Very nice analysis. Question: is there any significant difference between progressive and moderate Democrats in terms of the ideological profile of their opponents? For example, do moderate Democrats face any more (or fewer) moderate Republicans than progressive Democrats do? And if the two profiles do differ, can you adjust for that?
good question — progressives don't tend to face the same calibre of candidates that moderates do on the whole, but moderates occasionally luck into facing some lunatics whose scandals garner high visibility.
So would it be fair to say that your estimates for moderate Dems and moderate Republicans likely understate their respective advantages, since both face more extreme opponents on average? And could you build a model including all four variables to predict WAR?
Great article! While I also have some questions about some of the assumptions and method Morris made (like defining moderation as deviation from the baseline ideology in the district etc), I still think the conclusion he drew is “nominate a candidate who fit the district” - that said, his “moderation is overrated” is clearly used by some of those progressive ppl prob without examining what he’s actually doing and that’s been frustrating. (His war method, to me seems a bit over complicated but it’s still worth noting that “let’s nominate AOC/Mamdani in North Carolina” is clearly not the conclusion he draws
Isn't it a little worrying that the New York Times made analytical mistakes that neither the moderate substackers nor the progressive substackers nor the academics would have made?
I think they're writing for a different audience and thus have to simplify a lot, but I would have chosen a different methodology. But the overarching conclusions were the same.
This is a very interesting article but I can’t lie Polling WAR confuses the heck out of me I’ll stick with Baseball WAR and all the other tangible statistics.
Really appreciate how approachably you lay out your arguments, makes it easier to discuss amongst my leftist compatriots.
One thing that did come to mind while reading, and it's something that has always mystified me, is given how little american foreign policy actually matters to voters (they broadly, outside of catastrophic fuck ups like Iraq and Afghanistan don't care about it) how moderate dems tend to be very hawkish on foreign policy.
Clearly they don't pay a huge electoral penalty for this (most of the time, obviously hillary clinton did given her support for the iraq war et al), yet if the thesis is "candidates should try to match their districts views" shouldn't they be less hawkish? Outside of a few districts in NYC, NoVA, and Florida there really isn't any local constituencies for unlimited military aid to Israel, war with Iran, or invading Venezuela.
If someone has an answer for this, I'm all ears, my hypothesis is that it's just an easy way to minmax your fundraising dollars for your campaign/pacs while paying a minimum electoral penalty (again because most voters don't give a hoot about foreign policy). The danger with this, I think, is you run the risk that an Iraq or Afganistan style fuck up DOES happen leaving the candidate in the tough spot of having to now defend highly unpopular positions. Kinda like the moderate version of progressives adopting positions on social issues that people didn't really care about, until they did and we know how that ended.
The uncomfortable answer is that it’s structurally impossible to have a different foreign policy without more “radical” politics, one way or another. Systemic myopia is a chronic condition of most “level headed” centrists.
Foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world has little control over events? Come on. Foreign policy isn’t how we react to events here and there, it’s multi decade long projects to shape global influence of various players and who benefits from what.
Great arguments. I’d expand by suggesting we need progressive people to do more than support moderate candidates. We need progressive people to be more moderate too. If you want to get the full benefit of a swing against Republicans, you want the energy of moderates to not be sapped by progressives that aren’t satisfied with the moderate position.
I think it’s great to make the tactical argument about electability, but if we want progressives to not feel like they are compromising their values, we have to confront that too. I believe the core of this is in encouraging progressives to internally resolve the conflicts values raise. Overall, I don’t believe the values of progressive and moderate Democrats are very different. Instead, moderates have allowed their values to be challenged by each other, and by reality more.
Take an example of the values of compassion and efficiency. The value of compassion would in isolation always suggest the immediate solution of giving. Challenging compassion’s immediate solutions with efficiency as a value, doesn’t reverse the first value, but it does make the solutions more realistic. It then forces you to ask, what’s the most efficient way to organize that compassion, to gather the resources to execute it, to enable it to build upon itself in reciprocal ways.
The key point here is that I think this framework is the main one whereby progressives can understand the moderate position as something more than individually compromised values. Yes, there is compromise, but it’s a compromise amongst strong values, not a moral failure of each individually.
