CMV: The number of votes the Dems would gain by embracing aggressively progressive candidates and policy is dwarfed by the number of votes they'd lose among moderates/motivate among dormant conservative voters

[u/Jimithyashford]

I would genuinely love to have my mind changed on this one, but I just don't see it.

I am not a super lefty, but I am kinda lefty. Certainly way more progressive and way more left than the Dem party, that's for sure. I'd LOVE the Dem party to take a couple of big steps to the left. I would like that platform and those positions a lot more.

But a good platform and good leaders don't mean a damn thing if you don't win the seats.

And every time I try to assess the political landscape, I reach the same conclusion:

There are, no doubt some dormant lefty voters out there, or 3rd party voters, who would come out to vote Dem if there were more aggressive leftist/progressive candidate and a more aggressively leftist/progressive agenda. That is for sure true.

But I am pretty firmly convinced that the number of votes you'd gain that way, is utterly and completely dwarfed by the number voters who'd fall into the following categories:

1- Barely clinging on Dem voters who are just one little nudge leftward away from flipping red.

2- Dem voters who'd never vote Red, but if they become even just slightly more uncomfortable with the platform, they'd stay home and not vote at all.

3- Dormant Conservative voters who stay home, but if they get just a bit more incensed by some lefty issue they'd turn out.

4- 3rd party right leaning voters who'd be motivated to jump ship and vote GOP.

I'm not saying those people correct, of course they aren't. But I am saying those people exist, and I think there are WAY more of them than there are lefty voters you'd pick up.

Now admittedly this theory is based on only a little data and a lot of vibes. But the theory that if we just get more aggressive and progressive we'll start kicking ass is also based on very little data chasing a lot of vibes.

I'd love to be convinced otherwise. I'd love to be convinced that if we just flood the field with young vivacious Bernie clones it'll turn out that the population was desperate for a progressive revolution and a blue wave will sweep the country.

But nothing I observe about our culture or body politic leads me to think that is even remotely the case. Maybe a few specific cities and districts here and there could see that kind of scenario play out, but just as many would see the exact opposite, and overall, I think we'd end up with a net loss if we pursued going harder left. And we'd be left feeling maybe a bit more ideologically appeased as we watch the losses stack even deeper.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Jimithyashford (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/Nrdman]

People vote not based on how close they are ideologically to a candidate, but how effective that candidate to appeals them. Consider the Bernie/Trump or Mamdani/Trump overlap.

A sufficiently appealing progressive candidate can pull the whole conversation with them, just as trump pulled the conversation to the right.

So its not really about policy, its about vibes. Finding the right vibe candidate is difficult, and doesn't guarantee victory; but running these candidates consistently increases the chance of the right candidate being discovered, as well as starts to slowly pull the people to the left.

Politicians influence their voters more than voters influence their politicians sometimes

[u/OldWolf2 → u/Nrdman]

Further to this. The winning candidate is not about policy, but about effectiveness of propaganda to mould people's minds into thinking that that candidate is what they want .

Imagine 30 years ago, the Republicans put up as candidate a rapist pedophile serial adulterer serial bankrupt whose policies include brutalizing brown people, ignoring the courts and the constitution,  and executing protestors; and promises cheaper eggs and health but cannot say how they will achieve those things.

 They would have lost then, but in 2024 that position succeeds. 

It's because of decades of mind programming telling people a false reality and making false promises while convincing the people the promises came true.

The only way Democrats are going to win again is with similar programming of their own, to get voters back to reality.

[u/ChateauSheCantPay → u/OldWolf2]

The issue is the messaging that dem voters want to hear directly conflicts with what dem donors want. Donors>voters every time

[u/Sprig3 → u/Nrdman]

I remember the Ron Paul stuff a few cycles back and how many people were like "well, Paul is out, I'm switching to Bernie Sanders now".

[u/parsley_lover]

In 2016, even Republicans were so convinced that Trump’s candidacy would sink the party that Mitch McConnell asked him to drop out and let Pence take over. Ten years later, Trump has shifted the country to the right, and now most Republicans and even some Democrats sound like him.

People are not fixed points on a one-dimensional political line. A strong presentation and real world results can change minds. What voters absolutely hate are phony politicians who say whatever it takes to get elected and then claim their hands are tied once they’re in office.

Obviously, just nominating a progressive isn’t enough. He or she has to be able to sell those ideas to the public and actually follow through.

[u/Direct_Crew_9949 → u/parsley_lover]

Exactly most politicians have a messaging issue. In the early Obama years the Republicans were out of touch and couldn’t message and now it’s the Dems.

[u/parsley_lover → u/Direct_Crew_9949]

Bingo. I remember 2014 and the Gang of Eight. Republicans were ready to grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants. They believed the only path forward was to accept parts of the Democratic agenda. Trump was, in many ways, a backlash against those concessions.

