Elissa Slotkin: "It doesn’t win elections to just speak to the base of the party"

[John Fettercuck]

I don't even dislike Slotkin - I think she's unfairly maligned a lot of time actually but this time I just don't get what her point is when she brings up Harris because Harris didn't do this. Her point itself outside of bringing up Harris is fine, but Harris didn't only appeal to the base, so I'm not sure why she brought her into the equation like that. Kind of just feels like a sh*tty hit job moment that seems unnecessary, especially again when Harris actually got MORE votes than Slotkin did in Michigan last year.

Honestly this really feels like a dogwhistle, considering Harris had actively distanced herself from the progressive wing of the party (especially on Gaza).

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

He was opposed to the Iraq War.

He did, but also, plenty of moderate/conservadems who voted for the Iraq War were comfortably reelected that year. The Iraq War was fundamental to that election, but to say that progressive opposition to the Iraq War was the sole driver of increased turnout is specious.

But you have conjecture, not data on your side. 2020 is still the highest turnout election, and came after a rigorous primary in which everyone ran to the left. You actually can make similar points about 2004 and 2008.

I encourage you to take a second to think about what other factors in 2020 might explain high turnout.

But what you cannot argue against is the fact that Bill Clinton’s centrism motivated the least electoral participation in generations.

You're asserting a causal relationship here but haven't provided any actual evidence.

The idea that America wants more bureaucratic third way centrism is pretty nuts imo. It’s never been an electoral winner. Even Kamala’s high water mark in the polling was when she was more against the neoliberal consensus in the summer.

I don't think Americans are pro "third way centrism" but if you're going to argue that Kamala's high water mark came when she ran against the "neoliberal consensus" then you also need to argue that Biden's administration also branded itself as a subversion of the "neoliberal consensus" and it was immensely unpopular.

[coloradocowboi]

He was opposed to the Iraq War.

He did, but also, plenty of moderate/conservadems who voted for the Iraq War were comfortably reelected that year. The Iraq War was fundamental to that election, but to say that progressive opposition to the Iraq War was the sole driver of increased turnout is specious.

But you have conjecture, not data on your side. 2020 is still the highest turnout election, and came after a rigorous primary in which everyone ran to the left. You actually can make similar points about 2004 and 2008.

I encourage you to take a second to think about what other factors in 2020 might explain high turnout.

But what you cannot argue against is the fact that Bill Clinton’s centrism motivated the least electoral participation in generations.

You're asserting a causal relationship here but haven't provided any actual evidence.

The idea that America wants more bureaucratic third way centrism is pretty nuts imo. It’s never been an electoral winner. Even Kamala’s high water mark in the polling was when she was more against the neoliberal consensus in the summer.

I don't think Americans are pro "third way centrism" but if you're going to argue that Kamala's high water mark came when she ran against the "neoliberal consensus" then you also need to argue that Biden's administration also branded itself as a subversion of the "neoliberal consensus" and it was immensely unpopular.

The last sentence in what you wrote is the either/or logical fallacy, as is much of what you're arguing. Not to mention, you accuse me of implying causation, when I didn't but at least did provide numbers and material events (e.g. election results lol) that back up my theory pretty conclusively.

Elements of Biden's economic agenda were popular. Elements of what was not implemented because of Manchin and Sinema's meddling were popular.

People "disapprove" of Biden for myriad reasons, including "not going far enough." To say that because he had bad approval ratings during an inflationary period is evidence that Americans don't want a robust welfare state and want more neoliberalism is really missing the forest for the trees. Not to mention neoliberalism has nothing to do with him being an 80 year old walking corpse, except insofar as the neoliberal consultants who now claim that Biden "went too far left" actually forced the corpse upon us in the last primary. I don't get where it will end. But one thing that I keep trying to tell people is it won't end well when I - a former establishment stooge - now regularly vote PSL lol

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

Not to mention, you accuse me of implying causation, when I didn't but at least did provide numbers and material events (e.g. election results lol) that back up my theory pretty conclusively.

You quite literally said "what you cannot argue against is the fact that Bill Clinton’s centrism motivated the least electoral participation in generations." (emphasis added). That's a causal claim and you still haven't supported at all - the entirety of the support you've provided is associative (non-causal) patterns that could just as well be explained by other means.

What's really funny about this exchange is in another thread you talked about how you had academic training that allowed you to look at things objectively, unlike other unenlightened people. I'm telling you as another academic who writes and reviews peer reviewed scientific literature that your analysis is not as rigorous or compelling as you think. You described a hypothesis (not a theory) and you provided one line of evidence without considering any alternatives - it isn't "conclusively" supported at all. Your refutation to counter arguments I use consists entirely of saying "lol logical fallacy" without being specific about which claims you are even trying to argue against.

I'm not impressed, doctor.

Elements of Biden's economic agenda were popular. Elements of what was not implemented because of Manchin and Sinema's meddling were popular.

People "disapprove" of Biden for myriad reasons, including "not going far enough." To say that because he had bad approval ratings during an inflationary period is evidence that Americans don't want a robust welfare state and want more neoliberalism is really missing the forest for the trees. Not to mention neoliberalism has nothing to do with him being an 80 year old walking corpse, except insofar as the neoliberal consultants who now claim that Biden "went too far left" actually forced the corpse upon us in the last primary. I don't get where it will end. But one thing that I keep trying to tell people is it won't end well when I - a former establishment stooge - now regularly vote PSL lol

I said pretty explicitly that I don't think Americans want "more neoliberalism" so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up, nor do I think Americans aren't interested in a welfare state. Much of this post reads like an argument with an imaginary person.

