Are suburban, college-educated NeverTrumpers cancelling out progressives?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It just occurred to me that, because these are the types of people the Democratic Party has decided to appeal to in these last elections, the exodus of anti-Trump Republicans might actually be keeping the Democratic Party in the center and cancelling out the younger, more diverse generation of progressives that are growing in the party.  The reason this should be a concern for progressives is that, unlike young people, these people actually vote.  That is why Millennials and Gen Z, despite outnumbering Boomers in raw numbers, have practically zero influence in politics.  And given the turnout numbers, it's really hard to blame anyone but ourselves.

[Green Line]

I don't know if this is true or not, but I love the optimism.  It makes sense to me.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I might even go a step further and say that, in states with open primaries, a decent number of Republicans voted for their "least disliked" Democrat in the (virtual) absence of a Republican primary.

I know I have a friend who usually votes Republican but said he voted for Bloomberg in the primary, for example.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Interesting article a friend sent me:

As exit polls began rolling in following Super Tuesday, March 3rd, so did a common refrain: Young people are too lazy, disengaged, selfish, and apathetic to go vote. Some exit polls reported that youth turnout was down in Virginia, Tennessee, Vermont, North Carolina, and Alabama, and NPR reported that, so far, youth voter turnout has not kept pace with overall increase of Democratic voter turnout, compared to 2016. If young people are this frustrated with the current system, the reasoning went, why didn’t they show up at the polls?

The short answer? Voter suppression — which takes countless forms, including voter I.D. restrictions, inflexible work and school schedules that prevent citizens from taking time to vote, lack of civics education in schools, the sudden closing (or changing) of polling places, lack of childcare or eldercare, and hours-long wait times to cast a vote. A plethora of factors make voting in America less a thing everyone participates in, and more a competitive sport that seems to demand more training and planning than our systems currently offer.

[...]

Instead of attributing low voter turnout to laziness, it is time for American civics education to engage with the serious issues of suppression that cause the low young adult poll numbers. “When voter-friendly reforms are on the books, such as Election Day Registration, automatic voter registration, early voting, online voter registration, robust high school civics curricula that accompany pre-registration programs, and on-campus polling stations, we see a demonstrated boost in youth turn-out. It is easy to blame and chastise, but we need to pull up our sleeves and work together to implement proven solutions,” said Bromberg. In other words: We need to start now.

So youth turnout is low, but it's not all our fault.  Not sure what Illinois' excuse is, though.  Democrats there control everything.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I disagree. Sanders is a bad fit for suburbanites period and i think that has more to do with him then progressivism in general.

[clever but short]

I think there is evidence of this. I would add my suspicion that progressives' future looks much more like AOC's district than it does Vermont.

[Gass3268]

I disagree. Sanders is a bad fit for suburbanites period and i think that has more to do with him then progressivism in general.

Obviously I'm biased, but for the primary, Warren would have sold better in suburbs than Sanders.

[Adam Griffin]

Youth and black turnout as a share of the electorate is down, while old and white turnout as a share of the electorate is up - despite raw turnout being up among all of these groups in most contests compared to 2016. The answer is obvious.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yes, unfortunately.

[Umlilo]

Not only have lots of these people joined the party, but the preexisting party shifted to become more like the former, and it has really shown.

[RINO Tom]

Not only have lots of these people joined the party, but the preexisting party shifted to become more like the former, and it has really shown.

While this is no doubt true in part, my anecdotal experience (both in real life and looking at some of these former-Republican-anti-Trump-forever types on Atlas) is that these folks chameleon their economic views to the left to fit in with the new team, as well.

[Virginiá]

Interesting article a friend sent me:

As exit polls began rolling in following Super Tuesday, March 3rd, so did a common refrain: Young people are too lazy, disengaged, selfish, and apathetic to go vote. Some exit polls reported that youth turnout was down in Virginia, Tennessee, Vermont, North Carolina, and Alabama, and NPR reported that, so far, youth voter turnout has not kept pace with overall increase of Democratic voter turnout, compared to 2016. If young people are this frustrated with the current system, the reasoning went, why didn’t they show up at the polls?

