The Democratic Party's weakness: ideology

[WalterWhite]

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/political-ideology/by/state/

Polling from the Pew Research Center highlights a troubling reality the Democratic Party and progressives face; significantly more Americans identify as conservative than as progressive. Across every swing state (and even in many solidly Democratic states such as California), conservatives outnumber progressives; with progressives only outnumbering conservatives in Washington D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont (and tied in both Oregon and Washington), they remain a vocal yet minor voice in American politics.

From the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency to the end of the James Carter Presidency, Americans generally held progressive political positions; Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal proved so popular with voters that the Republican Party had to adopt progressive policies in the 1950s to remain electable. With Lyndon Johnson's failed War on Poverty and poor handling of the Vietnam War, however, progressive programs waned in popularity, allowing conservative politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, to gain prominence throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Since the Ronald Reagan Presidency, Americans generally viewed the federal government unfavorably, which correlates with conservative views regarding small government. After the electoral disasters of 1984 and 1988, the Democratic Party learned that it must moderate to remain electable; as such, every Democratic president since William Clinton has been politically moderate.

Assuming Republicans win all conservatives within a particular state, Democrats win all progressives within a particular state, and two parties split moderate and undecided voters by the ratio of conservatives to progressives, Republicans would win every presidential, Senate, and House election. Democrats must win significantly more moderate voters than Republicans do to remain competitive in elections.

• Alabama: R+61%
• Alaska: R+19%
• Arizona: R+26%
• Arkansas: R+50%
• California: R+3%
• Colorado: R+8%
• Connecticut: R+14%
• Delaware: R+2%
• District of Columbia: D+41%
• Florida: R+21%
• Georgia: R+35%
• Hawaii: R+18%
• Idaho: R+33%
• Illinois: R+8%
• Indiana: R+34%
• Iowa: R+28%
• Kansas: R+18%
• Kentucky: R+29%
• Louisiana: R+56%
• Maine: R+6%
• Maryland: D+5%
• Massachusetts: D+22%
• Michigan: R+19%
• Minnesota: R+13%
• Mississippi: R+41%
• Missouri: R+30%
• Montana: R+35%
• Nebraska: R+32%
• Nevada: R+16%
• New Hampshire: R+10%
• New Jersey: R+2%
• New Mexico: R+19%
• New York: D+3%
• North Carolina: R+27%
• North Dakota: R+34%
• Ohio: R+31%
• Oklahoma: R+33%
• Oregon: Tied
• Pennsylvania: R+22%
• Rhode Island: D+7%
• South Carolina: R+48%
• South Dakota: R+52%
• Tennessee: R+42%
• Texas: R+30%
• Utah: R+38%
• Vermont: D+8%
• Virginia: R+34%
• Washington: Tied
• West Virginia: R+49%
• Wisconsin: R+37%
• Wyoming: R+41%

Republicans would dominate every election if voters voted purely on ideology; significantly more Americans view tradition more favorably than change, leading to strong conservative attitudes among Americans. To their credit, Democrats have courted moderate voters and more recently conservative-leaning voters through their messaging about preserving democracy. However, the overreliance of the Democratic Party on moderate and conservative-leaning voters is unsustainable.

First, party schisms will inevitably occur. Moderate and progressive Democrats have significantly differing visions for the future of the United States, numerous policy differences, and noticeably different rhetoric. (Progressives tend to be more populist than moderates.) Eventually, one wing of the Democratic Party will either join the Republican Party or form a new party; such happened in 1948 and 1968, when conservative Democrats left the mainstream Democratic Party to form the Dixiecrats; such happened in 1994 and 2010, when conservative Southern Democrats started voting Republican when they disapproved of the mainstream Democratic POTUS. The Republican Party, which predominately relies on conservative voters with smaller support among moderate voters, has a significantly more ideologically coherent coalition, lowering the chances of a potential schism in the future amongst Republicans.