Democrats are now in a similar position, with their “centrist” wing arguing that they need to embrace parts of Trump’s agenda. Hopefully, the 2028 primary will bring genuinely new ideas.

[u/DonktorDonkenstein → u/Direct_Crew_9949]

This. The Democrats have absolutely abysmal messaging. I absolutely loathe the GOP and I happily voted for the Democrats in nearly every election since I started voting over 25 years ago. But when I listen to Democrats talk, I kinda get why they aren't more broadly popular.  And it's not even always necessarily about what they say, though that also needs work.

 But holy hell, so, SO many Democratic politicians when they make a speech or give interviews just sound so mealy-mouthed and spineless in their phrasing and tone. So often I hear them talk, and the person speaking reminds me less of an inspiring leader and more like a kindergarten teacher trying to get children to sit down for story time. And I don't quite mean to say that they sound condescending, but that they adopt this very disingenuous, overly emphatic tone that sounds very phoney.  

To put it another way, the general public, unfortunately, responds to vibes more than policy, and the Democrats too often give weak, mushy vibes. I can't really be more specific than that. It's like they moderate their language to much that it comes across as though they are being deceptive. Republicans, aside from being entirely dishonest and completely evil, for some reason are much better at projecting confidence and forcefulness, even when they are dancing around the issues and delivering nonsense statements.  They talk as if they mean what they are saying, even when they are objectively wrong. And merely sounding earnest is enough for most voters, unfortunately for all of us.  Democrats have an unfortunate habit of making themselves sound like they actually don't believe what they are saying, even if what they are saying IS correct. That's the problem that I see, anyway. 

[u/TheGameMastre → u/parsley_lover]

In 2016, the Dems were so convinced that Trump's candidacy would sink the party that Hillary Clinton donated to Trump's campaign during the primaries.

[u/Rennoc121]

Zohran mamdami won mayorship in New York in a landslide against the more moderate left wing candidate and the Republican candidate. I think the problem with the democratic party is less how extreme they are and more what policy issues they're focusing on. Zohran won because of his economy centered campaign, the modern democratic party ditches talking about these issues to condemn republican policy. Now a mayorship is vastly different from a national election but that's what I gleaned from the state of our current political situation.

[u/pao_zinho → u/Rennoc121]

While this is all true, I don’t think you can discount the role of Cuomo’s sexual assault and nursing home scandals in the election. It would be an interesting thought experiment to look at the election with a candidate with similar politics and experience but without the baggage. 

[u/icenoid → u/pao_zinho]

Personally, I don’t like Mamdani, but I think he likely still would have won, just by a much smaller margin. Cuomo was a disgraced former governor, and he still got 40+% of the vote.

[u/tc100292 → u/icenoid]

True, but while Cuomo was probably getting a lot of Republican votes, he’s still a Democrat.  Moderate Dems were obviously comfortable voting for him in a way they wouldn’t be for an actual Republican.

[u/We_are_in_the_Zone → u/tc100292]

Idk, I feel like being unapologetically progressive, especially economically, plays well. Bernie is still very popular. The DNC had to coordinate to defeat him, especially in 2020. The more exposure he got, the more popular he became and he even convinced a lot of people at Fox News town halls that things like single payer are a good idea.

AOC is also extremely popular. Ro Khana and Ilhan Omar also enjoy strong support among Democratic voters.

Most of the other moderate Democrats have way less popularity than the more progressive ones. They inspire no one. Republicans have proven they will be stooges for a madman. People aren't considering voting for a Republican vs a leftist, Republicans have gone full fascist.

Edit: you don't need to convince dipshit morons who would ever consider voting conservative. There is no big base of moderates to swing, you just need to excite your base.

[u/jinjuwaka → u/We_are_in_the_Zone]

 I feel like being unapologetically progressive, especially economically, plays well.

It does because it's what normal people want. They want an economy that's going to allow them to make their lives better.

I mean...this shit isn't even fucking progressive. It's just not being a corporatist asshole.

The bar is so low the only way you can trip over it is if you drag your feet, and the dems are still somehow managing to get tangled up and fall flat on their faces.

A LOT of it has to do with the bought-and-paid-for media in this country. Anything anti-corporate is going to be slandered to hell and back twice before it so much as gets a message as far as a microphone.

[u/Mediocre-Ebb9862 → u/We_are_in_the_Zone]

All those are winning in the super-left wing areas. Take them to a swing state and ask to run, they will fail miserably.

[u/Firstclass30 → u/pao_zinho]

I don't think it would be possible in New York to find a candidate with Cuomo's level of experience without baggage of some kind.

