When we nominate a centrist who can't draw large crowds and energize the base , we lose ….

2016 wasn't about the base not being energized; it was about being sabotaged by the extremists.

Edited to add: come to think of it, we had a bit of that in 2000, too.

bush.. No thanks to fucking nader, michaelmoore, and susansanrandon's LIES in Florida saying bush and Gore were the same.

Trump....some GOP slime, we move right always...but at least they remain pure...what is winning when you have purity?

70% approval rate before running, long history of progressive achievements, 17 years as America's most admired woman, and the party platform was the most progressive in history.

"Centrist."

trump voters 86/2% (too liberal/ not liberal enough)


There's your answer. HRC would have won with a 2012 turnout. Chasing high school/dropout white males is a fools game, and offensive to the Dem base.

enough of them to win elections-we need independents and I would think with the evidence of 18...moderates gave us the house and the moderate wins in 19, that most would understand that...neither of those wins were because of a surge of support for the left...just the opposite. Also, the idea that Trump is hated so much that any candidate can win is nonsense...run left this year and Trump wins.

This from NYT/Sienna

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%. This group voted for Trump by a smaller margin in 2016, 37% to 30%, with the rest casting ballots for minor candidates.

right?

that progressive values are what is truly best for the country but we are realistic about it.

We've been talking about healthcare now for what 30 years and it's just now that Americans are really catching on (ACA) and now the talk of just scrapping that after this long slog and inroads made is just maddening.

party's progress to the left isn't nearly fast enough for DSA wing but it is sure and steady. I do remember the absolute electoral disasters from McGovern and Mondale trying to go too quickly to the left. The Tea Party reactionaries were in opposition to Democratic progress on health care and expanding the safety net. The victory of marriage equality was delivered by Obama/Biden, not the left wing of the party.

2016 platform?

Or is that just something you throw out there 'cause you feel like it?

but The Economist is a right wing, conservative publication, which might have a vested interest in skewering the result in a conservative direction. In any case, this poll is of dubious value because it doesn't tell what people see as "too liberal". Is it the right to abortion? The right of all to have healthcare without going bankrupt? The right to a livable wage?

and Warren fans liked it when it showed her ahead of Biden.

But whatever

They endorsed both Barack Obama (both times) and HRC.

Link to tweet

"Too left-wing" means not liberal enough.

the beginning. Democrats, who are overwhelmingly liberal (anywhere from mild to moderate to strong) are asked to identify as conservative, moderate or liberal, understanding that "liberal" is supposed to include more radical types and the LW fringe hostile to the mainstream.

This furthers the new, hostile political definitions Newt Gingrich and his conspirators sold back in the 1980s-90s. Republicans successfully and perniciously redefined liberal to mean radical wingnut, lacking in moral core, mindlessly destructive of systems that worked well, and without even common sense. It got so bad that to identify as liberal was to set yourself up for attack, and many clueless victims knew they weren't like that so must not be liberals. It's only in the past few years that some few liberals have started reidentifying correctly, but most still do not. With the collusion of pollsters, this has never been corrected and all data are warped.

In part it's because getting accurate studies would require examining subjects and assigning ideology/biases, and that's very expensive. But given the devastating effects of this on our election over the past 25 years, I've come to suspect a lot it has to be the same RW corruption we see in press coverage. I've never been prone to believing conspiracies when simple answers explain, but they don't.

The flash enthusiasm for Elizabeth Warren's achievements by 2014 was the first indication of the massive demand among Democrats for real action; all polls before then said we didn't want it. All polls before then never asked the right questions. Almost all polls now still distort, smear, and minimize in numbers the reality of the Democratic Party's dominant liberalism.