No, and no. But compromise choices like Harris don’t always work out either. Here are the lessons we can draw from every Democratic nomination since 1968.
EVERY Democrat in Congress, both House and Senate, and including nominal "independents" Bernie and Angus King, is a co-sponsor of the 2025 Equality Act, which would make gender self-ID instantaneous and unquestionable at all places of "public accommodation" (essentially, any business that serves the public). Any man would be able to enter any women-only space, place, event, etc, at his own personal whim.
That tells me that the "progressives" completely control the Democratic Party.
Toilets on planes are single person, either sex. Completely different than allowing any man to enter any designated multi-person women's toilet facility at will.
I know you know this. You're just trying to insult and gaslight, because you have no actual argument. Pretty far below the usual level of discourse here, but you do you.
Using bathrooms on a co-ed basis is a no brainer to me. It's like, ok, who cares. But it stops there. Co-ed locker rooms with bilogical men in womens' locker rooms and almost anything other than a toilet are an outrage. Or giving kies and teen-agers -- who falways suffer from "social contagion " -- life altering "gender dysphoria" treatments is a real outrage. Especially since 100% OF ALL MEDICATIONS AND PROCEDURES APPLIED IN THOSE CASES IS OFF-LABEL. NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO APPROPRIATE MEDICAL RESEARCH AND APPEARED IN PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES. Not a single treatment or drug is approved by the FDA. Without going "off-label", you couldn't give a kid an aspirin if the medical research behind it was similar to the medical research behind all gender-dysphoria treatments for kids. If adults want to kid themselves about their sex by calling it gender, good luck to them. Who cares. But kids shouldn't be able to change their sex before they can drink alcohol. And girls should not have to be subject to boys penises alnd testicles because a boy decides he "feels" like a girl. That kind of stuff, which might fly along the coasts in majority blue states, is anathema to normine living in the rest of the country -- and is a major reason Trumpo was elected in a landslide. BTW, it is also why he made great inroads in every single traditional Democratic voting bloc except college educated women, where the Democrats managed to keep their historic percentages. It's the only group in which their percentages did not go down.
Yeah, I continue to be amazed that leftists don't see this criminal gender fraud is the issue of the century for more than half the country --- and why there is every hope Trump and Trump-lites will hold on to the Trifecta for DECADES.
That thing that never happens happened again. Here is a news report from ONE DAY AGO:
>According to Arlington (Virginia) police, prosecutors, and Arlington school staff, “Riki Cox” is an alias that registered sex offender Richard Cox used late last year. Late last year, the Arlington County Public Schools (APS) pool staff allowed Cox, a biological male, to use female locker rooms at two high schools that have pools open to the public outside of school hours because Cox claimed he was a transgender woman. APS’s policy allows people to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity if they so choose.
Their opinions on issues are probably very diverse, but what they have in common is the willingness to go along with basically anything Trump wants to do, which is why Nate correctly described Trump as having full control over the party.
Exactly. He’s like Tito keeping Yugoslavia together. When he’s gone it’s going to be prime time viewing watching the Republicans split like the Balkans.
Both parties hate the other party. Trump is successful because he has eliminated dissent in the Republican Party. When he’s gone the internal fight will be epic. When it’s over they’ll refocus their attention on the Democrats. The question is whether or not they will be able to get all of the Trump voters to turn out for whoever wins the internal fight.
It’s a long way off, but I’d bet against it. They’ll only win if the Democrats nominee is another loser.
I respectfully disagree, though I could be wrong of course. I think the Right hates libs a lot more than vice versa. Their fear that Dems, when in power, will raise taxes and roll out another entitlement keeps them unified.
Think about how Bill Clinton is viewed by the Right today compared with when he was POTUS - he's equally hated now as he was then. GWB, on the other hand, was so hated by liberals for being stupid, for war on Iraq, his handling of Katrina etc., yet now, since he started painting, many liberals have warmed up to him. Even Obama for gods sake! The man was POTUS for 8 years without a hint of personal scandal, and yet he is equally hated on the Right today as he was then.