It is a harder message than the tactical one, but it’s a good compliment. I think you’ll find that when tactical messages are responded to with arguments full of cognitive dissonance, it’s because the message seems to demand a moral compromise. I’d suggest, in most cases, it doesn’t. All generalities have exceptions, but in general I think the moderate Democrat position and progressive position do not originate from a difference in values, so no moral compromise is necessary at all.
"We need progressive people to be more moderate too."
Then make the case for why your policy and/or positions are better for people.
"Overall, I don’t believe the values of progressive and moderate Democrats are very different. Instead, moderates have allowed their values to be challenged by each other, and by reality more."
You are saying, you the moderate, are smarter and superior. Groundbreaking stuff. Very persuasive.
You simplify by saying, smarter and superior. This is more of a process question. And it’s a generality. , I could generalize again and suggest I think it has more to do with the process of emotional engagement with values. If you want to accuse me of thinking the willingness to challenge your values against each other is superior, I’ll claim guilty. If you want to say I’m wrong, and there is no generality to progressives doing this less, I’d say, make your case.
To enable you to make a case, we will have to focus on something specific in terms of policy. I don't know specifically which policies you believe in, but it would be common for a progressive to believe in rent control. Assuming you haven't rejected this, explain your case.
If you have rejected it, maybe choose another policy. It should be something that both you **and I** (you’ll have to guess on that initially) would agree progressives and moderates generally aren’t in agreement on.
"willingness to challenge your values against each other is superior, I’ll claim guilty"
Just completely lacking in self-awareness. Incredible. You can't see the condescension somehow, as if only high-minded centrists think about the other side's argument and how the application of a policy may work in the real world. All you are doing is dressing up arrogance in academic jargon. You haven't demonstrated why moderates are inherently in the right, and than expect others to attempt to disprove such a nonsensical position. So I see no point in such an exercise.
What's most funny about your original post is the idea that progressives will willingly give up their values to your reasoned arguments which you've made...nowhere!
Hilariously, the original article isn't even about this! Much of the polling suggests populist economic positions which moderates may dislike like raising minimum wage, etc, are stronger positions for 'swingy' voters and that moderating would be most effective on some social issues. But you ignore, that and instead just wanted to brag about how you are better than others, picking pointless factional battles in the tent!
I'm sorry you see it that way. That's not my intent. I'm just trying to understand, at a very coarse level, what leads to differences between most moderates and most progressives.
Obviously you disagree, and not just that, take the attempt as an offense, but it's not meant that way.
Do you have an alternative way to understand the difference?
What do you want me to say to that? The only argument you are portraying here is that you think poorly of your progressive friends (probably n of 2 given how likable you seem) who you claim are as thoughtful as MAGA trolls. Even if I believe your perspective of your totally real friends, why am I supposed to apply that to all progressives? And you claim they make the poorly crafted and ill-thought through arguments?
I don't understand the point of this exercise. It's seems like it is producing an answer that has little real value for Democratic strategists but will be willfully misunderstood in a way that appears to benefit moderates.
There is no meaningful electoral benefit to, all things equal, moderation. Whether or not AOC could gain a point or two in the polls by moderating vs. tacking further left makes no difference to anything - she is going to hold that district for as long as she wants to because it is a deep blue progressive district and she is generally a fit for it.
If the Democratic party had the power to enforce ideological discipline throughout the party and they used that power to push all of their candidates a bit to the right, at best you would get a marginal benefit through improved performance in swing districts, while there would be a lot of wasted energy pushing on progressive members who were going to win anyway and on red state/district candidates who are going to lose anyway because even some moderation won't be enough.
The type of "moderation" that the Dems really need to do is not about getting existing reps and Senators to change their views, but about creating a place in the tent for conservative Dems who can expand the map.
I find this perspective baffling. Actually representing your constituents is, all things equal, good. If even deep blue areas prefers moderates over progressives, it's good if the moderates win! Of course if the people want the progressives, they should get them; It just seems to be quite rare.
