Senate is won next month, it'll be on the backs of Black voters in GA who show up in record numbers. Biden better do everything he can to engage with Black leaders, and bring them into the policy making process. If for a minute it's viewed as him betraying those voters, he will massively fail the party who time and time again relies on huge turnout with black voters.

However I think the main issue that'll decide many of these down ballot races where Dems lost to Republicans this November is those low information voters I mention above. There are many many many "moderate" voters who voted for Biden, but thought it was a good idea to "CHECK" Biden with a split ticket... just to make sure there wasn't a super liberal government that would turn the country into the Soviet Union.

So I think there is a real messaging issue that mostly comes from the power of right wing propaganda that operates as background noise to low information voters, and sticks in their head enough to affect these down ballot races. Terms like "Defund the Police" and "Green New Deal" are fundamentally twisted, and purposefully used as a weapon against the Democrats in these elections.

It's a giant blinking red light, and really have no idea how to tackle that messaging information war other than what I mention below which is finding out how to really consolidate the party message to easy concise and repeatable talking points.

I don't want Bernie like policies, but I do want Bernie like skills for how Democrats talk about their policy platform for 2022.

 

All the winning that people who support establishment Dems over progressives brag about is fueled by banks and lobbyists putting their massive weight in the scale. It's nothing to brag about. I don't know why normal folks do it.

But que me being called a conspiracy nut. Ya that's right, people like Pelosi and Feinstien are abject grifters. The only reason people like me tolerate her is because she doesn't grift with racism and hatred.

 

Biden and Dem moderation can defeat Bernism.

 

And continue the lovely economic trends of the past 40 years that got us to Trumpism. But hey at least the new president isn't going to edgelord on Twitter.

 

Big win for America.

 

More people showed up for both sides. Hilary won by 2% Biden by 4.5%. The polls predicted Biden would win by 8% which he did not. The polls were more off for Biden than Hillary. Just for some context 4.5% is in the bottom half of presidential victories. Trump got more votes than any person not named Biden.

 

Ya the 70 million who voted for Trump aren't going away. And as time moves forward with no major shift in economic policy status quo we've experienced the past half century, expect more disillusioned people struggling to love paycheck to paycheck resorting to extremist content and aligning with Trumpism.

 

She wasn't running for re-election and she wasn't a Congressperson. She ran against the same opponent as she did two years ago and lost by a larger margin. It was the progressives that pushed her as a standard-bearer and hopefully evidence that progressive Dems could win in non-liberal districts.

The point is not to win re-election in liberal districts - it's to prove they can win outside of them. If they can't win in places like Iowa or Georgia or Nebraska-2, then the party has no reason to push further left unless it wants to be a permanent minority party.

 

Well that sucks. Looks like Cyberpunk 2077 will be our real future.

 

It's a real problem for progressives. This was a ideal testing grounds election for them - they had anti-Trump winds at their back, it's a moderate district, and they got good turnout. But people voted for Biden and a GOP Congressman instead of her. Progressives did well in 2018, but apparently it was a bit of a mirage and largely the result of Dems being excited but GOP not. They can't really count on that as a political strategy - they have to be able to win when both sides have equal enthusiasm if they want a sustainable movement.

It's sort of the same problem as the "Texas is turning blue" thing. If there was ever an election to make Texas close, this was it, and Dems sucked - and that wasn't necessarily a progressivism thing. It's unlikely Texas goes blue for many years now. They have to figure out what they are doing wrong with their messaging in general, but when you need the middle to win elections in all these places, it's going to be hard to convince the party to push a further left message.

 

What is a mirage is establishment Dems in good faith espousing proggrsice ideas rather than letting the GOP win the framing game.

Therr are so many confounding factors in terms of what people lose elections. So pointing to one thing is silly. Explain why Florida voted for a GOP president and also overwhelmingly by double digits points voted for ballot initiates that you would only see win in liberal safe havens like Washington state?