So. I’m open to that argument. My experience is that most people left or right don’t hate Clinton, Bush The Younger or Obama. But there are, on both sides, heavily partisan loud voices who will start spitting with anger if you try to make the argument that one or the other of them is not so bad. That’s why I think both sides hate each other equally ( I hate both parties equally), but I’m open to the idea that I’m wrong and there’s an imbalance of hatred.
But I’d argue that attitudes in the moment are more important and in the moment both sides hate each other equally.
“the fact that the establishment overwhelmingly lined up behind Clinton and then she blew it by losing to Trump anyway is an extremely understandable sore point for progressives.”
But she lost only because a small minority of Bernie voters refused to coalesce around the eventual nominee and vote for her in the general (voted for 3rd party or stayed home). Forecasts were so off they bred complacence - I remember many liberals had started to worry that Hillary would win by such a landslide she will not need liberals and will govern from the center (there was an article in the Times I believe). Bernie bros insisting Bernie would have won in 2016 is just crazy; I for one (a staunch democrat) would have sat that election out if Bernie was the nominee, though it wouldn't have made a difference as I live in California. There are many Democrats who will not vote for a past admirer of Fidel Castro and communism.
So it sounds like the candidate should be boldly fiscally liberal, but muted on liberal social issues, perhaps even punch left on wokeness?
Left out of the equation and difficult to quantify is rizz, personal appeal. Bill Clinton overcame long odds, in part, due to his ability to connect. Obama was very charismatic. Dukakis, Kerry, Hillary, and Kamala were decidedly not that charismatic.
Nate, I appreciate and largely agree with your history, and how it breaks out. The “contract on America” and Newt were hard splits for both sides.
But this comment is a plea for you to address your long promised breakout of how liberals are different than progressives. Its implications for Democratic Party politics are essential. So is distinguishing between true moderates and liberals. Progressives only win on issues when the liberals side with them. We (yes, I’m a liberal and not a progressive) often don’t and then are assumed to be moderates.
Please break it out. My take is that most political analysis misses the role of liberals or mislabels them as either progressives or or moderates depending on the issues.
This really accords with how American parties, particularly the Democratic Party, works. In a two party system, the party has to be a big uneasy coalition of different stakeholders and philosophies. It’s ludicrous to say that one interest group such as progressives have a stranglehold. Though, as a progressive, I will say that the establishment has a huge hand and it does tend to be more economically conservative.
It’s also ludicrous to say the way to victory is to publicly crucify or decry one of your core interests groups. Moderates will not win without progressives. And vice versa. We all have to be in this party together.
The essay is wonderful! I was there then, from Nixon and the street demonstration at the '68 convention on --- and I view this as a good summary.
A couple points -- Ted Kennedy never had a word to say about the draft until the Dems deputed him as the senator most in touch with the Youth Movement, they hoped, to simply end the protests in a minute: they stopped the draft, and I hope we NEVER, NEVER have conscription again. Though I suppose we will, since Hegseth has already moved to get women out of the Army: having to draft women is a serious impediment to conscription. Ending the draft did end the protest: we all blew away like smoke. Then they ended the war by refusing to pay for it anymore, which worked.
Gary Hart and Monkey Business was so much fun! They started it up again with Edwards, too, but somehow that was just sort of disgusting: in addition to chasing the woman and child of his affairs while his wife was dying of cancer into a woman's room, he was trying to get a million dollars out of a woman in her 90s. He certainly was a ladies man ----
I wish now I had voted for Gore! I have never voted for a Democrat: well, I voted for McCarthy, but God only knows what he was. But Bush turned out to be such a loser --- of the Iraq War, at least, or maybe it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who lost that war; they really took over Bush's presidency. At the time it seemed very important Bush win in Florida, but now ---- he was such a mess.
As for Woke, it was so MALIGN. I think the essay understates how bad it was. Constant euphemism. I try to avoid all euphemisms now, but we've all stopped talking to each other in person now. Too quarrelsome. The worst Woke was at the end of it, during Covid, when response to the many controversies instantly split between Red and Blue, Comply, Comply!! It was a terrible time. And I blame Fauci: he paid thru NIH for China to develop that virus!!
