James Comey: 'Democrats, please...don't...rush to the socialist left.'

[HisGrace]

So called sensible and balanced leadership is what basically lead to Trump. god Comey and other #Resistance heroes need to think outside the box and figure out what led to Trump.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correction made. You are welcome.

Toxic identity politics works in a feedback loop, so you're both right.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Democrats don’t need advice from James Comey or Joe Lieberman.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Comey/Wulfric 2020?

[MAINEiac4434]

 James Comey is the perfect Centrist, because everyone hates him regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum

[PeteB]

Irrespective of what I think of James Comey, which I do not want to air in polite company, he is essentially correct.  The vast majority of the electorate is centrist and this is sound advice for the Democratic Party.  By shifting too much to the left, the Dems risk prolonging Donald Trump's reign, and actually allowing the GOP to jettison him after the midterms and rebuild.  There is actually an interesting article today in The Guardian on that (no right wing publication for sure):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/23/liberals-donald-trump-support

Bottom line, if the center is left with no alternative from either major party (and like it or not, democratic socialism is NOT an alternative for many of them, just as Trump's irrational politics isn't either), the people will be forced to choose between two evils.  And the one which wins will likely be the one which delivers their pet projects (be it conservative SCOTUS Judges or lower taxes).  The article actually cites some research backing this up.

If they position themselves correctly, the Dems actually have a chance to win power, from a deeply fractured GOP, and possibly hold it for a generation.  But they won't do it from a purely left wing liberal platform.

[Confused Democrat]

Delete your account

[Progressive Pessimist]

Omg I love James Comey so much. We need an American Macron because it's obvious neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are up to the challenge .

Yeah, its not like the real Macron is universally unpopular and hated in France by every side. Oh wait.

Macron is one of my favorite world leaders, despite his propensity for Trudeau-esque cringy photo ops.


Also, Comey is more of a narcissist than Trump and Obama combined.

That's pushing it.

[fluffypanther19]

James Comey is the perfect Centrist, because everyone hates him regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum

yeah pretty much

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Irrespective of what I think of James Comey, which I do not want to air in polite company, he is essentially correct.  The vast majority of the electorate is centrist and this is sound advice for the Democratic Party.  By shifting too much to the left, the Dems risk prolonging Donald Trump's reign, and actually allowing the GOP to jettison him after the midterms and rebuild.  There is actually an interesting article today in The Guardian on that (no right wing publication for sure):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/23/liberals-donald-trump-support

Bottom line, if the center is left with no alternative from either major party (and like it or not, democratic socialism is NOT an alternative for many of them, just as Trump's irrational politics isn't either), the people will be forced to choose between two evils.  And the one which wins will likely be the one which delivers their pet projects (be it conservative SCOTUS Judges or lower taxes).  The article actually cites some research backing this up.

If they position themselves correctly, the Dems actually have a chance to win power, from a deeply fractured GOP, and possibly hold it for a generation.  But they won't do it from a purely left wing liberal platform.

[Lord Admirale]

James Comey under President Hillary Clinton: "Republicans, please...don't...rush to the fascist right."

[Pericles]

The idea that Democrats standing up for their principles is a losing strategy proves how out of touch DC really is.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

If James Comey is at where he says he's at, let him abandon the GOP whole hog and become a Democrat.

Let Steve Schmidt, Joe Scarborough, et al do the same.

And don't be half-baked about it.  If Trump is THAT BAD, and he's taken over the GOP, why "half-meaure" it?

[pbrower2a]

Democratic socialism is left-wing Big Government. People are for Big Government so long as they are in charge, but let people in diametric opposition take charge, and they discover what a nightmare things can be. Right-wing Big Government, as we see under Trump, shows how things can go.

Let's remember that Barack Obama probably presided over the biggest privatization of government assets by selling off the consequences of the 'receivership socialism' that began with Dubya.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Socialism sucks and so does Comey.

[YE]

Irrespective of what I think of James Comey, which I do not want to air in polite company, he is essentially correct.  The vast majority of the electorate is centrist and this is sound advice for the Democratic Party.  By shifting too much to the left, the Dems risk prolonging Donald Trump's reign, and actually allowing the GOP to jettison him after the midterms and rebuild.  There is actually an interesting article today in The Guardian on that (no right wing publication for sure):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/23/liberals-donald-trump-support

Bottom line, if the center is left with no alternative from either major party (and like it or not, democratic socialism is NOT an alternative for many of them, just as Trump's irrational politics isn't either), the people will be forced to choose between two evils.  And the one which wins will likely be the one which delivers their pet projects (be it conservative SCOTUS Judges or lower taxes).  The article actually cites some research backing this up.