In general in politics there seems to be an effect that unpopular extremists can hijack a party leadership or middle management, while still being voted for by loyalists bc all other options are sufficiently unattractive. This seems rather straightforwardly bad to me.
And even electorally this has clear conclusions. Obviously, improved performance in swing districts is the one and only approach that works in US politics to get better electoral outcomes due to the design of the system. Sure it doesn't matter in non-swing states, because almost nothing matters there.
On the last point, I have little disagreement that democrats should extend the tent more.
2. It's good to represent as many of your constituents as possible within the constraints of reality, while fighting for what you think is right. (IMO)
Maybe I am just hung up on semantics, but I don't see what "moderation" gets you that "run a campaign based on what works in your district or state" does not. In many cases that will be moderation (relative to status quo), but not always.
Very good overall, bit of a mask slip when discussing Maine. Mills is old, and Platner doesn't *not* represent a certain kind of Maine culture. I think he's probably more hicklib than a genuine Maine down easterner, but I don't think the Maine situation is that cut and dry in the context of the analysis of this article.
What bothers me about the pundits on pro moderation side of the debate that says the Dems need to "recapture the political center of America" is that they ignore that the political center is a moving target, and how what is the "center" is, is shaped by their lying propagandist pundit brethren at orgs like Fox "news". The right wing misinformation machine works hard to define anything the Dems do as radical. When the Dems move to the center, the center will become redefined as left wing.
The argument for the necessity of the Dems to move to the center is undercut if whatever the Dems do, even when successful and meets the needs and wants of the electorate, will be redefined as too far left. ( Famously the right votes against their interests over and over )
Along with any arguments to move to the center there needs to be an examination of how Dems can define the center and why the right is so much better at it.
One big part of why the right is so much better it at is their willingness to make up reality, wich goes unpoliced because the reluctance of moderate, liberal, and establishment pundits to focus on what their right wing counterparts are doing.
I'm assuming that you're using the terms "moderate" and "moderation" within the context of American politics, as euphemisms for "liberal" and "liberalism", since liberalism has been the featured, identifying characteristic of our politics throughout the existence of our country.
That is, unless you're using the terms "moderate" and "moderation" to distinguish progressive policy advocates (democratic socialists) and regressive policy advocates (fascists) from liberals who, here in our historically liberal society, are actually conservative, by definition…
May I suggest that using "liberal" or "liberalism" in these instances would be more descriptive, and therefore more useful, than describing them as simply "moderate", which suggests that they are neither here nor there.
Liberalism is definitely a "here" and, sure, it's still popular among a significant number of people — a majority (for the moment) of the Democratic party — and enough to win binary-choice elections where the opposition is fascist, in a lot of areas. Thank goodness.
But liberalism has been shedding support at a drastic and catastrophic rate since 2016, in a process which dates at least as far back as 2008 (and arguably as far back as 1980). Many of the liberal opinions I've encountered, both here and elsewhere, confirm a persistent denial of its own vulnerability. Liberals tend to continue believing, somehow, that they're still the dominant ideology in American politics. Notice who is in the White House. He was elected there, in spite of liberal opposition, along with the allied opposition of social democrats. Check out the Senate — as you have. It's the same story. The U.S. House is a toss-up. Notice the changing composition of the courts — not to mention the composition of state and local governments.
While considering Senatorial elections, it might be wise to notice how a majority of voters favor a change of some kind, rather than a preservation of the way things are. All of the fascist voters have turned their backs on liberalism, as have all of the social democrats. Both the left and far-right factions are revolted by a center which preserves and exacerbates socioeconomic control by oligarchs — the difference between the two being that one faction is predicated on what are, frankly, poorly understood motives, while the other is actually *supported* by oligarchs and is predicated on outright fraud.
Perhaps a move away from conservative, 'moderate" messaging would be wise in red states, where luring reluctant fascists away from populism and toward socialism will be necessary. No one should pretend that any such voter will be persuaded by the same liberal, "moderate", conservative philosophy which they just (relatively) recently abandoned. That strategy's nothing more than a great way to lose (yet another) round of elections, which will only cause liberal support to hemorrhage even more — perhaps this time to the breaking point.