The actual Progressive wing does everything they can to torpedo the D's.
1968 support for the secret plan to end the war and voting for Nixon.
1980 voting for Anderson
2000 voting for Nader
2016 disaffected Bernie voters sitting out or voting Stein
Even when these segments aren't the margin of victory, the D candidates always have to give lip service to these people and their unmoored fiction that the left wing can deliver a national election. Opportunity cost and mixed general election messages don't help.
There are two lessons the Democratic Party needs to learn. Firstly, misogynistic America will never election a woman to the White House. Secondly, they need to choose the most electable candidate above all other considerations.
“OK, fine, what is wokeness? The most obvious feature is the substitution of race, gender and other forms of identity for economic class as a focal point for analyzing political and social hierarchies. “
Lolwut are you talking about Mr. Silver? The term wokeness is mostly a pejorative used by the right to brand left ideas as scary or nonsensical (essentially taking over for the term “politically correct”).
Cases in point: generational wealth as a left wing argument inherently links economic status to race, gender, or other identity factors. It does not separate them in a hierarchy - it links them. Same goes for the gender pay gap - it links gender and earning capability, it does not substitute one for the other as the focal point.
I see a similar wokeness framing a lot with pundits incentivized for max conflict.. disappointed to see a supposed data scientist fall into the same thinking talking heads use to argue for maximum drama. How much money do you make per article on Substack again?
In all these analyses and details, I believe you overlook the most important thing about Harris. The Democrats picked a terrible candidate. Think about this: She had an undistinguished carrer as an Attorney General. She was an almost invisible Senator; she was not an initiator or lead sponsor on any significant legislation. Biden picker here as his VP because he promised to pick a woman and the fact she was African American was a bonus. She was smart and a good campainer, but did not have enough oomph to be a good vice president, let alone a president -- she was good, but out of her depth. She was a disaster as a VP. Biden put her in charge of the border, nearly all the press, including friendly press called her a "border czar", even though her mandate was smaller than that. But, the border gotl worse and worse and that was one of the reasons Trump won in a landslide. And the friendly press literally erased all their prior references to her being a czar. She was put in charge of AI, and produced absolute word salad when trying to define what it is. She gave exactly zero press conferences during her candidacy, except to very friendly press near the end. She refused to participate in any open ended conversations, because, IMO, she would do "word salad" and demosntrate her lack of grasp of key issues.
Also, IMO, the Dems were afraid to fire her and get someone else to run. Can you imagine what the impact would be on the Democratic base if they fired a female African American as presiential nominee when she was the "obvious" heir apparent? The fact she was an awful candidate would have been unimportant relative to the fact they fired her.
Her undistinguished career as an AG included standing up alone among state AGs for increased penalties after the 2008 mortgage mess.
She turned a $25 B nationwide mostly paperwork settlement backed by 49 AGs into $20B of money in Californian's pockets.
Her border assignment was for a handful of specific countries, and she lowered immigration from those places 80%.
She may not have been a great candidate, but you should at least try fact based arguments rather than right wing echo chamber material you found to cut and paste.
The last three cycles produced compromises that didn’t work and left everyone unhappy. Come 2028 I hope someone is nominated who is unapologetically centrist and ignores The Groups or, even better, is hostile towards them. Alternatively, if Democrats have to learn by losing to get this leftwing virus out of their system they should nominate AOC. At least then nobody can claim the left was robbed or someone wasn’t leftwing enough. The worst thing to do is to nominate another Biden who’s never liked by the left but tries to please them and winds up unpopular for it.
I think that too often the term "moderate" or "centrist" is used to describe the attitude of a politician as opposed to their actual policy preferences. I appreciate Nate using DW/Nominate (which does have its flaws) instead to try and quantify it.
From the outside, it's hard to tell where moderates/centrists exist these days. There hasn't been a Democrat in decades that could be called even slightly pro-life. Manchin and Sinema were called centrists, but other than the tone of their speeches and their votes preserving filibuster, they didn't deviate from the party line that often. I guess John Fetterman fills that role today? I'll believe that the left doesn't have a stranglehold on the Democrats when there's a significant number of them willing to take more moderate positions and vote that way.
