I hate the phrase "tear down the system." Whatever happens, there will be a replacement system that will have its own problems. Remember that Trump was elected both times on promises to tear down the system, and this second time he has, with Republican help, as they destroyed USAID, have greatly weakened the health system we have been trying to build, and destroyed many programs too numerous to mention in a brief note here. Amid this carnage, I would like to hear Democratic candidates talk about how we build an equitable America where billionaires are taxed at the same rate as the rest of us, where everyone has healthcare, where education is a priority. Similarly, an ethics code for the Supreme Court, along with term limits and expansion is not a tearing down of the system but modifications to make the system work for the people rather than for moneyed interests.
I think many of your commenters don't realize that you won't win power unless you offer a compelling vision. The perception of competence doesn't come from white papers or chalkboards; you have to offer something that translates to voters as a language of competence, mainly by suggesting you will do what is necessary and possible to improve the society they live in.
Gretchen Whitmer's 2018 slogan was "Fix The Damn Roads." Nobody asked what type of concrete or asphalt she was going to use, how she would get the road builders and unions to work together, or the year-by-year fiscal projections on deferred road maintenance; they just heard "she's going to fix the roads, great sounds good to me."
I'm confused by the axis of liberal to conservative compared with Republican-independent-Democrat.
I guess there might be a few Republicans who call themselves "very liberal" but they would mean very different things than a Democrat calling themselves very liberal. Similarly a conservative Republican vs a conservative Democrat.
So first the size of the group at each point on the graphs varies widely. Second, the meaning changes between parties.
The problem I continue to see with these voter responses is a potential conflation of two unrelated variables. We all know about the left/right spectrum for policy positions, but earlier this year Elliott did some groundbreaking work showing that there is another spectrum that’s orthogonal to the first—the weak/strong axis. It seems to me that voters are assuming that because many Progressives are quite vocal about their proposed policies that somehow equates to strength. I’m not sure that’s accurate.
Most of the candidates from whom I’ve heard are talking about legislation they’d like to see passed. However, I have yet to hear anyone, ranging from centrists to the DSA types talk about precisely how they’d pull that off. We’re still facing a Supreme Court with six far-right ideologues who would be ready to quickly declare any of the left wing’s policies that got codified into law unconstitutional. That’s precisely what we saw during the Biden Administration and there is no reason to think the justices will act differently just because we have a different Democrat sitting in the White House. That’s preceded by the brick wall of the 60 vote cloture requirement in the Senate (aka the filibuster) which would stop anything emerging from the House in its tracks. These firewalls won’t spontaneously evaporate because the White House has a new occupant and there are some new faces in Congress.
My litmus test for an effective would-be politician is increasingly one who not only talks about what they want to accomplish, but has concrete ideas on how they’d surmount these very real-world roadblocks. For me, that defines Elliotts weak/strong spectrum and is really where we need to focus a large part of our attention as the first of our two critical elections draws closer.
As an old 60s liberal, I find these analyses more and more confusing. I don't know what "major, disruptive changes" even means; do away with the Senate, ICE, prisons? That's not change, that's 1779 revolutionary France--it's destruction, not improvement. If we just reversed the Reagan era tax structure that took from the middle class and poor to give to the rich, if we reinstated a deep, profound social safety net, if we stopped alienating our traditional allies, if we returned to an era where political foes could talk rationally and cooperate, we could fix most of our problems. (Not to mention finally acknowledging the horrors of global climate change.) Trump has created the most incompetent, corrupt administration in American history. Getting rid of them would go a long way towards restoring some equilibrium in American discourse. Disruption is not going to affect the billionaire class but rather those who can least afford to have their lives disrupted. It's a childish illusion to think that major disruption will create a more just, equitable country. Our problems are complex which means they require complex, well-thought out solutions. Anyway, that's my POV and I'm sticking to it.
Of course conservatives like the current system and Constitution. It favors small states (i.e. each state gets two senators regardless of population) and entrenched power (i.e. gerrymandering and mega donors), meaning it favors white rural areas vs. multiethnic and multicultural urban areas. It is precisely this inequality in favor of rural areas that they like. If it favored urban areas, or even if it were even-handed, conservatives would also be anti-system.
I'm still undecided how to vote in WI on Tuesday. While I support Hong, I've watched WI fail to come through enough times that electability is my biggest decision point in the primary. Her primary opponent Crowley would be fine. Her Republican opponent in November, Tom Tiffany, was willing to toss out all the votes from Dane (Madison and burbs) and Milwaukee counties in 2020, and he's a Trump lapdog who is currently running ads accusing Hong of waiting in the wings to trans up our kids.
I was interested in this because, to my mind, this is what Pete Buttigieg has been talking about all over the country for more than a year. While I like him, I didn't know whether or not the actual content of what he was saying was getting through in this fractured media environment, especially given his extremely calm manner. So I was pleased to see that it did show up in your "Anti-system voters rate lefty Democrats above rest," with him in third: the chart with that title lists Mamdani at 24, AOC at 23, Pete at 21, Sanders at 21, and so on.