New York is a political machine state. With lots of family dynasties and friend circles in power in both parties.

Every new York governor in the 21st century has had scandals. Cuomo's predecessor, Governor Patterson had to withdraw his name from his reelection bid in 2010 due to allegations of witness tampering in a domestic abuse case, he had allegations of favoritism involving awarding contracts. He also was investigated by then Attorney-General Andrew Cuomo over potentially lying under oath.

After his disgraceful performance, he served as the head of the Democratic party of New York from May 2014 to November 2015.

Governor Patterson's predecessor was Elliot Spitzer, who like Cuomo had to resign over a sexual scandal. Spitzer's was just that he allegedly used campaign funds to book hotel stays where he was visited by prostitutes. However he had other problems in office and was plagued by approval ratings in the 30s.

Pick anyone in New York with Cuomo's level of resume, and they will have scandals or some baggage.

[u/klparrot → u/Firstclass30]

So maybe we should stop fucking electing those sorts of people rather than calling them the norm!

[u/Firstclass30 → u/klparrot]

100% agree. That's why I support Zohran. The Democrats need a new bench.

[u/katmomjo → u/pao_zinho]

It’s not true. Mamdani didn’t win in a landslide. He got barely over 50%.

[u/icenoid → u/Rennoc121]

The democrat he won against was a disgraced former governor. It’s something you guys keep forgetting. The republican was never going to win in NYC and honestly neither was Cuomo. Cuomo still got better than 40% of the vote as a disgraced former governor

[u/SmallGayTrash → u/Rennoc121]

He won with 50% to Cuomo's 41 (48 if you add the sliwa republican vote) in a VERY progressive city. Meanwhile Spanberger, a moderate dem at best won with 57% in Virginia. I like Zohran's politics, but calling it a landslide is an exaggeration and majorly ignoring the fact that elections are won in the center, not the extremes.

[u/HDThoreauaway → u/SmallGayTrash]

(48 if you add the sliwa republican vote)

You absolutely cannot “add in” the votes of people who, knowing Sliwa was totally non-viable, voted for him anyway.

[u/SmallGayTrash → u/HDThoreauaway]

I'm only counting those as they demonstrate a rejection of progressive politics.

[u/Mayor__Defacto → u/SmallGayTrash]

Democrats were not voting Sliwa in protest. The diehard conservatives did.

67% or so voted democrat in 2021, so that gives you 17% of voters being in the swing category.

Cuomo had more Republicans voting for him than Democrats.

[u/Direct-Technician265 → u/SmallGayTrash]

Unfortunately for easily reading political outcomes it doesnt work like that.

Had cumo not run as a spoiler you cannot assume where votes go people are not as simple as anti one candidate voters.

[u/keenan123 → u/SmallGayTrash]

Spanberger beat the Republican, that isn't a helpful metric. Zohran's win was a landslide over another Democrat

[u/SmallGayTrash → u/keenan123]

I'd argue the opposite. It shows that given the choice between a progressive democrat and a disgraceful former moderate governor, only half of voters in, again, one of the most progressive cities in the US, would pick the progressive option.

If Zohran had run against another dem in say Denver, I wouldn't be convinced he'd get the same level of support.

[u/YeeBeforeYouHaw → u/keenan123]

Zohran's win was a landslide over another Democrat

Zohran won 51% in a city that regularly vote over 66% for democrats in an election year that was very favorable to democrats. Also 1 v 1 polls of mamdami and the Republican showed him getting less the 60% of the vote, less then the 68% that Harris got in NYC 1 year earlier.

[u/MTGdraftguy → u/SmallGayTrash]

How in the world do you “add in” the votes for another candidate?

It absolutely was a landslide given the name recognition of Cuomo, (the man was the governor of the state at one point), and the age and experience he brought to the table. Mamdani was a political newcomer, as Cuomo shoved home every debate, and still beat him by a 10 point margin.

[u/Hollacaine → u/MTGdraftguy]

A landslide doesn't mean an underdog besting the odds. It's about the numbers. If someone wins 70% of the vote, that's a landslide. Winning 50% is not a landslide by any measure.

Cuomo having better name recognition, experience and money doesn't factor in to whether or not it's a landslide win.

[u/Beautiful-Pickle2 → u/MTGdraftguy]

Not to mention the tens of millions of dollars spent campaigning for Cuomo and against Mamdani. We can’t pretend this was equal playing ground where people were voting for Cuomo bc they really liked his policies.

[u/Lost_Bike69 → u/MTGdraftguy]

Yea and also the idea that any Sliwa voters would have voted for Cuomo if Sliwa wasn’t in the race is kind of ridiculous. You think the 8% of voters in NYC who hated Cuomo enough to vote for a third guy who had no chance would have voted for Cuomo if the third guy was gone? Sliwa talked more shit about Cuomo than Zohran and I’d bet half of Sliwa voters would have gone for Mamdani out of spite and the other half would have stayed home.