Kennedy killed Carter's plan for national health care, then ran on a more liberal single payer style plan. Carter probably still loses, but Kennedy in the primary and Anderson (28% liberal overall) in the general killed him. Nate mentions Wallace and Perot but Anderson was another important 3rd party item. Reagan won about a third of the states with less than 50% of the vote. Astonishing as it may seem, a big chunk of the left fringe of the D's backed Anderson.
Just after Edwards withdrew in 2008, exit polls showed his supporters split in a way that essentially gave Obama the edge he needed. Edwards' women voters split about 50-50, and his male supporters went 90-10 for Obama. Those male supporters were Obama's margin of victory. The anti-female presidential bias is not a right/left thing.
Finally, if the D's used the Republican primary rules, Bernie would have been a non-issue. The R's have more closed primaries and more winner-take-all states. The D's give a stronger voice to relatively smaller players, which creates a feedback loop. So in actual fact, the D rules were rigged in Sanders favor.
Obama should declare with a pledge to drop if Trump doesn't attempt a non-consecutive endaround. Would be a mistake for Dems to underestimate exactly how far down the slippery slope we can slide. Whining about threats to democracy ain't gonna get it done...and given the open warfare between the Executive branch and Judicial branch created by the Legislative branch's failure to modernize, there are limited moves to make.
EVERY Democrat in Congress, both House and Senate, and including nominal "independents" Bernie and Angus King, is a co-sponsor of the 2025 Equality Act, which would make gender self-ID instantaneous and unquestionable at all places of "public accommodation" (essentially, any business that serves the public). Any man would be able to enter any women-only space, place, event, etc, at his own personal whim.
That tells me that the "progressives" completely control the Democratic Party.
I suppose you are the person I see wandering around planes looking for the men's room.
Toilets on planes are single person, either sex. Completely different than allowing any man to enter any designated multi-person women's toilet facility at will.
I know you know this. You're just trying to insult and gaslight, because you have no actual argument. Pretty far below the usual level of discourse here, but you do you.
Using bathrooms on a co-ed basis is a no brainer to me. It's like, ok, who cares. But it stops there. Co-ed locker rooms with bilogical men in womens' locker rooms and almost anything other than a toilet are an outrage. Or giving kies and teen-agers -- who falways suffer from "social contagion " -- life altering "gender dysphoria" treatments is a real outrage. Especially since 100% OF ALL MEDICATIONS AND PROCEDURES APPLIED IN THOSE CASES IS OFF-LABEL. NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO APPROPRIATE MEDICAL RESEARCH AND APPEARED IN PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES. Not a single treatment or drug is approved by the FDA. Without going "off-label", you couldn't give a kid an aspirin if the medical research behind it was similar to the medical research behind all gender-dysphoria treatments for kids. If adults want to kid themselves about their sex by calling it gender, good luck to them. Who cares. But kids shouldn't be able to change their sex before they can drink alcohol. And girls should not have to be subject to boys penises alnd testicles because a boy decides he "feels" like a girl. That kind of stuff, which might fly along the coasts in majority blue states, is anathema to normine living in the rest of the country -- and is a major reason Trumpo was elected in a landslide. BTW, it is also why he made great inroads in every single traditional Democratic voting bloc except college educated women, where the Democrats managed to keep their historic percentages. It's the only group in which their percentages did not go down.
Again, IMO, adults can do whatever they please.
Yeah, I continue to be amazed that leftists don't see this criminal gender fraud is the issue of the century for more than half the country --- and why there is every hope Trump and Trump-lites will hold on to the Trifecta for DECADES.
>Using bathrooms on a co-ed basis is a no brainer to me
So says another man.
Plenty of women DO NOT AGREE.
Here is one:
https://substack.com/@justindeschamps/note/c-161188813
Yup - we should definitely wait until there are solid double blind placebo controlled studies.
Oh wait.
And you doing you is about making up scary stories that only happen in right wing fever dreams.