Since we all seem to be so proud of the "smaller but very clear advantage" liberal candidates enjoy, overall, in terms of "WAR", perhaps we'd be wise to apply this marginal edge strategically (while there's still a chance) to areas where it would make a difference — that is, in close races where a low-single digit edge could mean victory (Maine, North Carolina). Let the liberals govern there, leave the rest of the left-leaning districts to a left political philosophy which is growing rapidly, rather than shrinking rapidly — and apply this same offer of change to right-leaning states, where flipping fascist support is the only route to victory.
I've always thought we should reintegrate social conservatives back into the party.
If we turn out our liberal/progressive base, I don't think we can ever get back to the FDR level majorities in the Senate. This is surely needed to pass our more ambitious legislation regarding healthcare, welfare, public programs, and workers' rights. I'm tired of these stupid 50/50 Senate splits, LOL. I believe there are many Americans who like the redistributive policies of the Democratic party but can't stomach the social progressivism. I think it has a lot to do with gun rights and religion. However, progressives often say their inclusion would be throwing minorities and womens' rights under the bus. I would argue that it's worse to have a Republican in the seat who often has very extreme views on LGBTQ+ rights and abortion. You can just look at the history of Republican state legislatures and see the types of bills they propose and pass. It's quite insane. They will also NEVER EVER vote with us on our economic priorities.
These socially conservative Democrats would help us win in deeply conservative districts where even moderate Democrats (and sure as hell progressives) regularly get clobbered. I think progressives don't understand how soley running on economic issues (no matter how popular they may be) isn't enough in these areas. The social issues matter to them. I'm not advocating for running insane relgious fanatics, but for progressives to just not run socially conservative Democrats out of the party. This would help us accomplish our economic priorities and protect minorities' and womens' rights in the future.
Candidate quality matters as much if not more than whether they are moderate or not. Look at Herschel Walker . He was a fairly moderate candidate but clearly flawed compared to Warnock who himself is not a raging progressive! Or Eric Adams, another moderate that was criminally flawed 🤨and the next loser to an extremist Mario Cuomo. The “extremist “ Mamdani whipped Cuomo in a very high turnout election because people saw that he was able to reach out to people and get their vote despite obvious potential shortcomings . But it does help to be moderate in issues like transgender support or restricting immigration. If you are moderate on the transgender issues like Spanberger in Virginia then you can win despite your opponent running those notorious they/them ads!
I understand the rationale behind controlling for incumbency. But as Nate Silver pointed out, there is actually something telling in that data that gets left out when it’s controlled for: incumbents are by definition proven election-winners, and if more incumbents are moderates than not, that’s important to consider in the broader calculus of who to run.
Lakshya, you concede in the end that, as elections become increasingly nationalized and ticket splitting less common, the top of the ticket is a more powerful influence than candidate positioning down ballot. How do you think this plays out in midterms for the party not holding the White House? Does voter assessment of candidate positioning down ballot become more powerful, perhaps as a proxy for where the party’s center of gravity now lies? Something else?
Agreed that primary voters don’t always chose a candidate for their state or district that fits well.
You mentioned Sherrod Brown as a consistent over-performing candidate. Was he coded as moderate in your analysis? I’m certainly never heard him called a moderate before. Shouldn’t he be an example of how issue profile and perception of moderation are less important than other qualities of the candidate?
Thanks for the article. One question I have: is there a selection effect in who gets out of the primary? E.g. if most were dem primary voters are closer to the progressive wing, then the average moderate candidate that made it to the general election would have to be a better campaigner because they were able to overcome a structural disadvantage in the primary.
I don't know how primary voters tend to stack up vis a vis moderates vs. progressives, but does your analysis already account for this?
Very nice analysis. Question: is there any significant difference between progressive and moderate Democrats in terms of the ideological profile of their opponents? For example, do moderate Democrats face any more (or fewer) moderate Republicans than progressive Democrats do? And if the two profiles do differ, can you adjust for that?
good question — progressives don't tend to face the same calibre of candidates that moderates do on the whole, but moderates occasionally luck into facing some lunatics whose scandals garner high visibility.