Second, appealing to the coalition is difficult. Moderate, progressive, and conservative-leaning Democrats have significantly different political interests and are persuaded by different arguments. Conservative-leaning Democrats, for instance, would react more strongly to appeals to tradition; conversely, such campaigning would dissuade progressive Democrats. The Republican Party, with its ideologically coherent coalition, can better appeal to its voters, who, by virtue of their shared ideology, are persuaded by similar arguments.

Third, progress stagnates. Because conservatives significantly outnumber progressives, the Democratic Party has to be centrist to remain electable; the Republican Party, however, can continue to be electable as a conservative party. Because the overall political leaning of Congress remains center-right, conservative politicians would pass their legislation significantly more easily than progressive politicians. The inability of the Democratic Party to pass progressive legislation would reflect poorly on the Democratic Party amongst progressives, who would be less enthusiastic about voting, thereby decreasing total Democratic voters.

The Democratic Party is only competitive because it is the centrist party, which appeals to moderate voters, and because many Republican Party politicians are too involved in culture war issues (Richard Santorum, Michael Pence, Ronald DeSantis, etc...) or too morally corrupt (Donald Trump and Matthew Gaetz) to win the majority of moderate voters. However, should the Republican Party stop campaigning on culture war issues and stop nominating morally questionable candidates, significantly more moderate voters would vote Republican, effectively destroying the electability of the Democratic Party. Additionally, with progressive voices becoming more prominent within the Democratic Party, moderate voters might become less inclined to vote Democratic, further hemorrhaging Democratic support. With these factors considered, a progressive Democrat would very likely lose a presidential election (although they would get more than 60 electoral votes). However, would such a loss kill the progressive movement, or would it energize the progressive movement like Goldwater's loss did for conservatives? Such is interesting to ponder.

[Devout Centrist]

Jesse we need to cook the numbers

[Ragnaroni]

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/political-ideology/by/state/

Polling from the Pew Research Center highlights a troubling reality the Democratic Party and progressives face; significantly more Americans identify as conservative than as progressive. Across every swing state (and even in many solidly Democratic states such as California), conservatives outnumber progressives; with progressives only outnumbering conservatives in Washington D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont (and tied in both Oregon and Washington), they remain a vocal yet minor voice in American politics.

From the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency to the end of the James Carter Presidency, Americans generally held progressive political positions; Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal proved so popular with voters that the Republican Party had to adopt progressive policies in the 1950s to remain electable. With Lyndon Johnson's failed War on Poverty and poor handling of the Vietnam War, however, progressive programs waned in popularity, allowing conservative politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, to gain prominence throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Since the Ronald Reagan Presidency, Americans generally viewed the federal government unfavorably, which correlates with conservative views regarding small government. After the electoral disasters of 1984 and 1988, the Democratic Party learned that it must moderate to remain electable; as such, every Democratic president since William Clinton has been politically moderate.

Assuming Republicans win all conservatives within a particular state, Democrats win all progressives within a particular state, and two parties split moderate and undecided voters by the ratio of conservatives to progressives, Republicans would win every presidential, Senate, and House election. Democrats must win significantly more moderate voters than Republicans do to remain competitive in elections.

• Alabama: R+61%
• Alaska: R+19%
• Arizona: R+26%
• Arkansas: R+50%
• California: R+3%
• Colorado: R+8%
• Connecticut: R+14%
• Delaware: R+2%
• District of Columbia: D+41%
• Florida: R+21%
• Georgia: R+35%
• Hawaii: R+18%
• Idaho: R+33%
• Illinois: R+8%
• Indiana: R+34%
• Iowa: R+28%
• Kansas: R+18%
• Kentucky: R+29%
• Louisiana: R+56%
• Maine: R+6%
• Maryland: D+5%
• Massachusetts: D+22%
• Michigan: R+19%
• Minnesota: R+13%
• Mississippi: R+41%
• Missouri: R+30%
• Montana: R+35%
• Nebraska: R+32%
• Nevada: R+16%
• New Hampshire: R+10%
• New Jersey: R+2%
• New Mexico: R+19%
• New York: D+3%
• North Carolina: R+27%
• North Dakota: R+34%
• Ohio: R+31%
• Oklahoma: R+33%
• Oregon: Tied
• Pennsylvania: R+22%
• Rhode Island: D+7%
• South Carolina: R+48%
• South Dakota: R+52%
• Tennessee: R+42%
• Texas: R+30%
• Utah: R+38%
• Vermont: D+8%
• Virginia: R+34%
• Washington: Tied
• West Virginia: R+49%
• Wisconsin: R+37%
• Wyoming: R+41%