"threatens establishment Democrats as much as billionaires and corporations."
As if there were any significant difference between these two groups. And as if the problem were a lack of problem solving solutions and not really solutions acceptable to the oligarchy fully funding the current assault and establishment Dems.
"Given the trajectory of the country’s political system (away from, not toward, the ability to solve problems), figuring out how to campaign on that — regardless of ideology — is likely worth a premium."
Yes. As a moderate democrat who thought our government system was iron-clad and eternal, I have been shaken to my core at how swiftly a treacherous, determined autocrat and his billionaire henchmen could bulldoze the Constitution and all of its democratic norms that virtually every other president had respected and adhered to.
Now I am all-in for reforms: to the House (expansion and proportional representation) to the Supreme Court (expansion, term limits, and strict ethical standards codes), to the presidency (make all those norms into LAWS, including the independence of government agencies, and overturn that stupid immunity decision from the Extreme Court, and pass a law that NO ONE is exempt from passing a security clearance before they can serve in cabinet positions).
And one more general reform: no one can get hired by the government unless they can pass a high-school level American history/gov/political science test.
The problem is that DSA candidates don’t have any idea how to actually accomplish these disruptive changes. They are hoping for a blue MAGA authoritarian moment where they do whatever they want. But in reality they will have to deal with a divided country where it is really hard to build anything in politics
I personally disagree. I think Mamdani has shown he’s a very pragmatic politician who still embodies the Progressive political values. I would say he’s a great example of Progressive governance.
"threatens establishment Democrats as much as billionaires and corporations. It’s the playbook of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" - they are not a threat to billionaires or corporations - just look at how successful those 2 have been at blowing up the system.
But they are a threat to democrats: in elections they could push more voters toward republicans or their own voters might not vote if they aren't in the general election; if they win they have to know when and how to negotiate with other democrats (and republicans too). Their big ideas won't sell themselves.
Orcasio-Cortez has moderated her stance in some ways to work with what is possible within the system. Some of that is experience. I think that is one reason she didn't jump on the Platner bandwagon the way that Bernie did. Indeed, Bernie is becoming his own establishment. Democrats will not succeed if they do not work out how to unite groups, and the "tear down the system" mentality does not help. Biden actually drew from the progressive wing in setting his presidential agenda.
I hate the phrase "tear down the system." Whatever happens, there will be a replacement system that will have its own problems. Remember that Trump was elected both times on promises to tear down the system, and this second time he has, with Republican help, as they destroyed USAID, have greatly weakened the health system we have been trying to build, and destroyed many programs too numerous to mention in a brief note here. Amid this carnage, I would like to hear Democratic candidates talk about how we build an equitable America where billionaires are taxed at the same rate as the rest of us, where everyone has healthcare, where education is a priority. Similarly, an ethics code for the Supreme Court, along with term limits and expansion is not a tearing down of the system but modifications to make the system work for the people rather than for moneyed interests.
I think many of your commenters don't realize that you won't win power unless you offer a compelling vision. The perception of competence doesn't come from white papers or chalkboards; you have to offer something that translates to voters as a language of competence, mainly by suggesting you will do what is necessary and possible to improve the society they live in.
Gretchen Whitmer's 2018 slogan was "Fix The Damn Roads." Nobody asked what type of concrete or asphalt she was going to use, how she would get the road builders and unions to work together, or the year-by-year fiscal projections on deferred road maintenance; they just heard "she's going to fix the roads, great sounds good to me."
I'm confused by the axis of liberal to conservative compared with Republican-independent-Democrat.
I guess there might be a few Republicans who call themselves "very liberal" but they would mean very different things than a Democrat calling themselves very liberal. Similarly a conservative Republican vs a conservative Democrat.
So first the size of the group at each point on the graphs varies widely. Second, the meaning changes between parties.
The problem I continue to see with these voter responses is a potential conflation of two unrelated variables. We all know about the left/right spectrum for policy positions, but earlier this year Elliott did some groundbreaking work showing that there is another spectrum that’s orthogonal to the first—the weak/strong axis. It seems to me that voters are assuming that because many Progressives are quite vocal about their proposed policies that somehow equates to strength. I’m not sure that’s accurate.
Most of the candidates from whom I’ve heard are talking about legislation they’d like to see passed. However, I have yet to hear anyone, ranging from centrists to the DSA types talk about precisely how they’d pull that off. We’re still facing a Supreme Court with six far-right ideologues who would be ready to quickly declare any of the left wing’s policies that got codified into law unconstitutional. That’s precisely what we saw during the Biden Administration and there is no reason to think the justices will act differently just because we have a different Democrat sitting in the White House. That’s preceded by the brick wall of the 60 vote cloture requirement in the Senate (aka the filibuster) which would stop anything emerging from the House in its tracks. These firewalls won’t spontaneously evaporate because the White House has a new occupant and there are some new faces in Congress.