So would it be fair to say that your estimates for moderate Dems and moderate Republicans likely understate their respective advantages, since both face more extreme opponents on average? And could you build a model including all four variables to predict WAR?
If I had to guess, that might be true, but I don't want to conclude that by itself without a more detailed deep dive.
Great article! While I also have some questions about some of the assumptions and method Morris made (like defining moderation as deviation from the baseline ideology in the district etc), I still think the conclusion he drew is “nominate a candidate who fit the district” - that said, his “moderation is overrated” is clearly used by some of those progressive ppl prob without examining what he’s actually doing and that’s been frustrating. (His war method, to me seems a bit over complicated but it’s still worth noting that “let’s nominate AOC/Mamdani in North Carolina” is clearly not the conclusion he draws
I think that's fair — *however*, the argument he draws is more like "AOC/Mamdani would not pay a serious ideological penalty in North Carolina".
Isn't it a little worrying that the New York Times made analytical mistakes that neither the moderate substackers nor the progressive substackers nor the academics would have made?
I think they're writing for a different audience and thus have to simplify a lot, but I would have chosen a different methodology. But the overarching conclusions were the same.
I don't see why the need to simplify requires, for example, counting the no-hope candidates that you excluded.
This is a very interesting article but I can’t lie Polling WAR confuses the heck out of me I’ll stick with Baseball WAR and all the other tangible statistics.
I think this analysis penalizes moderates who are poor at pitch framing too much while boosting progressives who play up the defensive spectrum
Really appreciate how approachably you lay out your arguments, makes it easier to discuss amongst my leftist compatriots.
One thing that did come to mind while reading, and it's something that has always mystified me, is given how little american foreign policy actually matters to voters (they broadly, outside of catastrophic fuck ups like Iraq and Afghanistan don't care about it) how moderate dems tend to be very hawkish on foreign policy.
Clearly they don't pay a huge electoral penalty for this (most of the time, obviously hillary clinton did given her support for the iraq war et al), yet if the thesis is "candidates should try to match their districts views" shouldn't they be less hawkish? Outside of a few districts in NYC, NoVA, and Florida there really isn't any local constituencies for unlimited military aid to Israel, war with Iran, or invading Venezuela.
If someone has an answer for this, I'm all ears, my hypothesis is that it's just an easy way to minmax your fundraising dollars for your campaign/pacs while paying a minimum electoral penalty (again because most voters don't give a hoot about foreign policy). The danger with this, I think, is you run the risk that an Iraq or Afganistan style fuck up DOES happen leaving the candidate in the tough spot of having to now defend highly unpopular positions. Kinda like the moderate version of progressives adopting positions on social issues that people didn't really care about, until they did and we know how that ended.
I agree here — foreign policy is one place where the electorate's views do not really align with the moderate Dems (or GOP) as much!
The uncomfortable answer is that it’s structurally impossible to have a different foreign policy without more “radical” politics, one way or another. Systemic myopia is a chronic condition of most “level headed” centrists.
Foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world has little control over events? Come on. Foreign policy isn’t how we react to events here and there, it’s multi decade long projects to shape global influence of various players and who benefits from what.
Great arguments. I’d expand by suggesting we need progressive people to do more than support moderate candidates. We need progressive people to be more moderate too. If you want to get the full benefit of a swing against Republicans, you want the energy of moderates to not be sapped by progressives that aren’t satisfied with the moderate position.
I think it’s great to make the tactical argument about electability, but if we want progressives to not feel like they are compromising their values, we have to confront that too. I believe the core of this is in encouraging progressives to internally resolve the conflicts values raise. Overall, I don’t believe the values of progressive and moderate Democrats are very different. Instead, moderates have allowed their values to be challenged by each other, and by reality more.
Take an example of the values of compassion and efficiency. The value of compassion would in isolation always suggest the immediate solution of giving. Challenging compassion’s immediate solutions with efficiency as a value, doesn’t reverse the first value, but it does make the solutions more realistic. It then forces you to ask, what’s the most efficient way to organize that compassion, to gather the resources to execute it, to enable it to build upon itself in reciprocal ways.