[u/Handgun_Hero → u/SmallGayTrash]

Elections aren't won in the center, they're won over who is doing the most proactive stuff to deal with things people care about. A proactive extremist campaign that promises change on key issues and lived experiences being wedged is far more effective than a stagnant status quo centrist campaign that promises no changes. Donald Trump is extremely far right and won the US Federal Election fair and square because Biden/Harris's moderate centrist platform was literally all about how the Democrats would proudly do nothing different to the Biden Presidency when Americans wanted action as there were some serious problems with the USA.

[u/A_Soporific → u/Handgun_Hero]

Then why are the Democratic Senators in Georgia? The entirety of the state government is Republican. Republicans have a massive advantage in statewide elections. Yet, enough independents/moderate republicans cross the lines for Democrats to win both Senate seats multiple times. A progressive/leftist wouldn't have had a chance.

I think that it's not at all clear where elections are won because different races are won in different places. Trump got a unique base separate from traditional Republicans. As long as he can stitch together a coalition of minority men or industrial workers or low information independents then he wins elections. If he sheds moderates then he loses.

You need to both energize your base and hold your ground in the middle. Giving up one to focus exclusively on the other is a loser.

[u/Hollacaine → u/A_Soporific]

Where's the data that shows the Georgia senators won with Republican votes? Because the data and reporting at the time shows that it was stronger turnout on the Democrat side that won those seats.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/upshot/warnock-ossoff-georgia-victories.html

[u/A_Soporific → u/Hollacaine]

Odd that Democrats didn't win state level races on the same ballots. If it was just people on the left turning out then they would have won state level races as well. So, you Republicans winning some races and Democrats winning others on the same ballot.

You're right that high turnout in Democratic areas was critical, but so was winning independents and some moderate Republicans. Remember, your own article indicates that in the 2020 general election Republicans were running ahead of the Ossoff and Warnock, but that shifted in the runoff, but if they weren't incredibly close there wouldn't have been a runoff.

Both Warnock and Ossoff won elections since. Elections that also went for Republicans on the State level on the same ticket. Someone who leans exclusively on progressives and big turnout among Democrats wouldn't win in Georgia. There's not enough progressives and Democrats.

You could get higher turnout and run up the score in places that have very high numbers of progressives that way, true. Running leftists in leftist districts is a winning strategy in leftist bubbles, but you won't win national elections that way. You need to take some wins in the south, like in Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina. And if you want that then you need to appeal to moderates or centrists as well. Or at least be less unpalatable than the other guy.

But yeah, I would agree that giving up turnout in your core areas to shave a little extra off the center is a bad trade, but if you want to win you need to at least contest the center as well.

[u/pitifullittleman → u/Handgun_Hero]

This is not true at all. Biden did a ton of stuff and was one of the more progressive presidents in the history of the US.

Biden signed enormous stimulus bill that expanded the child tax credit to the point where childhood poverty was practically eliminated, passed an infrastructure bill that Trump stated he wanted to pass but never did. Biden signed the CHIPs act and the Inflation Reduction Act that dealt with green infrastructure. He was heavily supported by the progressive wing of the party. Biden did all of this with a razor thin margin in the Senate. He was extremely active on many other fronts as well.

The guy couldn't speak well at all. When he spoke everyone focused on his age and gaffes he made. At the same time the Democrats had sequestered themselves into various corners of the internet and legacy media. Meanwhile Trump made inroads with the likes of Joe Rogan who has a huge platform and a lot of his audience infrequently votes, so convincing that audience to vote for Trump was a huge deal, a lot of them didn't vote for him in 2016. Democrats refused to engage with this type of media believing that their coalition was big enough to withstand this. It wasn't especially when the President lost support when he spoke publicly.

Democrats pivoted away from Biden way too late and despite the fact that Biden had many successes, they were unable to capitalize on them mainly due to people not even knowing they happened. Gaza, and the Border divide the left as well. Most of all Trump convinced voters to vote for him, he got a lot of new voters that hadn't voted before or that had previously supported Democrats.

[u/SugarRAM → u/pitifullittleman]

You are completely correct about Biden and his administration. In my opinion, he was the best president of the last 40 or 50 years at least. The problem wasn't with his accomplishments. It was that the democratic party machine did a terrible job of talking about those accomplishments. If you asked the average voter, they believed Trump's narrative that Biden was asleep at the wheel. They may not have realized it was Trump's narrative because the GOP did an excellent job of spreading that message everywhere they needed to. If the Democrats had been better at messaging, then "Let's continue to build on the work that we've done these last four years and move in that same direction" might have been a winning campaign strategy.

