General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf Democrats are having a civil war, nobody told the voters
To peruse the coverage of the Democratic primaries of 2018, youd think there was a battle royale within the Democratic Party: insurgent vs. establishment, Bernie vs. Hillary, progressive vs. moderate, grass roots vs. party bosses.
Theres been mention of a battle between progressives and moderates (the Guardian), a Democratic identity crisis (The Post), a full-blown Democratic war (CNN), a civil war (Fox News) and a fight for the future of the Democratic Party (BuzzFeed).
But if a civil war has been declared, somebody forgot to tell Democratic voters. They are stubbornly refusing to view 2018 through the progressive/moderate, insurgent/establishment lens.
In the Georgia Democratic gubernatorial primary Tuesday night, the winning candidate was a progressive darling who also had a lot of establishment support. In Kentucky on Tuesday night, a former Marine fighter pilot defeated an establishment favorite in a congressional primary.
But in Texas, a House candidate backed by the Sanders-inspired Our Revolution and trashed by the establishment Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) went down by a lopsided 2-to-1 margin.
In Nebraska a week earlier, a progressive congressional candidate upset a centrist in a House primary. But in Pennsylvania that same night, two congressional candidates backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) lost to candidates with establishment ties.
Those trying to plot these races on the progressive/centrist axis or the insurgent/establishment axis will have trouble discerning a pattern. Thats because those are false choices this year. Those distinctions are not driving voters in 2018.
Overriding all other considerations this year in Democratic voters minds (and candidates messages) is stopping President Trump and his congressional enablers. Related to that is the other major influence of this primary season: a huge rise in support for female candidates among men and women alike, likely driven by Trumps misogyny, the #MeToo movement and Hillary Clintons loss in 2016.
In Texas on Tuesday, the Democratic primary runoff in the 7th Congressional District, in suburban Houston, was supposed to be a Democratic donnybrook, according to the media narrative. The DCCC a.k.a. the establishment took the unusual step of criticizing candidate Laura Moser because party leaders thought she couldnt win in November. In response, Our Revolution a.k.a. the insurgents jumped into the race and attempted to portray her opponent, Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, as a tool of the establishment.
But when all the ballots were counted, it was no contest. Fletcher got 67 percent to Mosers 33 percent. Those who followed the media narrative of the campaign will conclude that this was a major victory for the establishment, and for moderates. They would be dead wrong.
I didnt write about the race, because my wife is Fletchers pollster. But one piece of Fletchers polling, printed here with the campaigns permission, shows how phony the establishment vs. insurgent narrative was: Likely Democratic voters in the district had a highly positive view of the insurgent Sanders: 74 percent favorable, 15 percent unfavorable. But guess what? Their view of the establishment doyenne Hillary Clinton was virtually identical: 72 percent favorable, 17 percent unfavorable. If this was supposed to be a Democratic civil war, Democratic voters were noncombatants.
Certainly, there are policy differences among Democrats, and those will come out whenever they are again in a position to govern rather than resist. But Democrats are more ideologically homogenous than they have been historically. The Southern conservatives are long gone, and there is no equivalent to the New Democrats of the Bill Clinton era. The party has been pulled to a populist consensus by Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and pushed there by the Trump plutocracy, which has showered riches on the wealthy and the corporate.
Some within the party are fomenting division with litmus tests, such as Tom Steyers effort to get Democrats to commit to impeaching Trump. But while 71 percent of Democrats want impeachment, according to last months Quinnipiac Poll, theres little evidence that voters are punishing candidates who dont commit to what would be a futile gesture without a Democratic supermajority in the Senate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-democrats-are-having-a-civil-war-nobody-told-the-voters/2018/05/25/849c6f3e-5eca-11e8-a4a4-c070ef53f315_story.html?utm_term=.601298d910c5
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And actual wars as well.
Both are good for business.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)We are always having a civil war according to the media.
yawn
Judi Lynn
(160,555 posts)So odd of them to start inventing stories, when they have more than they are willing to cover with the monster who calls himself the "President."
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I would say the president should be judged like everybody else, no better or no worse.
karin_sj
(810 posts)And this is why we have to stop rehashing the "Bernie vs. Hillary" wars of the 2016 election and focus on keeping a united front. What counts is getting Democrats elected this November!
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Thanks for the thread Randy
DemocracyMouse
(2,275 posts)It seems all the candidates have shifted somewhat to the left and in unison but doing so with the sober maturity of a centrist. This might be described as the "progressive middle" if you'll forgive an ornery term. Each region demands a different set of issues be emphasized, but on the whole the party is quite instinctively backing the principle of getting a "better deal" for the people. And the party establishment is too right down to the inherently progressive term "a better deal."
We have never been more unified. The party of civil rights, workers rights, women's rights and the Voting Rights Act is back. Don't let the clueless paste an old moniker on the party. We're unified and the only difference, really, is our level of anger at Trump and the Republicans and that's a matter of taste, not policy.
backtoblue
(11,344 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)In modern times, the Dems have consistently been contrary with each other and a tad disorganized. That is what happens, when you are more inclusive. There is a wider spectrum of beliefs in the Democratic Party members.
This year it looks like the Democrats have for the most part embraced the fact that we will all work together, to do what is necessary to get Democrats (and liberal independents, if a Democrat can't win) elected. Progressive or moderate of left-leaning independent, those are anti-Republican votes, both in elections and in the Senate/House. And above all, anti-Trump.
Wounded Bear
(58,670 posts)Candidates around the country need to run on issues that matter to who they plan to represent. That means some areas will go farther left than others.
Nationally, the country has needed a decided lurch to the left for a long, long time. Right now, I don't worry too much about how far left any individual candidate runs. I like my guy for the most part and he'll get my vote.
MBS
(9,688 posts)a welcome reality-based change from the usual narrative.
A brilliant piece
But if this is the real world, AND IT IS, what are we seeing here?