The key point here is that I think this framework is the main one whereby progressives can understand the moderate position as something more than individually compromised values. Yes, there is compromise, but it’s a compromise amongst strong values, not a moral failure of each individually.
It is a harder message than the tactical one, but it’s a good compliment. I think you’ll find that when tactical messages are responded to with arguments full of cognitive dissonance, it’s because the message seems to demand a moral compromise. I’d suggest, in most cases, it doesn’t. All generalities have exceptions, but in general I think the moderate Democrat position and progressive position do not originate from a difference in values, so no moral compromise is necessary at all.
This is a lot of nonsense.
"We need progressive people to be more moderate too."
Then make the case for why your policy and/or positions are better for people.
"Overall, I don’t believe the values of progressive and moderate Democrats are very different. Instead, moderates have allowed their values to be challenged by each other, and by reality more."
You are saying, you the moderate, are smarter and superior. Groundbreaking stuff. Very persuasive.
You simplify by saying, smarter and superior. This is more of a process question. And it’s a generality. , I could generalize again and suggest I think it has more to do with the process of emotional engagement with values. If you want to accuse me of thinking the willingness to challenge your values against each other is superior, I’ll claim guilty. If you want to say I’m wrong, and there is no generality to progressives doing this less, I’d say, make your case.
To enable you to make a case, we will have to focus on something specific in terms of policy. I don't know specifically which policies you believe in, but it would be common for a progressive to believe in rent control. Assuming you haven't rejected this, explain your case.
If you have rejected it, maybe choose another policy. It should be something that both you **and I** (you’ll have to guess on that initially) would agree progressives and moderates generally aren’t in agreement on.
"willingness to challenge your values against each other is superior, I’ll claim guilty"
Just completely lacking in self-awareness. Incredible. You can't see the condescension somehow, as if only high-minded centrists think about the other side's argument and how the application of a policy may work in the real world. All you are doing is dressing up arrogance in academic jargon. You haven't demonstrated why moderates are inherently in the right, and than expect others to attempt to disprove such a nonsensical position. So I see no point in such an exercise.
What's most funny about your original post is the idea that progressives will willingly give up their values to your reasoned arguments which you've made...nowhere!
Hilariously, the original article isn't even about this! Much of the polling suggests populist economic positions which moderates may dislike like raising minimum wage, etc, are stronger positions for 'swingy' voters and that moderating would be most effective on some social issues. But you ignore, that and instead just wanted to brag about how you are better than others, picking pointless factional battles in the tent!
I'm sorry you see it that way. That's not my intent. I'm just trying to understand, at a very coarse level, what leads to differences between most moderates and most progressives.
Obviously you disagree, and not just that, take the attempt as an offense, but it's not meant that way.
Do you have an alternative way to understand the difference?
What do you want me to say to that? The only argument you are portraying here is that you think poorly of your progressive friends (probably n of 2 given how likable you seem) who you claim are as thoughtful as MAGA trolls. Even if I believe your perspective of your totally real friends, why am I supposed to apply that to all progressives? And you claim they make the poorly crafted and ill-thought through arguments?
I don't understand the point of this exercise. It's seems like it is producing an answer that has little real value for Democratic strategists but will be willfully misunderstood in a way that appears to benefit moderates.
There is no meaningful electoral benefit to, all things equal, moderation. Whether or not AOC could gain a point or two in the polls by moderating vs. tacking further left makes no difference to anything - she is going to hold that district for as long as she wants to because it is a deep blue progressive district and she is generally a fit for it.
If the Democratic party had the power to enforce ideological discipline throughout the party and they used that power to push all of their candidates a bit to the right, at best you would get a marginal benefit through improved performance in swing districts, while there would be a lot of wasted energy pushing on progressive members who were going to win anyway and on red state/district candidates who are going to lose anyway because even some moderation won't be enough.
The type of "moderation" that the Dems really need to do is not about getting existing reps and Senators to change their views, but about creating a place in the tent for conservative Dems who can expand the map.
I find this perspective baffling. Actually representing your constituents is, all things equal, good. If even deep blue areas prefers moderates over progressives, it's good if the moderates win! Of course if the people want the progressives, they should get them; It just seems to be quite rare.