That thing that never happens happened again. Here is a news report from ONE DAY AGO:
>According to Arlington (Virginia) police, prosecutors, and Arlington school staff, “Riki Cox” is an alias that registered sex offender Richard Cox used late last year. Late last year, the Arlington County Public Schools (APS) pool staff allowed Cox, a biological male, to use female locker rooms at two high schools that have pools open to the public outside of school hours because Cox claimed he was a transgender woman. APS’s policy allows people to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity if they so choose.
https://wjla.com/news/local/-sex-offender-arlington-school-board-girls-locker-mary-kardera-room-richard-cox-aps-transgender-bathroom-virginia-fairfax-county-steve-descano-kevin-davis-police-jeff-mckay-kathleen-clark
Marjorie Taylor Green, Elon Musk, RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard. What do they all have in common again?
The idea that the MAGA coalition isn't diverse is crazy. They are, however, extraordinarily united--largely due to a common foe.
Their opinions on issues are probably very diverse, but what they have in common is the willingness to go along with basically anything Trump wants to do, which is why Nate correctly described Trump as having full control over the party.
Exactly. He’s like Tito keeping Yugoslavia together. When he’s gone it’s going to be prime time viewing watching the Republicans split like the Balkans.
I think hate for libs and Democrats is what unifies them, and will continue to do so after Trump leaves. They HATE libs.
Both parties hate the other party. Trump is successful because he has eliminated dissent in the Republican Party. When he’s gone the internal fight will be epic. When it’s over they’ll refocus their attention on the Democrats. The question is whether or not they will be able to get all of the Trump voters to turn out for whoever wins the internal fight.
It’s a long way off, but I’d bet against it. They’ll only win if the Democrats nominee is another loser.
I respectfully disagree, though I could be wrong of course. I think the Right hates libs a lot more than vice versa. Their fear that Dems, when in power, will raise taxes and roll out another entitlement keeps them unified.
Think about how Bill Clinton is viewed by the Right today compared with when he was POTUS - he's equally hated now as he was then. GWB, on the other hand, was so hated by liberals for being stupid, for war on Iraq, his handling of Katrina etc., yet now, since he started painting, many liberals have warmed up to him. Even Obama for gods sake! The man was POTUS for 8 years without a hint of personal scandal, and yet he is equally hated on the Right today as he was then.
So. I’m open to that argument. My experience is that most people left or right don’t hate Clinton, Bush The Younger or Obama. But there are, on both sides, heavily partisan loud voices who will start spitting with anger if you try to make the argument that one or the other of them is not so bad. That’s why I think both sides hate each other equally ( I hate both parties equally), but I’m open to the idea that I’m wrong and there’s an imbalance of hatred.
But I’d argue that attitudes in the moment are more important and in the moment both sides hate each other equally.
"The notion that the DNC rigged the primary for Clinton is wrong."
Feels good to hear some sanity on that. Cue all the perpetually aggrieved Sanders supporters that will likely flame at me in the comments.
You telling left out his very next line:
“the fact that the establishment overwhelmingly lined up behind Clinton and then she blew it by losing to Trump anyway is an extremely understandable sore point for progressives.”
Yeah, and that's legit. But imo the more important part is the sentence I posted.
But she lost only because a small minority of Bernie voters refused to coalesce around the eventual nominee and vote for her in the general (voted for 3rd party or stayed home). Forecasts were so off they bred complacence - I remember many liberals had started to worry that Hillary would win by such a landslide she will not need liberals and will govern from the center (there was an article in the Times I believe). Bernie bros insisting Bernie would have won in 2016 is just crazy; I for one (a staunch democrat) would have sat that election out if Bernie was the nominee, though it wouldn't have made a difference as I live in California. There are many Democrats who will not vote for a past admirer of Fidel Castro and communism.
Let them flame both of us then.
So it sounds like the candidate should be boldly fiscally liberal, but muted on liberal social issues, perhaps even punch left on wokeness?
Left out of the equation and difficult to quantify is rizz, personal appeal. Bill Clinton overcame long odds, in part, due to his ability to connect. Obama was very charismatic. Dukakis, Kerry, Hillary, and Kamala were decidedly not that charismatic.