The short answer? Voter suppression — which takes countless forms, including voter I.D. restrictions, inflexible work and school schedules that prevent citizens from taking time to vote, lack of civics education in schools, the sudden closing (or changing) of polling places, lack of childcare or eldercare, and hours-long wait times to cast a vote. A plethora of factors make voting in America less a thing everyone participates in, and more a competitive sport that seems to demand more training and planning than our systems currently offer.

[...]

Instead of attributing low voter turnout to laziness, it is time for American civics education to engage with the serious issues of suppression that cause the low young adult poll numbers. “When voter-friendly reforms are on the books, such as Election Day Registration, automatic voter registration, early voting, online voter registration, robust high school civics curricula that accompany pre-registration programs, and on-campus polling stations, we see a demonstrated boost in youth turn-out. It is easy to blame and chastise, but we need to pull up our sleeves and work together to implement proven solutions,” said Bromberg. In other words: We need to start now.

So youth turnout is low, but it's not all our fault.  Not sure what Illinois' excuse is, though.  Democrats there control everything.

Overall, the primary issue is that many young people do not see elections as a way to enact actual change. Of course, they are wrong and right at the same time. They are wrong in not seeing election as a vehicle for change - it's arguably the only way for many issues. But they are right in that beyond theory, government has become useless at the federal level for all but the most incremental changes, usually driven by the executive branch - or at least until the Roberts court decides that Congress has given up too much of its lawmaking power.

Illinois actually has a very pro-voter election system (even if they botched the rollout of automatic voter reg). If young people didn't vote, for most it is because they didn't want to. The left should really double down on increased civic education throughout K12. And this means not just one or two classes over the entirety of middle/high school.

Another policy that should be pursued, but has steep opposition even among Democrats, is letting 16 year olds and up vote. Reliable voters do so out of habit, and the way to build lifelong habits is to encourage the behavior early in life. Further, allowing students to vote while living at home would be self-reinforcing for the parents and the teenagers. Parents going to vote will encourage their sons and daughters to as well, and vice versa.

[Tintrlvr]

Interesting article a friend sent me:

As exit polls began rolling in following Super Tuesday, March 3rd, so did a common refrain: Young people are too lazy, disengaged, selfish, and apathetic to go vote. Some exit polls reported that youth turnout was down in Virginia, Tennessee, Vermont, North Carolina, and Alabama, and NPR reported that, so far, youth voter turnout has not kept pace with overall increase of Democratic voter turnout, compared to 2016. If young people are this frustrated with the current system, the reasoning went, why didn’t they show up at the polls?

The short answer? Voter suppression — which takes countless forms, including voter I.D. restrictions, inflexible work and school schedules that prevent citizens from taking time to vote, lack of civics education in schools, the sudden closing (or changing) of polling places, lack of childcare or eldercare, and hours-long wait times to cast a vote. A plethora of factors make voting in America less a thing everyone participates in, and more a competitive sport that seems to demand more training and planning than our systems currently offer.

[...]

Instead of attributing low voter turnout to laziness, it is time for American civics education to engage with the serious issues of suppression that cause the low young adult poll numbers. “When voter-friendly reforms are on the books, such as Election Day Registration, automatic voter registration, early voting, online voter registration, robust high school civics curricula that accompany pre-registration programs, and on-campus polling stations, we see a demonstrated boost in youth turn-out. It is easy to blame and chastise, but we need to pull up our sleeves and work together to implement proven solutions,” said Bromberg. In other words: We need to start now.

So youth turnout is low, but it's not all our fault.  Not sure what Illinois' excuse is, though.  Democrats there control everything.

Overall, the primary issue is that many young people do not see elections as a way to enact actual change. Of course, they are wrong and right at the same time. They are wrong in not seeing election as a vehicle for change - it's arguably the only way for many issues. But they are right in that beyond theory, government has become useless at the federal level for all but the most incremental changes, usually driven by the executive branch - or at least until the Roberts court decides that Congress has given up too much of its lawmaking power.