In general in politics there seems to be an effect that unpopular extremists can hijack a party leadership or middle management, while still being voted for by loyalists bc all other options are sufficiently unattractive. This seems rather straightforwardly bad to me.
And even electorally this has clear conclusions. Obviously, improved performance in swing districts is the one and only approach that works in US politics to get better electoral outcomes due to the design of the system. Sure it doesn't matter in non-swing states, because almost nothing matters there.
On the last point, I have little disagreement that democrats should extend the tent more.
What does "moderation" get you above and beyond "running a race that is appropriate to your district?" As far as I can tell, nothing.
1. More wins?
2. It's good to represent as many of your constituents as possible within the constraints of reality, while fighting for what you think is right. (IMO)
Maybe I am just hung up on semantics, but I don't see what "moderation" gets you that "run a campaign based on what works in your district or state" does not. In many cases that will be moderation (relative to status quo), but not always.
Sure, I think that's perfectly acceptable. I call that moderation, but if you want to call it something else, I wouldn't mind.
Very good overall, bit of a mask slip when discussing Maine. Mills is old, and Platner doesn't *not* represent a certain kind of Maine culture. I think he's probably more hicklib than a genuine Maine down easterner, but I don't think the Maine situation is that cut and dry in the context of the analysis of this article.
Right, too many obvious confounding factors
What bothers me about the pundits on pro moderation side of the debate that says the Dems need to "recapture the political center of America" is that they ignore that the political center is a moving target, and how what is the "center" is, is shaped by their lying propagandist pundit brethren at orgs like Fox "news". The right wing misinformation machine works hard to define anything the Dems do as radical. When the Dems move to the center, the center will become redefined as left wing.
The argument for the necessity of the Dems to move to the center is undercut if whatever the Dems do, even when successful and meets the needs and wants of the electorate, will be redefined as too far left. ( Famously the right votes against their interests over and over )
Along with any arguments to move to the center there needs to be an examination of how Dems can define the center and why the right is so much better at it.
One big part of why the right is so much better it at is their willingness to make up reality, wich goes unpoliced because the reluctance of moderate, liberal, and establishment pundits to focus on what their right wing counterparts are doing.
I'm assuming that you're using the terms "moderate" and "moderation" within the context of American politics, as euphemisms for "liberal" and "liberalism", since liberalism has been the featured, identifying characteristic of our politics throughout the existence of our country.
That is, unless you're using the terms "moderate" and "moderation" to distinguish progressive policy advocates (democratic socialists) and regressive policy advocates (fascists) from liberals who, here in our historically liberal society, are actually conservative, by definition…
May I suggest that using "liberal" or "liberalism" in these instances would be more descriptive, and therefore more useful, than describing them as simply "moderate", which suggests that they are neither here nor there.
Liberalism is definitely a "here" and, sure, it's still popular among a significant number of people — a majority (for the moment) of the Democratic party — and enough to win binary-choice elections where the opposition is fascist, in a lot of areas. Thank goodness.
But liberalism has been shedding support at a drastic and catastrophic rate since 2016, in a process which dates at least as far back as 2008 (and arguably as far back as 1980). Many of the liberal opinions I've encountered, both here and elsewhere, confirm a persistent denial of its own vulnerability. Liberals tend to continue believing, somehow, that they're still the dominant ideology in American politics. Notice who is in the White House. He was elected there, in spite of liberal opposition, along with the allied opposition of social democrats. Check out the Senate — as you have. It's the same story. The U.S. House is a toss-up. Notice the changing composition of the courts — not to mention the composition of state and local governments.
While considering Senatorial elections, it might be wise to notice how a majority of voters favor a change of some kind, rather than a preservation of the way things are. All of the fascist voters have turned their backs on liberalism, as have all of the social democrats. Both the left and far-right factions are revolted by a center which preserves and exacerbates socioeconomic control by oligarchs — the difference between the two being that one faction is predicated on what are, frankly, poorly understood motives, while the other is actually *supported* by oligarchs and is predicated on outright fraud.