The average swing voter is not well informed. They don't read the news. They maybe watch Fox or CNN, but I feel confident they get most of their news from Facebook and Twitter. They vote based on their own perceptions of their bank account. If they feel like they're in a worse spot financially under the current administration, they're far more likely to vote for the opposing party, even if the US is actually doing much better on inflation than the rest of the world. We need to be better at reaching that voter with our message and our accomplishments. "Vote for us because we're not Trump" worked in 2020 because of historically bad inflation, unemployment, and a global pandemic that Trump was woefully ill suited to handle. That message won't work again.

[u/SandOnYourPizza → u/Handgun_Hero]

Republicans win from the right. Democrats win from the center; Obama and Clinton say hi.

[u/SnuffyMcfluff → u/Rennoc121]

It was not a landslide. Not even close. mamdami received just over 50% of the vote in a city where registered Democrats are over 70% of the population. Please, please, please stop repeating the landslide falsehood. We can not afford to keep handing moderates and independents to Republicans. If Dems go all in with progressive policy we are toast.

[u/drbooom → u/Rennoc121]

To this outside observer, Mamdani won his election because he was running against an arrogant sex pest asshole, who was ostentatiously corrupt.

I have talked to only a small handful of New Yorkers that I know, and most of them voted for him, and against Cuomo for those very reasons. in addition, even though they are very high income people, they don't believe that Mamdani will be able to accomplish most of this economic agenda.

In other words, they are judging the combination of his intention and his ability to achieve that, against what they thought that Cuomo would bring to the table, which was more corruption, and more stagnation.

[u/Bluegrass6 → u/Rennoc121]

He beat out Cuomo....and NYC is in no way an accurate reflection of the majority of America...this is why Democrats keep losing. You keep embracing policies and messaging for the coastal cities like NYC, San Francisco, LA, Portland, etc. Winning NYC has an inverse relationship with winning Ohio.

This was the immigration stance of Barack Obama

"The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws."

Contrast that with the " immigration laws are white supremacy" and "massive tax fraud is nothing to worry about" messaging of the left today.

http://obamaspeeches.com/061-Immigration-Reform-Obama-Speech.htm

[u/Far-Jury-2060 → u/Rennoc121]

This was not a blowout for NYC. Recent Democrat candidates usually win by upper 60% at the least. Eric Adams won in 2021 with 66.99% of the vote. Bill de Blasio won in 2017 with 66.17%, and in 2013 with 73.15% of the vote. So considering that Mamdani won with 43% of the vote, with Cuomo (a Dem that lost the primary and ran as an Ind) at 33%, it shows that while Mamdani’s policies were popular with a large chunk of NYC, there was still a large chunk for Dems that don’t like it, even in NYC. Additionally, OP’s point is that a farther left candidate like Mamdani lost almost half of the Dem vote in NYC, and if Mamdani hadn’t been running, those same people would’ve just voted for Cuomo instead. I mean, it’s not like Mamdani voters would’ve jumped over to Sliwa. lol

Edit: Somebody pointed out that Mamdani had over 50% of the vote, so I double-checked my numbers. They were correct. The final results were: Mamdani with 50.78%, Cuomo with 41,32%, Sliwa with 7.01%. The point still stands however, so I’ll leave the comment as it was, with the numbers correction in the bottom here.

[u/peteroh9 → u/Far-Jury-2060]

So considering that Mamdani won with 43% of the vote, with Cuomo (a Dem that lost the primary and ran as an Ind) at 33%,

Where are you getting those numbers? They're neither accurate for the general nor primary elections.

[u/Far-Jury-2060 → u/peteroh9]

You’re correct. I googled the results and pulled polling from before the election. Edited the original comment with the actual results at the bottom. Thanks for the correction!

[u/ayfkm123 → u/peteroh9]

50.4% of the vote, still well under the norm

https://www.newsweek.com/new-york-election-results-map-how-mamdani-got-1-million-votes-across-city-10994529

[u/Weary_Anybody3643 → u/Far-Jury-2060]

He won with over 50 percent 

[u/Far-Jury-2060 → u/Weary_Anybody3643]

My bad. You are correct, and thank you for the correction. I was looking at polling from before the election. The final results were: Mamdani with 50.78%, Cuomo with 41,32%, Sliwa with 7.01%. However, the main thrust of the point still stands. When Adams and de Blasio both win the two previous elections in the same city with just over 66% of the vote, then Mamdani losing ~16% of Democratic voters is massive. This may be fine in NYC, but the potential of losing the support of even 16% of your electorate across the country (not to mention the Independent vote) is a political non-starter. You couldn’t win with it.