If they position themselves correctly, the Dems actually have a chance to win power, from a deeply fractured GOP, and possibly hold it for a generation.  But they won't do it from a purely left wing liberal platform.

The Guardian writer basically did a factual hit piece.

To start off, it notes that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Baring extreme external factors like another Great Depression, this camp is not a Democratic voting group, with the exception of pro-gun moderates. No centrist campaign will win most of these over. The article then links to study but fails to note that 2 of the 5 groups of Trump voters have generally progressive economic views. The Guardian piece then goes into bits that I agree with such Dems running on abolishing ICE is not a good idea. It then notes how the corporate media has hardlined support for Trump but I don't see how an anti-establishment Dem would not benefit from this as well in a future general election. Where this piece fails is that it doesn't even touch on how an economic populist platform would do in certain swing/red areas.

Going back to your post, it depends on what you define as centrist. The bias of the corporate media would led one to think centrism is socially liberal/fiscally conservative when one also needs to consider it's also, more or less the reverse ideology.

Outside of the suburbs, very few vote for the GOP solely due to low taxes and even there, I could see that changing in future decades. I'd point out that at face value the public opinion sides with the Democratic wing of the Democratic party on many issues...

https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-medicare-for-all-public-option-bernie-sanders-plan-support-2018-3
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/351928-poll-majority-supports-single-payer-healthcare
https://news.gallup.com/poll/14596/medicare.aspx
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies/
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/01/over-60-of-americans-back-tuition-free-college-survey-says.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2011/09/poll-social-security-still-popular-064766

If centrism means showing an unwillingness to expand the social safety net and in a smug way basically brag about being technocrats while also despise populism, that would not realign the country for decades to come. Man, this to its core is like the great divide within the Democratic Party and my beef with some of the ex-GOPers and/or Clintonites that seem content with basically staying out of an elitist party and emphasizing pragmatism on many (of IMO the wrong) issues. I find it kind of amazing how someone like myself could fundamentally disagree with so much of what has contributed to the rise of Trump and that person likely voted for the same presidential candidate that I did in 2016.

[GoTfan]

Comey is correct, again.  This man is on a roll!

No, he's really not.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

https://twitter.com/iamTannenbaum/status/1021158253500223489

He really is an arrogant prick. I’m glad Trump fired this loser.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Individual whose career depends on failed bipartisan security state consensus defends failed consensus. More at 11.

[Zaybay]

I cant believe the centrist voter myth still exists. Swing voters are not voters who are unsure due to them being rather moderate or bipartisan on issues, its due to them having extreme views on issues that belong to both parties.

A Swing voter may want Single-Payer and a Federal Jobs guarentee, but hate those "damn gays" and want to close the entire border down.

A Swing voter may want egalitarianism in government, while supporting oversees wars and abolishing the progressive tax system.

By moving to the center on an issue, for a party in general, you alianate the swing voters who you would have had in your camp, while also not being able to win the other swing voters, since they may have other exteme stances on other issues. The only ones you would win over would be the small percentage of people who voice that issue as their main concern, and have a moderate stance on it.

This is why Sanders, in the 2016 primary, got a lot of support from Indies and first time voters, his "extreme" positions on issues drew in the swing voters who cared about it. Thats how Corybn was able to do the same thing. Thats how Trump was able to win the Obama-Trump voter.

In individual races, its fine to be rather centrist or have moderate positions on issues, such as gun control or immigration, but for parties, there has to be a line.

[Lord Admirale]

I cant believe the centrist voter myth still exists. Swing voters are not voters who are unsure due to them being rather moderate or bipartisan on issues, its due to them having extreme views on issues that belong to both parties.

A Swing voter may want Single-Payer and a Federal Jobs guarentee, but hate those "damn gays" and want to close the entire border down.

A Swing voter may want egalitarianism in government, while supporting oversees wars and abolishing the progressive tax system.

By moving to the center on an issue, for a party in general, you alianate the swing voters who you would have had in your camp, while also not being able to win the other swing voters, since they may have other exteme stances on other issues. The only ones you would win over would be the small percentage of people who voice that issue as their main concern, and have a moderate stance on it.