Illinois actually has a very pro-voter election system (even if they botched the rollout of automatic voter reg). If young people didn't vote, for most it is because they didn't want to. The left should really double down on increased civic education throughout K12. And this means not just one or two classes over the entirety of middle/high school.

Another policy that should be pursued, but has steep opposition even among Democrats, is letting 16 year olds and up vote. Reliable voters do so out of habit, and the way to build lifelong habits is to encourage the behavior early in life. Further, allowing students to vote while living at home would be self-reinforcing for the parents and the teenagers. Parents going to vote will encourage their sons and daughters to as well, and vice versa.

The main problem I think with letting 16/17-year-olds vote is that, on average, they're going to be very dependent on their parents and therefore inclined to parrot their parents' views rather than vote something resembling their own views. In that sense, having voting tied to the age when you are expected to first leave home or start to be more fully independent carries real meaning: It's also when you can be expected to start thinking independently about your political views.

I don't have an objection necessarily to 16/17-year-olds voting, but you should recognize that it is *really* empowering 40/50-year-olds (their parents) and the favored views of people around that age and not young voters.



On the topic of voting suppression leading to lower youth turnout: Maybe on the very margins, but youth turnout is just as bad in states that make it really easy to register and vote.

[Smash255]

I disagree. Sanders is a bad fit for suburbanites period and i think that has more to do with him then progressivism in general.

I would agree with this and I say this as a college educated suburban voter who happened to vote for Sanders in 2016.  In some cases it has more to do with how the message is coming across rather than the message itself.  If her campaign didn't lose steam, Warren I think would have done quite well with these suburban voters.   FWIW,  Feingold I think would have done very well with the same suburban college educated never Trumper voter that Sanders struggled with.

[Virginiá]

The main problem I think with letting 16/17-year-olds vote is that, on average, they're going to be very dependent on their parents and therefore inclined to parrot their parents' views rather than vote something resembling their own views. In that sense, having voting tied to the age when you are expected to first leave home or start to be more fully independent carries real meaning: It's also when you can be expected to start thinking independently about your political views.

I don't have an objection necessarily to 16/17-year-olds voting, but you should recognize that it is *really* empowering 40/50-year-olds (their parents) and the favored views of people around that age and not young voters.

On the topic of voting suppression leading to lower youth turnout: Maybe on the very margins, but youth turnout is just as bad in states that make it really easy to register and vote.

Maybe, but how do you square that with the huge divergence in the 18-24 year old vote and the 50+ vote over the past 10+ years? Unless the 16/17 year olds are voting absentee and the parents know exactly who they picked, there is no way to force them to vote a certain way, and it's pretty clear that at least by the time they are 18, they are feeling no issue breaking from their parents political choices.

[All Along The Watchtower]

An electoral coalition consisting of young urban white professionals, (primarily) older blacks, working-class Latinos (not reliable in turnout), Asian-Americans (hardly a monolithic group) and anti-Trump refugees from the Republican Party is incredibly fragile. Don't be shocked if, in the likely event of a Biden Presidency, said coalition falls apart and Republicans rebound quickly.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

Unfortunately yes and it's only going to get worse as Democrats become more dependent on them for votes and Democrats swap white working class voters in the midwest for upper middle class southerners in the suburbs of Atlanta as the ultimate bellweather voters.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No, but the Berniecrats do have five major problems right now:

- 1) they haven't figured out how to make inroads with African-American voters yet in Democratic primaries;

- 2) Many seem to be in denial about the fact - especially if point 1) continues to be the case - that it is impossible for a Berniecratic candidate to win the Democratic nomination until their movement both makes some ideological concessions and starts conducting good-faith outreach to folks like Jewish-Americans, socially liberal suburban voters, etc.  This doesn't mean give away the farm or sellout, but it does mean the Berniecrats are gonna need to compromise enough to build a truly national coalition.  This will require working with some of the groups that many of Bernie's more vocal supporters tended to treat as enemies of the people in the past.  You guys simply don't have the numbers to go around telling folks who don't agree with you on every issue to f*** off and die. 