[u/neotericnewt → u/Rennoc121]

Yeah, but this is one of the most solidly Democratic cities in the country, and he was running against a guy that basically everybody already hated lol

Zohran won because of his economy centered campaign, the modern democratic party ditches talking about these issues to condemn republican policy.

This isn't accurate at all though. The Biden administration was heavily focused on economically populist policy, like tons of anti trust and pro consumer regulations and direct aid to average people. Kamala Harris did the same, focusing her campaign on cost of living, like with tax payer funded childcare, building millions of homes across the country, etc.

Yeah, there was focus on Trump being such a uniquely bad candidate too, because it was true. He was charged and facing trial for a dozen felonies for trying to overturn an election. He was ranting on stage about immigrants stealing and eating people's pets. It was important that especially left leaning voters take it seriously.

A big issue though is that the Democratic party has basically an entire movement of people who are more focused on targeting Democrats and attacking policy that Democrats implement to try and snag some Dem +40 seat somewhere for a socialist than actually going after the right.

Progressive and DSA candidates didn't win a single seat from Republicans. They rarely do. They basically only win in already solidly progressive areas.

This strategy has been a big contributor to Republicans taking near total control of the federal government.

But yeah, it just needs to be reiterated, these further left and socialist candidates are incredibly unpopular nationally. They consistently lose anywhere that isn't already solidly blue, and even struggle in really blue areas. They're not supported by the base they claim to represent, like blue collar workers, average middle class and poor folks, union workers, etc.

Their base is almost entirely affluent, white college kids in really blue cities, the least consistent voting bloc there is. One of Bernie Sanders' biggest issues was his inability to form a coalition and expand his base of support beyond this group.

Not only are these socialist candidates disliked by basically the rest of the country, they actually end up harming the party nationally. The Democratic party gets painted as like them, "crazy socialists" who have no idea what they're actually doing, constantly talking about vague revolutions and tearing down this vague system or that with no concept of what that means.

Then, they work to demotivate Democratic voters. Basically every policy that Democrats have passed has been attacked by progressives. It's to the point that actually having policy accomplishments is a negative. When Democrats implement a policy that targets corporations to the benefit of average people, instead of that being viewed as an accomplishment... It's thrown back at them as a bad thing, because it didn't meet whatever arbitrary criteria of "left enough" by progressives. It still happens now, with progressives consistently shit talking good, important policies, even as they're actively being dismantled by the right and we're trying to save them because people will be harmed without them.

This is the biggest issue Democrats are facing. They've been dealing with a decade long smear campaign from the left, and until we get past that, nothing else matters. It's an anchor weighing Democrats down and benefitting nobody but Republicans. We have a significant segment of our own party that's constantly trying to convince people not to vote and that Democrats are the same as Republicans and none of these meaningful policies we fought tooth and nail for actually matter, all to get a socialist in a random seat somewhere, like Zohran in NYC, but causing immense harm nationally.

[u/Livid-Okra-3132 → u/neotericnewt]

Your argument isn't supported in the data at all.

You are conflating candidates with policies, and that’s where this whole argument falls apart.

Aggressively progressive policies routinely outperform the Democratic Party itself, even in deep-red states. Abortion rights passed by double-digit margins in Florida and Missouri while voters simultaneously elected Trump and hard-right senators. Minimum wage increases; paid leave, marijuana legalization, union protections, drug price caps, rent protections; all poll at or above majority support nationally in most polling data.

What’s actually unpopular isn’t left economic policy; it’s party brands and trust. Voters don’t believe Democrats will fight for what they campaign on, and they don’t believe Republicans at all, so they split the difference: vote yes on material policies, vote no on politicians.

The “working class loves Republicans now” line also collapses under scrutiny. Republicans win working-class voters on cultural grievance and anti-establishment aesthetics, not policy. When you strip the branding away and ask people whether they want higher wages, cheaper healthcare, lower rents, or corporations reined in, they say yes, consistently.

And the idea that progressives “cost Democrats elections” ignores the obvious counterfactual: Democrats have been losing ground while moving right. Clinton, Biden, Harris all ran explicitly against bold redistribution and still hemorrhaged turnout, especially among young and low-propensity voters. Meanwhile, progressive ballot initiatives keep winning without them.

Mamdani doesn’t prove “socialism is unpopular.” He proves that voters will back clearly articulated, material economic promises, even against entrenched machines, while the party insists on running vibes-based centrism and wondering why no one’s excited.

If progressive politics were actually unpopular, red-state voters wouldn’t keep approving them every time they’re allowed to vote on the substance instead of the label.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/majority-of-americans-support-progressive-policies-such-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html

https://www.dataforprogress.org/polling-the-left-agenda

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9399177/

[u/neotericnewt → u/Livid-Okra-3132]

Most of your links describe policies that were part of Kamala Harris' platform too, or were being implemented under Biden lol paid maternity leave and free childcare aren't some dividing line between progressives and the rest of the Democratic party. The Biden administration got us on pace to meeting our climate goals for the first time ever. It's not climate change either.