My litmus test for an effective would-be politician is increasingly one who not only talks about what they want to accomplish, but has concrete ideas on how they’d surmount these very real-world roadblocks. For me, that defines Elliotts weak/strong spectrum and is really where we need to focus a large part of our attention as the first of our two critical elections draws closer.
As an old 60s liberal, I find these analyses more and more confusing. I don't know what "major, disruptive changes" even means; do away with the Senate, ICE, prisons? That's not change, that's 1779 revolutionary France--it's destruction, not improvement. If we just reversed the Reagan era tax structure that took from the middle class and poor to give to the rich, if we reinstated a deep, profound social safety net, if we stopped alienating our traditional allies, if we returned to an era where political foes could talk rationally and cooperate, we could fix most of our problems. (Not to mention finally acknowledging the horrors of global climate change.) Trump has created the most incompetent, corrupt administration in American history. Getting rid of them would go a long way towards restoring some equilibrium in American discourse. Disruption is not going to affect the billionaire class but rather those who can least afford to have their lives disrupted. It's a childish illusion to think that major disruption will create a more just, equitable country. Our problems are complex which means they require complex, well-thought out solutions. Anyway, that's my POV and I'm sticking to it.
Of course conservatives like the current system and Constitution. It favors small states (i.e. each state gets two senators regardless of population) and entrenched power (i.e. gerrymandering and mega donors), meaning it favors white rural areas vs. multiethnic and multicultural urban areas. It is precisely this inequality in favor of rural areas that they like. If it favored urban areas, or even if it were even-handed, conservatives would also be anti-system.
They don’t like the constitution. If you remember Hillary was the “establishment candidate” and then Trump started destroying the constitution.
I'm still undecided how to vote in WI on Tuesday. While I support Hong, I've watched WI fail to come through enough times that electability is my biggest decision point in the primary. Her primary opponent Crowley would be fine. Her Republican opponent in November, Tom Tiffany, was willing to toss out all the votes from Dane (Madison and burbs) and Milwaukee counties in 2020, and he's a Trump lapdog who is currently running ads accusing Hong of waiting in the wings to trans up our kids.
I was interested in this because, to my mind, this is what Pete Buttigieg has been talking about all over the country for more than a year. While I like him, I didn't know whether or not the actual content of what he was saying was getting through in this fractured media environment, especially given his extremely calm manner. So I was pleased to see that it did show up in your "Anti-system voters rate lefty Democrats above rest," with him in third: the chart with that title lists Mamdani at 24, AOC at 23, Pete at 21, Sanders at 21, and so on.
Buttigieg underrated for 2028 IMO
"threatens establishment Democrats as much as billionaires and corporations."
As if there were any significant difference between these two groups. And as if the problem were a lack of problem solving solutions and not really solutions acceptable to the oligarchy fully funding the current assault and establishment Dems.
"Given the trajectory of the country’s political system (away from, not toward, the ability to solve problems), figuring out how to campaign on that — regardless of ideology — is likely worth a premium."
Yes. As a moderate democrat who thought our government system was iron-clad and eternal, I have been shaken to my core at how swiftly a treacherous, determined autocrat and his billionaire henchmen could bulldoze the Constitution and all of its democratic norms that virtually every other president had respected and adhered to.
Now I am all-in for reforms: to the House (expansion and proportional representation) to the Supreme Court (expansion, term limits, and strict ethical standards codes), to the presidency (make all those norms into LAWS, including the independence of government agencies, and overturn that stupid immunity decision from the Extreme Court, and pass a law that NO ONE is exempt from passing a security clearance before they can serve in cabinet positions).
And one more general reform: no one can get hired by the government unless they can pass a high-school level American history/gov/political science test.
The problem is that DSA candidates don’t have any idea how to actually accomplish these disruptive changes. They are hoping for a blue MAGA authoritarian moment where they do whatever they want. But in reality they will have to deal with a divided country where it is really hard to build anything in politics
Idk, Mamdani seems to have plenty happening.
Mamdani is ok but he is not doing that much more than e.g. DeBlasio. But also, Mamdani is in a heavily democratic area
I personally disagree. I think Mamdani has shown he’s a very pragmatic politician who still embodies the Progressive political values. I would say he’s a great example of Progressive governance.
"threatens establishment Democrats as much as billionaires and corporations. It’s the playbook of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" - they are not a threat to billionaires or corporations - just look at how successful those 2 have been at blowing up the system.
But they are a threat to democrats: in elections they could push more voters toward republicans or their own voters might not vote if they aren't in the general election; if they win they have to know when and how to negotiate with other democrats (and republicans too). Their big ideas won't sell themselves.
Orcasio-Cortez has moderated her stance in some ways to work with what is possible within the system. Some of that is experience. I think that is one reason she didn't jump on the Platner bandwagon the way that Bernie did. Indeed, Bernie is becoming his own establishment. Democrats will not succeed if they do not work out how to unite groups, and the "tear down the system" mentality does not help. Biden actually drew from the progressive wing in setting his presidential agenda.