Nate, I appreciate and largely agree with your history, and how it breaks out. The “contract on America” and Newt were hard splits for both sides.
But this comment is a plea for you to address your long promised breakout of how liberals are different than progressives. Its implications for Democratic Party politics are essential. So is distinguishing between true moderates and liberals. Progressives only win on issues when the liberals side with them. We (yes, I’m a liberal and not a progressive) often don’t and then are assumed to be moderates.
Please break it out. My take is that most political analysis misses the role of liberals or mislabels them as either progressives or or moderates depending on the issues.
This really accords with how American parties, particularly the Democratic Party, works. In a two party system, the party has to be a big uneasy coalition of different stakeholders and philosophies. It’s ludicrous to say that one interest group such as progressives have a stranglehold. Though, as a progressive, I will say that the establishment has a huge hand and it does tend to be more economically conservative.
It’s also ludicrous to say the way to victory is to publicly crucify or decry one of your core interests groups. Moderates will not win without progressives. And vice versa. We all have to be in this party together.
The essay is wonderful! I was there then, from Nixon and the street demonstration at the '68 convention on --- and I view this as a good summary.
A couple points -- Ted Kennedy never had a word to say about the draft until the Dems deputed him as the senator most in touch with the Youth Movement, they hoped, to simply end the protests in a minute: they stopped the draft, and I hope we NEVER, NEVER have conscription again. Though I suppose we will, since Hegseth has already moved to get women out of the Army: having to draft women is a serious impediment to conscription. Ending the draft did end the protest: we all blew away like smoke. Then they ended the war by refusing to pay for it anymore, which worked.
Gary Hart and Monkey Business was so much fun! They started it up again with Edwards, too, but somehow that was just sort of disgusting: in addition to chasing the woman and child of his affairs while his wife was dying of cancer into a woman's room, he was trying to get a million dollars out of a woman in her 90s. He certainly was a ladies man ----
I wish now I had voted for Gore! I have never voted for a Democrat: well, I voted for McCarthy, but God only knows what he was. But Bush turned out to be such a loser --- of the Iraq War, at least, or maybe it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who lost that war; they really took over Bush's presidency. At the time it seemed very important Bush win in Florida, but now ---- he was such a mess.
As for Woke, it was so MALIGN. I think the essay understates how bad it was. Constant euphemism. I try to avoid all euphemisms now, but we've all stopped talking to each other in person now. Too quarrelsome. The worst Woke was at the end of it, during Covid, when response to the many controversies instantly split between Red and Blue, Comply, Comply!! It was a terrible time. And I blame Fauci: he paid thru NIH for China to develop that virus!!
The actual Progressive wing does everything they can to torpedo the D's.
1968 support for the secret plan to end the war and voting for Nixon.
1980 voting for Anderson
2000 voting for Nader
2016 disaffected Bernie voters sitting out or voting Stein
Even when these segments aren't the margin of victory, the D candidates always have to give lip service to these people and their unmoored fiction that the left wing can deliver a national election. Opportunity cost and mixed general election messages don't help.
There are two lessons the Democratic Party needs to learn. Firstly, misogynistic America will never election a woman to the White House. Secondly, they need to choose the most electable candidate above all other considerations.
“OK, fine, what is wokeness? The most obvious feature is the substitution of race, gender and other forms of identity for economic class as a focal point for analyzing political and social hierarchies. “
Lolwut are you talking about Mr. Silver? The term wokeness is mostly a pejorative used by the right to brand left ideas as scary or nonsensical (essentially taking over for the term “politically correct”).
Cases in point: generational wealth as a left wing argument inherently links economic status to race, gender, or other identity factors. It does not separate them in a hierarchy - it links them. Same goes for the gender pay gap - it links gender and earning capability, it does not substitute one for the other as the focal point.
I see a similar wokeness framing a lot with pundits incentivized for max conflict.. disappointed to see a supposed data scientist fall into the same thinking talking heads use to argue for maximum drama. How much money do you make per article on Substack again?