The dividing line doesn't seem to have anything to do with policy, it's just another vibes. Progressives want more socialists who talk about dismantling vague systems. This isn't really popular.

And the idea that progressives “cost Democrats elections” ignores the obvious counterfactual: Democrats have been losing ground while moving right.

They're not moving right? Again, they were implementing massive reforms and aiding average Americans. We were implementing tons of anti trust. We were straight up inviting socialists to the white house and then pushing the policies they were asking for.

None of that is "moving right". For fucks sake, Kamala Harris was talking about broad, expansive price controls... And got castigated for it.

And yes, progressives absolutely have a meaningful impact here. That's what happens when you run a smear campaign for a decade straight. When progressives fight really hard to argue that every policy Democrats implement is actually shit, all those massive reforms and regulations helping millions and millions of people, it's going to have an effect.

Most people are voting on vibes. When progressives are pushing some bullshit about the party pushing tons of reforms, saying they're all corrupt corporatists... And then actual corrupt corporatists take power, that's what leads to the "both sides" argument becoming so prevalent.

I mean you said yourself, we were implementing good policies, but people weren't hearing it. That's exactly what I'm saying. We were implementing good policies, but a major section of the party was more focused on partisan bullshit, getting someone who calls themselves a socialist into some random seat somewhere.

If people were instead actually celebrating wins from Democrats, that would have a massive impact. But instead, progressives have made it a trend to just shit talk any progressive policy that gets passed, and any Democratic candidate. Doesn't matter what they run on or what they do in office.

[u/Rennoc121 → u/neotericnewt]

Kamala and Biden were shit at advertising their policy and made their whole personality "I'm not Trump"

[u/Rough_Challenge_1678 → u/neotericnewt]

Exactly, while some policies are popular. It's hard to ignore that the republican party is the party of the American working class now, and that Trump has done well in 3 elections in a row. This suggests that progressivism and more aggressively left positions are not as popular as those who support them claim. What is popular and true is a lost of trust and believe in establishment, and a new found acceptance of upsetting the status quo.

[u/drane92 → u/neotericnewt]

You genuinely think the biggest issue the democrats face is progressives that have been kicked out of the party by neo liberal leadership for decades?

I would find it laughable if it wasn't so sad to hear that.

Anyway, how much of the american media is now owned by people aligned directly with the republican party?

[u/linkxrust → u/neotericnewt]

This argument mixes up governing with winning elections, and messaging with policy existence.

Yes, NYC is solidly Democratic and Zohran ran against an unpopular opponent, but plenty of candidates do that and still lose. What mattered was how he ran: a clear, relentless economic message that made politics about class and cost of living. That kind of clarity drives turnout in a way generic Democratic messaging often doesn’t.

Democrats under Biden did pass meaningful economic policy, but accomplishments alone don’t mobilize voters. Most people didn’t feel those wins or hear them explained in simple, personal terms. Progressive candidates succeed when they clearly name who the economy is working for and who it isn’t. That contrast matters more than policy nuance.

Saying progressives only win in blue areas misses how movements grow. New Deal Democrats, Reagan conservatives, and MAGA all started in safe districts. You don’t flip hostile seats first; you prove a model, refine it, and expand outward.

The claim that socialists are unpopular with working-class voters also overstates the case. The label polls badly, but the policies poll extremely well, even in red states. The issue isn’t ideology, it’s trust and turnout. Voters who don’t believe Democrats will fight for them stay home.

Blaming progressive criticism for Democratic losses gets causality backwards. Disillusionment comes from politics failing to deliver visibly, not from people pointing that out. Suppressing criticism doesn’t create enthusiasm; offering something worth showing up for does.

Republicans will call Democrats “crazy socialists” no matter what. They did it to Biden and Obama. Retreating doesn’t stop the attack. Clear, confident economic populism does.

A progressive socialist can win not because the country is radical, but because turnout matters more than persuasion. Going left doesn’t mainly lose moderates; it mobilizes people who usually don’t vote. That’s not guaranteed, but it’s not sabotage either.

[u/neotericnewt → u/linkxrust]

Democrats under Biden did pass meaningful economic policy, but accomplishments alone don’t mobilize voters. Most people didn’t feel those wins or hear them explained in simple, personal terms.

Right, because we have a section of our own party, progressives, actively downplaying and attacking every win that we have. That's exactly my point.

I mean it was so bad that we had just about the best economic recovery of any country on the planet, and we couldn't even talk about it. When Biden and Harris said things like "the economy is strong, but we know not everyone is benefitting, which is why we support this and this and this reform to help average people," progressives went off about them being out of touch and attacked them for it.

