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.
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?
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
“Morris — who is perhaps the loudest voice in favor of the “moderation is overrated” theory — has absolutely no problem with the idea that extremist nominees like Blake Masters and Herschel Walker cost Republican candidates dearly in swing seats.”
This is an unfair statement of Morris’s position, which is that candidates quality matters far more. And here Blake Masters and especially Herschel Walker are excellent examples of his idea. Walkers extreme politics were less important than his bad politicking
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
“Morris — who is perhaps the loudest voice in favor of the “moderation is overrated” theory — has absolutely no problem with the idea that extremist nominees like Blake Masters and Herschel Walker cost Republican candidates dearly in swing seats.”
This is an unfair statement of Morris’s position, which is that candidates quality matters far more. And here Blake Masters and especially Herschel Walker are excellent examples of his idea. Walkers extreme politics were less important than his bad politicking
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'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.
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.
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.