In all these analyses and details, I believe you overlook the most important thing about Harris. The Democrats picked a terrible candidate. Think about this: She had an undistinguished carrer as an Attorney General. She was an almost invisible Senator; she was not an initiator or lead sponsor on any significant legislation. Biden picker here as his VP because he promised to pick a woman and the fact she was African American was a bonus. She was smart and a good campainer, but did not have enough oomph to be a good vice president, let alone a president -- she was good, but out of her depth. She was a disaster as a VP. Biden put her in charge of the border, nearly all the press, including friendly press called her a "border czar", even though her mandate was smaller than that. But, the border gotl worse and worse and that was one of the reasons Trump won in a landslide. And the friendly press literally erased all their prior references to her being a czar. She was put in charge of AI, and produced absolute word salad when trying to define what it is. She gave exactly zero press conferences during her candidacy, except to very friendly press near the end. She refused to participate in any open ended conversations, because, IMO, she would do "word salad" and demosntrate her lack of grasp of key issues.
Also, IMO, the Dems were afraid to fire her and get someone else to run. Can you imagine what the impact would be on the Democratic base if they fired a female African American as presiential nominee when she was the "obvious" heir apparent? The fact she was an awful candidate would have been unimportant relative to the fact they fired her.
Her undistinguished career as an AG included standing up alone among state AGs for increased penalties after the 2008 mortgage mess.
She turned a $25 B nationwide mostly paperwork settlement backed by 49 AGs into $20B of money in Californian's pockets.
Her border assignment was for a handful of specific countries, and she lowered immigration from those places 80%.
She may not have been a great candidate, but you should at least try fact based arguments rather than right wing echo chamber material you found to cut and paste.
The last three cycles produced compromises that didn’t work and left everyone unhappy. Come 2028 I hope someone is nominated who is unapologetically centrist and ignores The Groups or, even better, is hostile towards them. Alternatively, if Democrats have to learn by losing to get this leftwing virus out of their system they should nominate AOC. At least then nobody can claim the left was robbed or someone wasn’t leftwing enough. The worst thing to do is to nominate another Biden who’s never liked by the left but tries to please them and winds up unpopular for it.
Careful what you wish for. Depending on how the next 3 years go, that could end up with AOC winning.
I think that too often the term "moderate" or "centrist" is used to describe the attitude of a politician as opposed to their actual policy preferences. I appreciate Nate using DW/Nominate (which does have its flaws) instead to try and quantify it.
From the outside, it's hard to tell where moderates/centrists exist these days. There hasn't been a Democrat in decades that could be called even slightly pro-life. Manchin and Sinema were called centrists, but other than the tone of their speeches and their votes preserving filibuster, they didn't deviate from the party line that often. I guess John Fetterman fills that role today? I'll believe that the left doesn't have a stranglehold on the Democrats when there's a significant number of them willing to take more moderate positions and vote that way.
Three minor additions.
Kennedy killed Carter's plan for national health care, then ran on a more liberal single payer style plan. Carter probably still loses, but Kennedy in the primary and Anderson (28% liberal overall) in the general killed him. Nate mentions Wallace and Perot but Anderson was another important 3rd party item. Reagan won about a third of the states with less than 50% of the vote. Astonishing as it may seem, a big chunk of the left fringe of the D's backed Anderson.
Just after Edwards withdrew in 2008, exit polls showed his supporters split in a way that essentially gave Obama the edge he needed. Edwards' women voters split about 50-50, and his male supporters went 90-10 for Obama. Those male supporters were Obama's margin of victory. The anti-female presidential bias is not a right/left thing.
Finally, if the D's used the Republican primary rules, Bernie would have been a non-issue. The R's have more closed primaries and more winner-take-all states. The D's give a stronger voice to relatively smaller players, which creates a feedback loop. So in actual fact, the D rules were rigged in Sanders favor.
Always a great read, Nate. Thanks for that.
Obama should declare with a pledge to drop if Trump doesn't attempt a non-consecutive endaround. Would be a mistake for Dems to underestimate exactly how far down the slippery slope we can slide. Whining about threats to democracy ain't gonna get it done...and given the open warfare between the Executive branch and Judicial branch created by the Legislative branch's failure to modernize, there are limited moves to make.