I mean, 2/3 of the Democratic electorate was so fiercely opposed to the Berniecratic movement that it rallied around friggin Joe Biden in like a week rather than support Sanders.  I've never seen anything quite like that before, but it makes sense in hindsight.  If you show up at someone's house and randomly start screaming that they'd better give you their home or else you'll start smashing their property with a baseball bat, the person will probably burn down their house before they let you have it just on principle.  The Berniecrat movement needs to find a way to disown or calm down the extremely vocal, toxic minority who care more about giving Democrats the finger than implementing actual policies.

- 3) I know the Berniecrats don't wanna hear this, but some of their policies and messaging is simply really unpopular.  Eliminating student debt is a winning issue and from a realpolitik electoral strategy perspective, they should definitely run with that as long as they can.  The anti-wall street stuff Sanders talked about plays really well too as long as they avoid using the word "socialism."  However, eliminating all private health insurance, their foreign policy agenda, branding themselves as "socialists," decriminalizing hard drugs are all things that simply do not play well with most voters.  They need to do a better job of choosing their battles and can't insist on dying on every hill they encounter. 

For example, most Democrats don't hate their party's establishment with a burning passion.  That's a losing battle for you guys.  Hillary?  Yeah, she was exceptionally unpopular.  But folks don't hate the Pelosis, the Schumers, the Obamas, the Bidens, etc of the party.  And no one gives a crap about Tom Perez or even knows who he is, for that matter.

- 4) The Berniecrats have done a terrible job of choosing their friends.  McArthur once posted a political cartoon saying "Not me.  Us." that showed Bernie Sanders surrounded by grifters and bigots like David Sirota, Nina Turner, Katie Halper, Ryan Grimm, Glenn Greenwald, Kyle Kulinski, Briahna Joy, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Nathan Robinson, Krystal Ball, etc, etc, etc.  It really was spot on.  The problem here isn't Bernie, it's that you guys have let all these toxic bad actors leech onto the Berniecrat movement in the loudest way possible. 

Most people obviously do not know who these people are, but I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of non-Berniecrats have heard at least three comments that strongly offended them some combination of the folks in that political cartoon.  At this point, the Berniecrats are being judged by their worst members and until you guys cut the Chapo Trap Houses and Cenk Uygurs of the movement lose, that's gonna continue.  It's like gangrene that was allowed to fester and now you've gotta amputate the whole hand to save the arm. 

- 5) Lastly, the Berniecrat movement seems to want a bomb-thrower.  That's just not something Democrats have any interest in right now.  Most Democrats want a return to the normality of the liberal democratic international political order and miss Obama.  This is not a year for a WWC left-populist revolt.  As far as the average Democrat is concerned, Trump was the WWC populist revolt.  And honestly, I think Bernie was a much better than average candidate for the movement.  AOC will likely do far worse if/when she runs.  What you guys need is a Berniecrat whose rhetorical style and brand is akin to the calm, uplifting, reassuring, idealistic schtick of Buttigieg circa 2020 or Obama circa 2008.  If you can pull that off with a candidate who supports Bernie-style progressivism, then you're halfway to home as far as finding a Berniecrat who can win the Democratic Presidential nomination goes. 

[Umlilo]

- 3) I know the Berniecrats don't wanna hear this, but some of their policies and messaging is simply really unpopular.  Eliminating student debt is a winning issue and from a realpolitik electoral strategy perspective, they should definitely run with that as long as they can.  The anti-wall street stuff Sanders talked about plays really well too as long as they avoid using the word "socialism."  However, eliminating all private health insurance, their foreign policy agenda, branding themselves as "socialists," decriminalizing hard drugs are all things that simply do not play well with most voters.  They need to do a better job of choosing their battles and can't insist on dying on every hill they encounter.

