Every time we lose or win an election, there are those who say we would have done better if we had just copy pasted their ideology. Moderates say we should have been more moderate. Progressives say we should have been more progressive. It's often a take that is ideologically motivated rather than rooted in impartial access to data.
Ideology is far less important than vibes. You can have progressives that seem out of touch and elitist. You can have moderates that seem anti-establishment and bold. The biggest distinction is how voters perceive them and who they seem to be fighting for; ideology is important only insofar as it changes people's positions on highly salient issues.
Looking at the candidates that have been our biggest over-performers, it seems like it's populists who had a normie aesthetic and took moderate stances on border security and public safety, amongst other social issues. This type of candidate has also overperformed for us historically, so if we are only concerned with winning, this is the direction that we should go in.
They have the best vibes for the general electorate and take positions on issues that are at the top of voters' minds, closest to the median voter. Clinton and Obama's first runs are examples of this. They had anti-establishment messaging and populist vibes while taking moderate stances on salient social issues.
How progressive or moderate a party's governance policy appears doesn't really matter all that much. No one cares that Biden's labor relations board was the most pro-union in decades. No one cares about his industrial policy, bailing out union pension funds, or his huge moves on climate change. People don't know what the American Rescue Plan is; they don't remember provisions, and it didn't affect their vote.
What people do care about is prices, crime, etc. If they feel things are cheaper and they are safer, they reward a party. If they feel like things are worse, they punish it. The ideology of policy matters far less than its practical results on people's day-to-day lives and the way it is spun by messaging entities.
This leads me to my conclusion. If you are concerned only with winning, you should run the same playbook that works and focuses in power on effective governance in the domains that voters most care about. Drive down costs, keep streets safe and clean, etc.
I’m not sure you and Michael are as much at odds here as you think. Michael is thinking of progressive populists, who would really be traditional Democrats in the mold of FDR and LBJ, like he said.
Even the “moderates” of those 2024 Senate, House, and downballot campaigns clearly ran on attacking corporate greed in ways that would make someone like a Terry McAuliffe uncomfortable.
As to Build Back Better, people clearly did not know about the populist new agenda Biden laid the foundation for. That’s the problem. But that’s about messaging, not people disliking the policies.
Imagine if Biden and then Harris had tried to run Harry Truman 1948-style. Say what he did to help, then rag on the anti-establishment policies the Do-Nothing Congress wouldn’t let him do. Then lean on the economic messaging of someone like a Bernie.
That would have landed, as it would have been consistent with the types of Dem campaigns that did best in battlegrounds. That is what the data has and will show. Democratic pro-working man policies are popular. Look no further than the minimum wage vote in Missouri.
Delusional. You must live in California. Biden Harris platform and track record was a crazed Progressive's wet dream. They ignited war around the globe spent taxpayer money like drunken sailors, divided the country with identity politics and called anyone who called them on it racist, fascists and trash.
Besides the use of "crazed" and "wet," I don't really disagree with you. I will say you are entitled to your opinion and I don't think that makes you a fascist or racist. And I haven't gotten the impression that the current administration regards half the country as such (and as the President will admit, he misspoke and got ahead of himself, which is not entirely new).
But I'm happy to make a bold prediction, whether I get it wrong or not. I think in 4 years, there will be Biden Nostalgia, even amongst voters on the opposite side of the aisle. We'll see if I'm right.
Hmm. Let’s talk about the policies the Do-Nothing Republican Congress wouldn’t let Biden go through as part of his “crazed radical agenda”:
How about raising the minimum wage? Well, to the contrary, that seemed pretty popular in red Missouri. 58%?
How about the child tax credit? Which Republicans let expire? Without a peep from Vance, who all of a sudden became Mr. Child Tax Credit on the campaign trail?
You want me to go on, sir? You look like the “out-of-touch” one to me. Maybe you should start speaking more to the average voter.
Like my brother said, Biden Nostalgia. If Trump can benefit from nostalgia, sure can Biden. Especially if Trump lets loose his tariff plan. Trumpflation will hit American families hard.
