"The Moderate Middle Is A Myth"

Moderate mass in the middle represents the gravitational pull that returns the political pendulum when it swings too far to the left or the right. Like the pendulum on a clock, it wants to find a center but always swings beyond with help from one side or the other.

Looking at the past, we saw the swing right with Reagan. The pendulum came back and put the Clintons in the WH. While that wasn't such a mad swing, the middle mass once again pulled it back to the center but continued momentum to the Bush era, a considerably farther swing. With the political pendulum so far to the right it swung back hard to the left and put a black (relatively) liberal in office.

I don't think I have to go into what happened next, but when it comes back this fall it could be with such force that it allows for a far left contender. After that, the clock will just chime thirteen and fall of the wall.

Beautiful and easy to find on TV, but also quite useless.

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/27/pikettys-new-paper-vindicates-bernie-sanders-electoral-strategy/

A well researched book by a political economist is arguing (using a lot of (OMG!) data and historical context) that working class whites are voting against establishment Dems because they're too neoliberal, too uninterested in rejecting Wall Street money to fight for working families. That's what's weakening our electoral game among the "Obama-Trump voters"--probably the most important swing voter base. They don't care about left-right ideology; they care about who's fighting for them.

we need to quit chasing voters that will never vote for us no matter what we say or do plus we need to play dirty, obstruct the fascist process whenever, wherever we can.

Here's another excerpt from the article featured in the OP:



Selecting a candidate or running a campaign based on appealing to a mythical mass of ideologically-similar, astute moderates is foolish. Focus on boosting turnout and combating voter suppression efforts. We have the numbers to win, but we need to recognize that the driving force in the US today is an opposition to the status quo.

I'll continue to laugh at Rachel Bitecofer and anyone who posts her stuff. She predicted the out party would win big in a first term midterm. Wow, that is incredible. How did she do that? This segment of a linked article from the OP was particularly revealing:

"Bitecofer hasn’t exactly been clairvoyant: Her original Senate prediction was off in 2018. She didn’t anticipate the surge in GOP turnout that would match the surge in Democratic turnout in places where the demographics still favored Republicans. She thought Democrats would win Florida, and maybe even Texas, and that the Georgia governor’s race was winnable. What she didn’t count on at the time was that negative partisanship can work both ways, even when there is one party in power,..."

I want to thank Rachel Bitcofer and others for somehow believing the senate was in play in 2018. That was my second largest wager of that cycle. My largest wager was on Ted Cruz. I notice that race was on Bitecofer's stupidity list also. Yes, a Democrat had a huge opportunity in a state with 43% self-identified conservatives. The turnout will just swamp all the foundational realities, won't it Rachel?

I also wagered against Abrams in Georgia. This Bitecofer lady may have helped my pricing all over the place, even if I didn't realize it at the time. She was on every sucker race. No wonder those numbers were such bargains. The Dunces of Turnout at work.

As I emphasized in 2018 one of the reasons the senate was almost no chance is that Tennessee is the new Alaska in terms of incompetent polling. The polls placing Bredesen close in that race were ridiculous and did not represent the true nature of that state at all in federal races. Recent Tennessee polls have underestimated GOP margins by 10% or more.

Bernie Sanders supporters conveniently like to ignore the difference between that Wisconsin senate outcome and presidential outcome. Moderate Hillary didn't seriously contest the state and lost to Trump by roughly .8%. The favorite son and considerably more liberal Russ Feingold lost to the joke Ron Johnson by 3.4%.

Same day. Same electorate. A net gap of 2.6%. Trump didn't come close to 50% against a moderate but Johnson managed 50.2% against Feingold. It is not impossible to overcome .8% with superior messaging. A 3.4% deficit is another matter entirely.

That example alone devastates the notion that swing voters don't exist and that ideological variance does not matter, or that small numbers do not matter. It is exactly the type of thing many of us are concerned about with Bernie Sanders. Wisconsin is a swing state because it mirrors the nation with 9% more self-identified conservatives than liberals. If you force a self-proclaimed socialist in states like that you not only weaken your percentage among moderates but you severely uptick the fear factor in leaners from the other side who don't always vote.

The danger in Bernie is not that we lose like 1972 or 1988. The danger is that we turn a rightful 2% victory into a 1% defeat in vital states like Wisconsin.

Put charming Amy out there and I know how those moderates will vote. Trump and surrogates can scream socialist all they want.

Per my other post in this thread, I still can't get over the notion that Rachel Bitecofer thought we had a chance in the senate -- given that 2018 map -- or that Beto was going to win Texas.

Go get 'em, Rachel.

The power of self-promotion indeed. She reminds me of the loudmouths at horse tracks who give out one winner and suddenly have loads of desperate followers at their feet.

As for Bitecofer, she didn't say swing voters don't exist. Your red herring won't hunt.

Subjective to the point where left-center and right-center are labeled, "extremist," or "enabler," or, even, "traitor."

I agree with the article. These terms are artificial constructs and can be hurled at anyone opposing the current newspeak and the mindless swarms of yellow jackets.

What you are now seeing is our party doing the same.

It's not comfortable for many of us.

DU represents a subset of politically engaged center-lefties to far-lefties. We all despise Trump. When you get out to those who see politics in different terms, while they may dislike Trump, they will vote their pocketbooks. Bloomberg is a centrist but appeals to that dogged group that equate intelligence with wealth - if he's rich, it means he must be smart. Sanders appeals to a group (Millenials in particular, but also labor Dems) who support the ideals of the Democratic Party, but didn't view the Clintons or even necessarily Barack Obama as someone who solved their problems.