What? To the extent that Americans have foreign policy views other than following the dominant trend in their party at any given time, they seem to prefer non-interventionism. And Sanders doesn't come across as a radical like, say, Corbyn.

[Roblox]

Running on a slogan of "Not us, me" and winning twice the number of votes Bernie did.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Not only have lots of these people joined the party, but the preexisting party shifted to become more like the former, and it has really shown.

While this is no doubt true in part, my anecdotal experience (both in real life and looking at some of these former-Republican-anti-Trump-forever types on Atlas) is that these folks chameleon their economic views to the left to fit in with the new team, as well.

Does that stop at support for specific policies backed by the Democrats' dominant faction, or extend to skepticism toward the power structures that have shaped policymaking in the post-Reagan era? If the former, it would suggest the path for the party's left wing is greatly diminished, especially when its advocates adopt a populist tone.
 
That said, I'm not sure how much the introduction of this group matters in terms of moderating the party on economic issues - relative to the loss of ancestrally Democratic populists, that is. A significant number of those voters may be willing to wade back into Democratic primaries when (and only when) Trump is no longer running, but I'm pretty sure AOC couldn't reach most of them anyway.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

- 3) I know the Berniecrats don't wanna hear this, but some of their policies and messaging is simply really unpopular.  Eliminating student debt is a winning issue and from a realpolitik electoral strategy perspective, they should definitely run with that as long as they can.  The anti-wall street stuff Sanders talked about plays really well too as long as they avoid using the word "socialism."  However, eliminating all private health insurance, their foreign policy agenda, branding themselves as "socialists," decriminalizing hard drugs are all things that simply do not play well with most voters.  They need to do a better job of choosing their battles and can't insist on dying on every hill they encounter.

What? To the extent that Americans have foreign policy views other than following the dominant trend in their party at any given time, they seem to prefer non-interventionism. And Sanders doesn't come across as a radical like, say, Corbyn.

The key distinction - and tbh, cognitive dissonance - here is that while most Americans don't want our troops to be fighting in a long-term war overseas, most Americans (certainly most Democrats given the reaction to Trump) recoil at true isolationism and do want the U.S. to be taking a proactive, vocal, leading role in the international political order.  In other words, Americans are pretty interventionist on foreign policy until you get to actually fighting a long-term war.  Once that happens, isolationist sentiment resurges until the war is perceived by the public as being more or less over.

I get the sense that many Berniecrats are pretty hostile to the idea of returning to the liberal democratic international political order as it existed under Obama, that low-info ones tend to be at least somewhat sympathetic to Venezuela/Cuba/other left-authoritarian regimes as well as [for reasons that continue to escape me] Russia of all places, and have a deep hostility to things like NATO, the UN, the proactive and aggressive use of soft power to force other countries to do what the U.S. wants them to, etc, and aren't too crazy about the idea of the U.S. running the international political order.  

That sort of stuff may play well in Burlington or at the University of Berkley, but it plays horribly with most folks outside the Berniecrat base.  There's middle ground between being a neo-conservative and being Bernie Sanders (who wasn't even on the most isolationist end of the Berniecrat movement, not even close).  They need to find that sweet spot where they still hold true to their core values, but also don't scare away everyone who feels nostalgic about the international liberal democratic political order as it existed during the Obama administration.  It'll require some concessions on foreign policy, but it's definitely possible.

[Gass3268]

No, but the Berniecrats do have five major problems right now:

- 1) they haven't figured out how to make inroads with African-American voters yet in Democratic primaries;

- 2) Many seem to be in denial about the fact - especially if point 1) continues to be the case - that it is impossible for a Berniecratic candidate to win the Democratic nomination until their movement both makes some ideological concessions and starts conducting good-faith outreach to folks like Jewish-Americans, socially liberal suburban voters, etc.  This doesn't mean give away the farm or sellout, but it does mean the Berniecrats are gonna need to compromise enough to build a truly national coalition.  This will require working with some of the groups that many of Bernie's more vocal supporters tended to treat as enemies of the people in the past.  You guys simply don't have the numbers to go around telling folks who don't agree with you on every issue to f*** off and die. 

