Centrists say this is proof Sanders or Warren can't win. They're wrong

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

Jonathan Chait, a columnist at New York Magazine, published a piece entitled American Leftists Believed Corbyn’s Inevitable Victory Would Be Their Model, which mostly challenged the optimism among the US left following Corbyn’s surprise performance in the 2017 elections. The point of these interventions was obvious: Corbyn’s defeat shows that the Democratic party should not elect a “hard left” candidate, such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, and can only win with a “moderate” candidate such as Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg. Joe Biden said as much, arguing “this is what happens” when you move “so, so far to the left”.

This could well be true, although I remain unconvinced – especially as the UK elections definitely don’t provide any specific evidence for this conclusion. In many ways, the results were in line with broader trends in Europe, notably that (radicalized) mainstream rightwing parties are quite successful, as, for instance, in Austria and the Netherlands, while social democratic parties are getting hammered virtually everywhere, irrespective of whether they are “moderate” or “radical”.

The idea that British elections are most similar to US elections is based on a simplistic understanding of the two political systems. It is true that both share a first-past-the-post system, with single-member districts, leading to a two-party system, but that is about it. The UK has a parliamentary system and the US a presidential one, which puts much more emphasis on one person and makes the undemocratic electoral college the key decider. Also, smaller parties play a much bigger role in UK elections, as was shown in this election by the crucial role of Nigel Farage’s Brexit party, which handed Boris Johnson the victory by not fielding candidates in almost half of the districts. In the districts that they did contest, Brexit party candidates divided the pro-Brexit vote and thereby handed Labour some important seats.

But most importantly, all elections are still primarily national rather than global. The British election had its own, partly unique, issues and candidates. First and foremost, the election was about Brexit, an issue irrelevant to the US electorate. Also, Corbyn was an extremely controversial candidate. While very popular within the (new) party base, and among millennials, 61% of Brits had a negative opinion of Corbyn, which included particularly older white men, who vote in large numbers. This unpopularity was only partly related to his “hard left” platform; issues such as his weak stance against antisemitism and his non-position on Brexit didn’t help either. To be fair, Johnson isn’t popular either, but he is much less unpopular than Corbyn.

(snip)


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/sanders-warren-uk-elections

[SidDithers]

10. Heads I win. Tails you lose...nt

Sid

[Thekaspervote]

2. These eye popping numbers don't prove that

Voters are fairly clear about what they would like from a Democrat. They prefer, by 82% to 11%, one who promises to find common ground over one who promises to fight for a progressive agenda; and they prefer a moderate over a liberal, 75% to 19%.


They support Biden over the president, 38% to 27%, but prefer the president to Warren, 37% to 20%. Sanders is in between, with the president leading him, 34% to 32%. This group voted for Trump by a smaller margin in 2016, 37% to 30%, with the rest casting ballots for minor candidates.

The link within the DU link doesn’t work, but you can find it via internet search

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287336368#post2

[Autumn]

3. Jeremy Corbyn is anti Semitic. Perhaps Labor should have chosen a better candidate.

[corbettkroehler]

14. Corbyn's Problems Only Begin With Anti-Semitism

His bigotry is bad enough (even though Bernie considers him a friend). Corbyn is the political equivalent of Mike Pence when it comes to charisma.

The leak of the UK/US trade deal negotiations, which should have cost Johnson dearly, received barely any focus from Corbyn.

In short, Johnson emulated the tRump model of lies, lies and more lies and flogged it all the way home against a feebly ineffective Democrat. Labour's downfall was as inevitable as the dawn.

[MarcA]

5. This of course is true but those pushing a centrist agenda

are primarily interested in a triangulation game. Also, $$$ will tell you
social program "reforms" are necessary and inevitable anywhere in the world.

[George II]

6. There's absolutely no correlation between a parliamentary election in Great Britain and....

....a primary election in the United States.

Different dynamics, different issues, different parties, different forms of election and different forms of government.

[Thekaspervote]

7. Oh...the voice of!! Thank you

[Uncle Joe]

11. On that we're in total agreement George and that's basically what the OP is stating.

[beastie boy]

8. Centrists don't say this is proof. Centrists say it shows a likelihood Sanders and Warren can't win.

And, of course, none of the above argues in favor of Sanders or Warren winning. "I remain unconvinced" isn't exactly an emphatic endorsement of their victory.

[lapfog_1]

12. Too bad England is only a few thousand miles from the US

given how fast you all are trying to distance yourselves from Labour and Jeremy Corbyn. Maybe the UK should move to Mars or something. Not that the UK will even be the UK in a year.

[The Valley Below]

13. Trying to brand liberals as "centrists" seems the "re-framing du jour" tactic of the left.

I guess it beats neoliberals, plutocrats, corporate war-mongers. LOL.

But I'm not having it.

Jeremy Corbyn-style populist-socialism is an anathema to this liberal.