This is why Sanders, in the 2016 primary, got a lot of support from Indies and first time voters, his "extreme" positions on issues drew in the swing voters who cared about it. Thats how Corybn was able to do the same thing. Thats how Trump was able to win the Obama-Trump voter.

In individual races, its fine to be rather centrist or have moderate positions on issues, such as gun control or immigration, but for parties, there has to be a line.

That take is so hot: I got third degree burns from it.

[Zaybay]

I cant believe the centrist voter myth still exists. Swing voters are not voters who are unsure due to them being rather moderate or bipartisan on issues, its due to them having extreme views on issues that belong to both parties.

A Swing voter may want Single-Payer and a Federal Jobs guarentee, but hate those "damn gays" and want to close the entire border down.

A Swing voter may want egalitarianism in government, while supporting oversees wars and abolishing the progressive tax system.

By moving to the center on an issue, for a party in general, you alianate the swing voters who you would have had in your camp, while also not being able to win the other swing voters, since they may have other exteme stances on other issues. The only ones you would win over would be the small percentage of people who voice that issue as their main concern, and have a moderate stance on it.

This is why Sanders, in the 2016 primary, got a lot of support from Indies and first time voters, his "extreme" positions on issues drew in the swing voters who cared about it. Thats how Corybn was able to do the same thing. Thats how Trump was able to win the Obama-Trump voter.

In individual races, its fine to be rather centrist or have moderate positions on issues, such as gun control or immigration, but for parties, there has to be a line.

That take is so hot: I got third degree burns from it.

The truth burns, I know.

[Lord Admirale]

I cant believe the centrist voter myth still exists. Swing voters are not voters who are unsure due to them being rather moderate or bipartisan on issues, its due to them having extreme views on issues that belong to both parties.

A Swing voter may want Single-Payer and a Federal Jobs guarentee, but hate those "damn gays" and want to close the entire border down.

A Swing voter may want egalitarianism in government, while supporting oversees wars and abolishing the progressive tax system.

By moving to the center on an issue, for a party in general, you alianate the swing voters who you would have had in your camp, while also not being able to win the other swing voters, since they may have other exteme stances on other issues. The only ones you would win over would be the small percentage of people who voice that issue as their main concern, and have a moderate stance on it.

This is why Sanders, in the 2016 primary, got a lot of support from Indies and first time voters, his "extreme" positions on issues drew in the swing voters who cared about it. Thats how Corybn was able to do the same thing. Thats how Trump was able to win the Obama-Trump voter.

In individual races, its fine to be rather centrist or have moderate positions on issues, such as gun control or immigration, but for parties, there has to be a line.

That take is so hot: I got third degree burns from it.

The truth burns, I know.

Actually this is one of the furthest things from the truth I've read here. Obviously you've spent way too much time on r/feelthebern.

You want to see what happens when you run to the extremes? Take a look at how Barry Goldwater did in 1964, and how George McGovern did in 1972. Both got destroyed.

[Torie]

I cant believe the centrist voter myth still exists. Swing voters are not voters who are unsure due to them being rather moderate or bipartisan on issues, its due to them having extreme views on issues that belong to both parties.

A Swing voter may want Single-Payer and a Federal Jobs guarentee, but hate those "damn gays" and want to close the entire border down.

A Swing voter may want egalitarianism in government, while supporting oversees wars and abolishing the progressive tax system.

By moving to the center on an issue, for a party in general, you alianate the swing voters who you would have had in your camp, while also not being able to win the other swing voters, since they may have other exteme stances on other issues. The only ones you would win over would be the small percentage of people who voice that issue as their main concern, and have a moderate stance on it.

This is why Sanders, in the 2016 primary, got a lot of support from Indies and first time voters, his "extreme" positions on issues drew in the swing voters who cared about it. Thats how Corybn was able to do the same thing. Thats how Trump was able to win the Obama-Trump voter.

In individual races, its fine to be rather centrist or have moderate positions on issues, such as gun control or immigration, but for parties, there has to be a line.

I think in part you may be missing the point. Parties need to nominate candidates who fit the district. If the progressive left nominates their own in more moderate districts (and more and more they have the numbers to do so, as the parties get more polarized, particularly in places that have a history of very low primary election turnouts, as in NY, so who shows up to vote are the fired up true believers), that candidate will be weak in the general. Same for the Pubs when they nominate alt right kinds of candidates in such districts. The Dems in NY-19 potentially have that problem, although probably not particularly, since the candidate nominated really isn't really that left progressive overall. He has other weaknesses, rather than ideological ones in particular.