Perhaps a move away from conservative, 'moderate" messaging would be wise in red states, where luring reluctant fascists away from populism and toward socialism will be necessary. No one should pretend that any such voter will be persuaded by the same liberal, "moderate", conservative philosophy which they just (relatively) recently abandoned. That strategy's nothing more than a great way to lose (yet another) round of elections, which will only cause liberal support to hemorrhage even more — perhaps this time to the breaking point.
Since we all seem to be so proud of the "smaller but very clear advantage" liberal candidates enjoy, overall, in terms of "WAR", perhaps we'd be wise to apply this marginal edge strategically (while there's still a chance) to areas where it would make a difference — that is, in close races where a low-single digit edge could mean victory (Maine, North Carolina). Let the liberals govern there, leave the rest of the left-leaning districts to a left political philosophy which is growing rapidly, rather than shrinking rapidly — and apply this same offer of change to right-leaning states, where flipping fascist support is the only route to victory.
I've always thought we should reintegrate social conservatives back into the party.
If we turn out our liberal/progressive base, I don't think we can ever get back to the FDR level majorities in the Senate. This is surely needed to pass our more ambitious legislation regarding healthcare, welfare, public programs, and workers' rights. I'm tired of these stupid 50/50 Senate splits, LOL. I believe there are many Americans who like the redistributive policies of the Democratic party but can't stomach the social progressivism. I think it has a lot to do with gun rights and religion. However, progressives often say their inclusion would be throwing minorities and womens' rights under the bus. I would argue that it's worse to have a Republican in the seat who often has very extreme views on LGBTQ+ rights and abortion. You can just look at the history of Republican state legislatures and see the types of bills they propose and pass. It's quite insane. They will also NEVER EVER vote with us on our economic priorities.
These socially conservative Democrats would help us win in deeply conservative districts where even moderate Democrats (and sure as hell progressives) regularly get clobbered. I think progressives don't understand how soley running on economic issues (no matter how popular they may be) isn't enough in these areas. The social issues matter to them. I'm not advocating for running insane relgious fanatics, but for progressives to just not run socially conservative Democrats out of the party. This would help us accomplish our economic priorities and protect minorities' and womens' rights in the future.
Candidate quality matters as much if not more than whether they are moderate or not. Look at Herschel Walker . He was a fairly moderate candidate but clearly flawed compared to Warnock who himself is not a raging progressive! Or Eric Adams, another moderate that was criminally flawed 🤨and the next loser to an extremist Mario Cuomo. The “extremist “ Mamdani whipped Cuomo in a very high turnout election because people saw that he was able to reach out to people and get their vote despite obvious potential shortcomings . But it does help to be moderate in issues like transgender support or restricting immigration. If you are moderate on the transgender issues like Spanberger in Virginia then you can win despite your opponent running those notorious they/them ads!
I understand the rationale behind controlling for incumbency. But as Nate Silver pointed out, there is actually something telling in that data that gets left out when it’s controlled for: incumbents are by definition proven election-winners, and if more incumbents are moderates than not, that’s important to consider in the broader calculus of who to run.
Lakshya, you concede in the end that, as elections become increasingly nationalized and ticket splitting less common, the top of the ticket is a more powerful influence than candidate positioning down ballot. How do you think this plays out in midterms for the party not holding the White House? Does voter assessment of candidate positioning down ballot become more powerful, perhaps as a proxy for where the party’s center of gravity now lies? Something else?
Agreed that primary voters don’t always chose a candidate for their state or district that fits well.
You mentioned Sherrod Brown as a consistent over-performing candidate. Was he coded as moderate in your analysis? I’m certainly never heard him called a moderate before. Shouldn’t he be an example of how issue profile and perception of moderation are less important than other qualities of the candidate?
Thanks for the article. One question I have: is there a selection effect in who gets out of the primary? E.g. if most were dem primary voters are closer to the progressive wing, then the average moderate candidate that made it to the general election would have to be a better campaigner because they were able to overcome a structural disadvantage in the primary.
I don't know how primary voters tend to stack up vis a vis moderates vs. progressives, but does your analysis already account for this?