This all reads very much like you've fallen into the same trap as many other progressives (including myself for much of the last five years), assuming the whole of the country was much more progressive than it actually is. "What Biden did was popular, and would have been more popular if he went further left, but also it was unpopular, but only because he didn't go far left enough." What you are describing is how you and your friends feel, and I very much believe your sincerity in your beliefs. But we have so much data from the last several decades that the number of people who feel exactly this way is a much smaller share of the country than we think. It's up to you if and when you have seen enough evidence, but I'm at that point and starting to look for other explanations. Please don't shoehorn me into some lame "neoliberal third wayist" box and instead maybe show some humility and curiosity.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Proving my point. The lowest turnout elections were the heyday or centrists running the Democratic Party, e.g. 92, 96, 00. So maybe you’d agree then that the more clearly progressive the democratic agenda is, the more of our voters that turn out?

Very narrow #analysis. Turnout has been higher from 2008 to the present because each one of those elections involved a celebrity candidate at the head of a (partially media-created) political movement. And 2004 bringing in >15M more voters than 2000 was not because John Kerry was a progressive champion lol.

He was opposed to the Iraq War. But you have conjecture, not data on your side. 2020 is still the highest turnout election, and came after a rigorous primary in which everyone ran to the left. You actually can make similar points about 2004 and 2008.

But what you cannot argue against is the fact that Bill Clinton’s centrism motivated the least electoral participation in generations.

The idea that America wants more bureaucratic third way centrism is pretty nuts imo. It’s never been an electoral winner. Even Kamala’s high water mark in the polling was when she was more against the neoliberal consensus in the summer.

Harris was never running a progressive campaign, but obviously bringing on Liz Cheney was a complete disaster. I think according to brain-dead DC Democrat thinking, Harris was a mixed race woman who grew up in Berkeley in the '60s, so she must have the left locked down.

[Darthpi - Crush the Oligarchy]

God I am so tired of this stupid conversation. Just because Harris didn't successfully convince enough moderates and independents to vote for her does not mean that the campaign wasn't *very clearly* oriented around speaking to those voters outside the base.

Why her outreach to those voters proved unsuccessful - and/or insufficient to offset some base turnout issues - is a much more productive conversation to have than whether that outreach occurred in the first place.

[GoTfan]

God I am so tired of this stupid conversation. Just because Harris didn't successfully convince enough moderates and independents to vote for her does not mean that the campaign wasn't *very clearly* oriented around speaking to those voters outside the base.

Why her outreach to those voters proved unsuccessful - and/or insufficient to offset some base turnout issues - is a much more productive conversation to have than whether that outreach occurred in the first place.

She started that way then for some reason she pivoted to campaigning with Republicans like Liz Cheney as much as possible.

[Comrade Funk]

Well, given the massive turnout dropoff among Democrats, maybe they should do a better job of speaking to their base instead of going after the mythical "educated, always tuned-in moderates who 100%, definitely pay attention to the news" by praising Reagan, Bush, and Cheney.

[K.W.R.A.E. 8647]

Ah gosh we're gonna have this dumb "muh Liz Cheney rally" camp ad nauseum ad infinitum for the next four years, ah f**k

[Steve from Lambeth]

What's gotten lost in all of this discussion is that Slotkin offered three pieces of advice to anyone in the audience who was concerned about the current state of things:

• "Don't tune out... America needs you now more than ever"
• "Hold elected officials - including myself - accountable"
• "Pick just one issue you're passionate about and engage - and doomscrolling doesn't count"

(Compare with the NCSL's 15 Tips for New Legislators: "use your skills and your office to help the community find solutions;" "government requires a bond of trust between citizens and their representatives... work as hard as you can to fulfill [your] promises;" "choose two or three issues you are going to specialize in and make a difference.")

I've never been one to engage in political activism (or indulge in the modern Democratic Party's priorities writ-large) myself, but how are you lot finding the fight so far?

[Pericles]

The Biden administration was a progressive administration, a lot of that was good but the median voter saw them as high spending and soft on the border. Bringing in Liz Cheney in the final weeks wouldn't erase their memories of the last four years.

[John Fettercuck]

Sure. I've spoken at length with Mr. X about this type of stuff in the past, but the biggest problem is that both sides of the party aren't interested in running a campaign to the American people. Where progressives only campaign to themselves and what they want to hear, people like Slotkin exclusively campaign to neocons and nobody else.

This would be fine if the neocon vote existed in meaningful numbers. The ideal Democratic swing voter is a Republican disillusioned with Trump and the MAGA movement. The obvious problem is that a lot of these people have more of an attachment to the Republican Party and conservatism than they do democracy. For every Ray Goldfield you gain, there are 5 OSRs that come back to the fold.

Even then, almost all the NeverTrumpers' "resistance" starts and ends with Trump. Liz Cheney endorsed all of Trump's nominees and enablers on the Court. One of the big Lincoln Project heads in my state, a so-called "profile in courage", continued to endorse and support Chris Sununu, even as he dismantled voting rights for students in my state. They still support the Republican Party and its dismantling of democracyh. They're just mad Trump is open about what he plans to do.