And both parties need to make room for, treat with respect, and deal with more moderate candidates that managed to get elected, even if a minority in their party, rather than kick them to the curb. Who knew?

[Zaybay]

I cant believe the centrist voter myth still exists. Swing voters are not voters who are unsure due to them being rather moderate or bipartisan on issues, its due to them having extreme views on issues that belong to both parties.

A Swing voter may want Single-Payer and a Federal Jobs guarentee, but hate those "damn gays" and want to close the entire border down.

A Swing voter may want egalitarianism in government, while supporting oversees wars and abolishing the progressive tax system.

By moving to the center on an issue, for a party in general, you alianate the swing voters who you would have had in your camp, while also not being able to win the other swing voters, since they may have other exteme stances on other issues. The only ones you would win over would be the small percentage of people who voice that issue as their main concern, and have a moderate stance on it.

This is why Sanders, in the 2016 primary, got a lot of support from Indies and first time voters, his "extreme" positions on issues drew in the swing voters who cared about it. Thats how Corybn was able to do the same thing. Thats how Trump was able to win the Obama-Trump voter.

In individual races, its fine to be rather centrist or have moderate positions on issues, such as gun control or immigration, but for parties, there has to be a line.

I think in part you may be missing the point. Parties need to nominate candidates who fit the district. If the progressive left nominates their own in more moderate districts (and more and more they have the numbers to do so, as the parties get more polarized, particularly in places that have a history of very low primary election turnouts, as in NY, so who shows up to vote are the fired up true believers), that candidate will be weak in the general. Same for the Pubs when they nominate alt right kinds of candidates in such districts. The Dems in NY-19 potentially have that problem, although probably not particularly, since the candidate nominated really isn't really that left progressive overall. He has other weaknesses, rather than ideological ones in particular.

And both parties need to make room for, treat with respect, and deal with more moderate candidates that managed to get elected, even if a minority in their party, rather than kick them to the curb. Who knew?

I never said we should nominate only moderates or only leftists in every district, each one has their own needs. I just wanted to disprove the notion that purple or red districts can only be won via moderate candidates, because you have to get the centrist voters, when there really arent any, and leftist candidates can win moderate districts.

Also, in the Democratic Party, its definitely more the leftist candidates who are kicked to the curb, while in the Republican Party, its the moderate candidates. And it seems that the R party has done much better by going to an ideological extreme, compared to the D party that has clung to the "center".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Try 1980s Reagan, and 1930s FDR for how extremes can win.
Goldwater's loss was more due to the fact that LBJ had incredible popularity because of the previous president's death. Any R would have lost.
Same with George McGovern, the R president was extremely popular, and so he was trounced. I am 100% sure that if the race had occurred after tapes, McGovern would have won easily.

There have been many papers and real life examples about the fact that there really isnt any centrist voter, and how Indie's are rather ideologically extreme themselves.  And, if you think about it, these are the exact voters who would swing, ones with ideological extremes that tug them between parties, not ones who seem to have centrist views on a subject and are fine with whatever.

[uti2]

I cant believe the centrist voter myth still exists. Swing voters are not voters who are unsure due to them being rather moderate or bipartisan on issues, its due to them having extreme views on issues that belong to both parties.

A Swing voter may want Single-Payer and a Federal Jobs guarentee, but hate those "damn gays" and want to close the entire border down.

A Swing voter may want egalitarianism in government, while supporting oversees wars and abolishing the progressive tax system.

By moving to the center on an issue, for a party in general, you alianate the swing voters who you would have had in your camp, while also not being able to win the other swing voters, since they may have other exteme stances on other issues. The only ones you would win over would be the small percentage of people who voice that issue as their main concern, and have a moderate stance on it.

This is why Sanders, in the 2016 primary, got a lot of support from Indies and first time voters, his "extreme" positions on issues drew in the swing voters who cared about it. Thats how Corybn was able to do the same thing. Thats how Trump was able to win the Obama-Trump voter.

In individual races, its fine to be rather centrist or have moderate positions on issues, such as gun control or immigration, but for parties, there has to be a line.

That take is so hot: I got third degree burns from it.

The truth burns, I know.

Actually this is one of the furthest things from the truth I've read here. Obviously you've spent way too much time on r/feelthebern.

You want to see what happens when you run to the extremes? Take a look at how Barry Goldwater did in 1964, and how George McGovern did in 1972. Both got destroyed.

Yet Reagan ran on Goldwater's platform and Obama ran on McGovern's platform.