Republicans would dominate every election if voters voted purely on ideology; significantly more Americans view tradition more favorably than change, leading to strong conservative attitudes among Americans. To their credit, Democrats have courted moderate voters and more recently conservative-leaning voters through their messaging about preserving democracy. However, the overreliance of the Democratic Party on moderate and conservative-leaning voters is unsustainable.

First, party schisms will inevitably occur. Moderate and progressive Democrats have significantly differing visions for the future of the United States, numerous policy differences, and noticeably different rhetoric. (Progressives tend to be more populist than moderates.) Eventually, one wing of the Democratic Party will either join the Republican Party or form a new party; such happened in 1948 and 1968, when conservative Democrats left the mainstream Democratic Party to form the Dixiecrats; such happened in 1994 and 2010, when conservative Southern Democrats started voting Republican when they disapproved of the mainstream Democratic POTUS. The Republican Party, which predominately relies on conservative voters with smaller support among moderate voters, has a significantly more ideologically coherent coalition, lowering the chances of a potential schism in the future amongst Republicans.

Second, appealing to the coalition is difficult. Moderate, progressive, and conservative-leaning Democrats have significantly different political interests and are persuaded by different arguments. Conservative-leaning Democrats, for instance, would react more strongly to appeals to tradition; conversely, such campaigning would dissuade progressive Democrats. The Republican Party, with its ideologically coherent coalition, can better appeal to its voters, who, by virtue of their shared ideology, are persuaded by similar arguments.

Third, progress stagnates. Because conservatives significantly outnumber progressives, the Democratic Party has to be centrist to remain electable; the Republican Party, however, can continue to be electable as a conservative party. Because the overall political leaning of Congress remains center-right, conservative politicians would pass their legislation significantly more easily than progressive politicians. The inability of the Democratic Party to pass progressive legislation would reflect poorly on the Democratic Party amongst progressives, who would be less enthusiastic about voting, thereby decreasing total Democratic voters.

The Democratic Party is only competitive because it is the centrist party, which appeals to moderate voters, and because many Republican Party politicians are too involved in culture war issues (Richard Santorum, Michael Pence, Ronald DeSantis, etc...) or too morally corrupt (Donald Trump and Matthew Gaetz) to win the majority of moderate voters. However, should the Republican Party stop campaigning on culture war issues and stop nominating morally questionable candidates, significantly more moderate voters would vote Republican, effectively destroying the electability of the Democratic Party. Additionally, with progressive voices becoming more prominent within the Democratic Party, moderate voters might become less inclined to vote Democratic, further hemorrhaging Democratic support. With these factors considered, a progressive Democrat would very likely lose a presidential election (although they would get more than 60 electoral votes). However, would such a loss kill the progressive movement, or would it energize the progressive movement like Goldwater's loss did for conservatives? Such is interesting to ponder.

R+3 California sounds so wrong. Like I've walked into the bizarro realm...

[Spectator]

Most self-described “moderates” are liberal Democrats that always vote blue no matter what, that’s why you see in every exit poll in every race that Democrats win moderates.

It’s a holdover from the branding of the Reagan era where conservatives aren’t embarrassed to admit they are conservative whereas liberals hide under the moderate label.

[Mr.Phips]

Most self-described “moderates” are liberal Democrats that always vote blue no matter what, that’s why you see in every exit poll in every race that Democrats win moderates.

It’s a holdover from the branding of the Reagan era where conservatives aren’t embarrassed to admit they are conservative whereas liberals hide under the moderate label.

I’m basically a socialist on economics (although more conservative on issues like immigration) and would identify as a moderate if asked in an exit poll.