I’m not totally sold on Markos’s theory. In part, my problem is that I think Terry McAuliffe is a unique case. He’s very unpopular with the progressive base of the party, which makes it more important for him to say and do things that please progressives. He’s been doing that on social issues, which is why he is doing a much better job of attracting Democratic support than Cuccinelli is doing in attracting Republican support. But, if McAuliffe were known as a liberal, his problem would be in attracting people in the middle, and a message aimed at the middle would make more sense.
I understand the concepts behind the theory that the key to winning off-year elections is to fire up your base, and I don’t disagree with it. But I do think you have to look at specific candidates and specific electorates in order to craft an election strategy. In Virginia, with a candidate who turns off progressives, it’s a solid strategy to pander to progressives. I don’t think the same logic would work for a liberal running in Georgia.
I think it’s Ken Cuccinelli who’s doing an excellent job at turning out the Democratic base, not Terry McAuliffe.
Well, yes. But McAuliffe is hitting Cuccinelli on those points, right?
Another candidate might shy away from doing that in the hope of picking up some votes in the middle. But McAuliffe is already to the middle economically, so he afford to move left socially with little fear.
Did ya hear…Brownback is polling behind a dem for re-election in Kansas. I think the GOP/tea lack of farm bill and budget have lost them the farmers and ranchers.
I did not hear that. Maybe we need someone to run against Pat Roberts, too.
I’m not sure I agree with you. I don’t necessarily agree with Markos that it’s a sure fire way to win, even in places like VA. And I also think like Steve M. that Cooch helps things.
Here’s where my “but” comes in: McAuliffe isn’t some moderate who is shoring up his progressive base so it “makes sense.” McAuliffe is universally hated by the base and moderates alike. This lends more credence to what Steve is saying, but I think Markos is more right in this instance than you are. The thing is that he’s disliked everywhere, his opponent is a loon, so he really has nothing to lose but playing the liberal part. I think lots of Democrats in conservative parts of the country equally have “nothing to lose” and I think we’d benefit if they dropped their centrist acts and fire up the liberals. What else do they have to lose?
The reason that Cuccinelli is losing in the polls is less because of McAuliffe’s progressive stance, and more to do with the emergence of a 3rd party candidate that is taking votes away from the GOP.
Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, is `~10% of the polls and McAullife is leading Cuccinelli by around 8%.
As has been stated before, there needs to be a GOP cleave; however I would caution against a strong Progressive movement that alienates the centrists and moderates. The GOP will not just go away, they will eventually pivot to the center, and they can easily win elections by replacing the hard right with Independents that have previously voted for Dems.
As has been stated before, there needs to be a GOP cleave; however I would caution against a strong Progressive movement that alienates the centrists and moderates.
What “progressive” stands are unpopular with moderates? Please name me a few.
Anything that adds to the “debt” or “deficit” can be easily misconstrued by moderates and independents as bad for the country. There is a large percentage of the electorate that considers themselves socially progressive, but fiscally conservative.
It’s baby steps, but Dems need to remember that the GOP has done a masterful job over the past 30 years of winning the narrative, and that the perception that unnecessary gov’t spending is automatically wrong.
Although you and I know that is not necessarily the case, the reality is that a large fragment of voters that can be swayed do not see it that way.
In time I hope that Ind’s and mod’s will come around to the left, but the reality is that they are not fully committed. I thought the GOP was all-but destroyed in 2009, and then the Tea Party emerged.
That’s just the thing. Do they really vote on that? I doubt it. It’s just a way for the GOP, and corrupt Democrats, to keep us from having nice things. None of the elite mention squat about the deficit when the GOP is in charge, and it balloons. When Democrats are in charge? It’s the end of the world and the deficit is going to kill you in your bed.
Which is why I put “debt” and “deficit” in quotes; yes, they are only issues when Dems are in power, but they have seeped into the mainstream as major issues attached to the economy. However they can be the primary issues that Republicans can successfully run on, if they manage to dislodge their craniums from their rectums.
The Tea Party movement was a reaction by the GOP (and the media) based in part by the stimulus spending as well as the health care issues. The latter was the one that received all of the attention because of the town halls and misinformation, and has since taken on a mind of its own and given cover to the RWNJs, racists, and secessionists. But that doesn’t reduce the fact that many people in the middle still consider government spending to be a major issue; the question remains not should we reign in spending, but how to do so.
Democrats want to increase revenue, and are willing to concede some spending. Republicans want to slash spending because of far right extremists.
If Moderate and establishment Republicans break their promise to Norquist, and relax on the evangelical vote, they can target fiscal conservatives that are socially moderate – which largely consists of Independent voters and Moderate Republicans who are willing to vote for Democrats (many of whom voted for Obama in 2008). This takes away directly from the Democrats, while ceding little to the libertarians/tea party.
Cuccinelli’s problem is that he’s largely going after the same voters as Sarvis, thereby giving up the middle to McAuliffe. If a legitimate 3rd party emerges nationally then the GOP will have to find new life somewhere in the middle. The Dems need to make sure that they are not going the way of the Tea Party and get pushed further to the fringe
I think Markos’ point is more about the irrelevancy of triangulation, especially at the national level. There is a governing majority to be had by appealing to progressive social issues that didn’t exist ten to twenty years ago. Michelle Nunn SHOULD run as a deficit hawk in Georgia (because the GOP is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility), but she shouldn’t shy away from being a Democrat.
To me the flaw of triangulation was that it elides all the issues you mention with Cucinelli being a troglodyte. Clinton won in 1992 and ’96 because Ross Perot helped even out the electorate. That electorate has changed. Who is running obviously matters. But the impetus for triangulation (steal back Perot voters) doesn’t exist as much anymore.
And Nunn and Grimes are not running in Purple states, they are running in Red States, which makes their stance more appropriate.
Michelle Nunn SHOULD run as a deficit hawk in Georgia (because the GOP is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility), but she shouldn’t shy away from being a Democrat.
LOL!! She’s going to win how many votes that way? You do realize what deficit hawkery is, right? It’s sad that you fall for such clap-trap.
And Nunn and Grimes are not running in Purple states, they are running in Red States, which makes their stance more appropriate.
I’d rate Georgia as purplish. If we had candidates better than Michelle Nunn, we might really turn Georgia into a toss-up.
Why do you think Texas is so reliably red? Hasn’t been a fecking Dem running for major office since Ann Richards. And she came to office after being State Comptroller.
The party doesn’t even build a farm team of pro-labor young people, which is what Dems need to be to get the prols interested in them in today’s climate, imo. Even the Castro brothers are social liberals/pro-business. Either of them proposed a hike in minimum wage?
The days of Caesar Chavez are long gone. There is not even the vocabulary of a labor party.
McAuliffe is hideous. And shame on the Virginia Dems for not having better in the pipeline..but, it is what it is…and so, hold that nose and vote for him.