Every time we lose or win an election, there are those who say we would have done better if we had just copy pasted their ideology. Moderates say we should have been more moderate. Progressives say we should have been more progressive. It's often a take that is ideologically motivated rather than rooted in impartial access to data.
Ideology is far less important than vibes. You can have progressives that seem out of touch and elitist. You can have moderates that seem anti-establishment and bold. The biggest distinction is how voters perceive them and who they seem to be fighting for; ideology is important only insofar as it changes people's positions on highly salient issues.
Looking at the candidates that have been our biggest over-performers, it seems like it's populists who had a normie aesthetic and took moderate stances on border security and public safety, amongst other social issues. This type of candidate has also overperformed for us historically, so if we are only concerned with winning, this is the direction that we should go in.
They have the best vibes for the general electorate and take positions on issues that are at the top of voters' minds, closest to the median voter. Clinton and Obama's first runs are examples of this. They had anti-establishment messaging and populist vibes while taking moderate stances on salient social issues.
How progressive or moderate a party's governance policy appears doesn't really matter all that much. No one cares that Biden's labor relations board was the most pro-union in decades. No one cares about his industrial policy, bailing out union pension funds, or his huge moves on climate change. People don't know what the American Rescue Plan is; they don't remember provisions, and it didn't affect their vote.
What people do care about is prices, crime, etc. If they feel things are cheaper and they are safer, they reward a party. If they feel like things are worse, they punish it. The ideology of policy matters far less than its practical results on people's day-to-day lives and the way it is spun by messaging entities.
This leads me to my conclusion. If you are concerned only with winning, you should run the same playbook that works and focuses in power on effective governance in the domains that voters most care about. Drive down costs, keep streets safe and clean, etc.
Hello Micah,
I’m not sure you and Michael are as much at odds here as you think. Michael is thinking of progressive populists, who would really be traditional Democrats in the mold of FDR and LBJ, like he said.
Even the “moderates” of those 2024 Senate, House, and downballot campaigns clearly ran on attacking corporate greed in ways that would make someone like a Terry McAuliffe uncomfortable.
As to Build Back Better, people clearly did not know about the populist new agenda Biden laid the foundation for. That’s the problem. But that’s about messaging, not people disliking the policies.
Imagine if Biden and then Harris had tried to run Harry Truman 1948-style. Say what he did to help, then rag on the anti-establishment policies the Do-Nothing Congress wouldn’t let him do. Then lean on the economic messaging of someone like a Bernie.
That would have landed, as it would have been consistent with the types of Dem campaigns that did best in battlegrounds. That is what the data has and will show. Democratic pro-working man policies are popular. Look no further than the minimum wage vote in Missouri.
Delusional. You must live in California. Biden Harris platform and track record was a crazed Progressive's wet dream. They ignited war around the globe spent taxpayer money like drunken sailors, divided the country with identity politics and called anyone who called them on it racist, fascists and trash.
You're close. Actually, I'm from Rhode Island.
Besides the use of "crazed" and "wet," I don't really disagree with you. I will say you are entitled to your opinion and I don't think that makes you a fascist or racist. And I haven't gotten the impression that the current administration regards half the country as such (and as the President will admit, he misspoke and got ahead of himself, which is not entirely new).
But I'm happy to make a bold prediction, whether I get it wrong or not. I think in 4 years, there will be Biden Nostalgia, even amongst voters on the opposite side of the aisle. We'll see if I'm right.
“Crazed Progressive’s wet dream?”
Hmm. Let’s talk about the policies the Do-Nothing Republican Congress wouldn’t let Biden go through as part of his “crazed radical agenda”:
How about raising the minimum wage? Well, to the contrary, that seemed pretty popular in red Missouri. 58%?
How about the child tax credit? Which Republicans let expire? Without a peep from Vance, who all of a sudden became Mr. Child Tax Credit on the campaign trail?
You want me to go on, sir? You look like the “out-of-touch” one to me. Maybe you should start speaking more to the average voter.
Like my brother said, Biden Nostalgia. If Trump can benefit from nostalgia, sure can Biden. Especially if Trump lets loose his tariff plan. Trumpflation will hit American families hard.