I mean, 2/3 of the Democratic electorate was so fiercely opposed to the Berniecratic movement that it rallied around friggin Joe Biden in like a week rather than support Sanders.  I've never seen anything quite like that before, but it makes sense in hindsight.  If you show up at someone's house and randomly start screaming that they'd better give you their home or else you'll start smashing their property with a baseball bat, the person will probably burn down their house before they let you have it just on principle.  The Berniecrat movement needs to find a way to disown or calm down the extremely vocal, toxic minority who care more about giving Democrats the finger than implementing actual policies.

- 3) I know the Berniecrats don't wanna hear this, but some of their policies and messaging is simply really unpopular.  Eliminating student debt is a winning issue and from a realpolitik electoral strategy perspective, they should definitely run with that as long as they can.  The anti-wall street stuff Sanders talked about plays really well too as long as they avoid using the word "socialism."  However, eliminating all private health insurance, their foreign policy agenda, branding themselves as "socialists," decriminalizing hard drugs are all things that simply do not play well with most voters.  They need to do a better job of choosing their battles and can't insist on dying on every hill they encounter. 

For example, most Democrats don't hate their party's establishment with a burning passion.  That's a losing battle for you guys.  Hillary?  Yeah, she was exceptionally unpopular.  But folks don't hate the Pelosis, the Schumers, the Obamas, the Bidens, etc of the party.  And no one gives a crap about Tom Perez or even knows who he is, for that matter.

- 4) The Berniecrats have done a terrible job of choosing their friends.  McArthur once posted a political cartoon saying "Not me.  Us." that showed Bernie Sanders surrounded by grifters and bigots like David Sirota, Nina Turner, Katie Halper, Ryan Grimm, Glenn Greenwald, Kyle Kulinski, Briahna Joy, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Nathan Robinson, Krystal Ball, etc, etc, etc.  It really was spot on.  The problem here isn't Bernie, it's that you guys have let all these toxic bad actors leech onto the Berniecrat movement in the loudest way possible. 

Most people obviously do not know who these people are, but I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of non-Berniecrats have heard at least three comments that strongly offended them some combination of the folks in that political cartoon.  At this point, the Berniecrats are being judged by their worst members and until you guys cut the Chapo Trap Houses and Cenk Uygurs of the movement lose, that's gonna continue.  It's like gangrene that was allowed to fester and now you've gotta amputate the whole hand to save the arm. 

- 5) Lastly, the Berniecrat movement seems to want a bomb-thrower.  That's just not something Democrats have any interest in right now.  Most Democrats want a return to the normality of the liberal democratic international political order and miss Obama.  This is not a year for a WWC left-populist revolt.  As far as the average Democrat is concerned, Trump was the WWC populist revolt.  And honestly, I think Bernie was a much better than average candidate for the movement.  AOC will likely do far worse if/when she runs.  What you guys need is a Berniecrat whose rhetorical style and brand is akin to the calm, uplifting, reassuring, idealistic schtick of Buttigieg circa 2020 or Obama circa 2008.  If you can pull that off with a candidate who supports Bernie-style progressivism, then you're halfway to home as far as finding a Berniecrat who can win the Democratic Presidential nomination goes. 

3-5 is exactly why I went from Sanders 2016 to Warren 2020.

[darklordoftech]

eliminating all private health insurance, their foreign policy agenda, branding themselves as "socialists," decriminalizing hard drugs are all things that simply do not play well with most voters.

Sanders’ foreign policy views are perfectly mainstream (he supported the Kosovo intervention) and he’s never suggested that hard drugs should be decriminalized.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

eliminating all private health insurance, their foreign policy agenda, branding themselves as "socialists," decriminalizing hard drugs are all things that simply do not play well with most voters.

Sanders’ foreign policy views are perfectly mainstream (he supported the Kosovo intervention) and he’s never suggested that hard drugs should be decriminalized.

I’m talking about the Berniecrat movement overall.