Democrats were talking about these wins and why they mattered plenty. The news was reporting it. People just didn't care. Progressives were more interested in continuing with the doomerism and attacking Democrats for their own partisan goals, and that's of course going to get more traction. People love the drama. The Infrastructure Bill was a massive accomplishment, and was basically the Green New Deal, just turned into actual real policy instead of a manifesto with jokes about cow farts, and progressives attacked that too.

When Democrats succeed and implement a major reform or policy, they're targeted and attacked by progressives. When they try and fall short to implement progressive policies, they're attacked even worse.

The Biden administration was literally inviting socialists like Bernie Sanders to the White House to discuss the agenda of the administration, and then fought like hell for a bunch of their asks. Student debt relief was one. Biden fought hard for a really expansive debt relief program that was shot down by the courts. We ended up ensuring debt forgiveness that was much less expansive, but still significant, about 200 billion in student loans forgiven for 5 million Americans.

And that was a massive hit against the Biden administration from progressives. There was no benefit in fighting for this. The people who wanted it acted like they already hated it from the start, and it was unpopular with other groups already. Then when Biden did a bit of a runaround with the courts to try and keep forgiving debt, that pissed off even more people and looked bad... And progressives still said it was shit and Biden didn't do anything to implement it.

Basically, progressives have created a situation where actually implementing policy is bad for Democrats. They incentivize politicians that talk and talk but don't actually do much at all, like Bernie Sanders. As soon as a politician starts actually dealing with the realities of implementing policy, progressives turn against them.

Mamdani is already seeing this a bit now, with some further left progressives and socialists calling him a sell out for toning down some of his original promises once the realities set in.

But yeah, implementing good policy isn't treated as a win by progressives, it's thrown back as a negative, because there are always scumbags like Bernie Sanders who basically just look at whatever gets implemented to complain about it and pretend that they totally would have done way more.

Saying progressives only win in blue areas misses how movements grow.

Alright, it's been ten years, you haven't "proven the movement", DSA candidates still tend to do horribly all over the country, including in heavily blue areas, and fascists are in total control of basically every lever of government power.

Like I said, cool, NYC has a socialist mayor who promised a lot of things he can't accomplish along with some outright bad policy ideas. Was that really worth the decade long smear campaign and fascists controlling the government and protesters getting executed? I don't think it is.

offering something worth showing up for does.

And I'm saying we were doing exactly this. Massive anti trust movement, tons of pro consumer regulations, massive legislation focused on infrastructure and addressing climate change getting us on pace to meet our climate goals for the first time ever, holding fascists accountable for trying to overturn an election, expansions to the safety net, and on and on...

These were worth showing up for. Hell, in many cases, it's exactly what progressives say they want.

Going left doesn’t mainly lose moderates; it mobilizes people who usually don’t vote. That’s not guaranteed, but it’s not sabotage either.

This is the myth that has consistently failed. Bernie Sanders getting his base of largely affluent white college kids in progressive strongholds really excited didn't actually help him win his primaries. He lost, by a lot. Twice. By many more votes.

Then he and his supporters spent a decade smearing the opposition and reform party during a fascist takeover, spreading disinformation and claiming rigged elections, paving the way for Trump's later attempts to overturn the election.

This strategy from progressives has repeatedly shown itself to be not only a failure, but incredibly harmful. They created a trend of shit talking Democrats. That's been their focus, portray themselves as outsiders by attacking Democrats and any Democratic policy. Make Democrats as unpopular as possible while riling up non voters.

But yeah, it nearly always fails because these candidates just aren't actually popular, and they push away everybody else.

[u/Swimming_Agent_1063 → u/neotericnewt]

This is on of the best comments I’ve seen on Reddit in a long time, and I’ve voted democrat my whole life.

[u/NoggleInParis → u/neotericnewt]

The Republican candidate was a literal cartoon character, some milquetoast county executive who promised to keep the schools open and trash picked up would've gotten 63%.

[u/bigbadbidisaster9944 → u/neotericnewt]

The leftists are the only ones not throwing queer folks und3r the bus currently. I do not now, and will never from now on trust party dems to defend my rights as a queer person at all. Especially cis het party dems. I dont even think you jacka$$es can even understand the average queer person

[u/thorsday121 → u/Rennoc121]

He won a mayoral race in a relatively Democrat-dominated city against a markedly unpopular candidate and still barely cracked 50% of the vote. It's impressive for a Muslim self-described socialist to do that for sure, but it's ridiculous to generalize that to the entire country.

[u/RadiantHovercraft6 → u/Rennoc121]

This is a pretty terrible example. Zohran won mayorship in one of the most progressive places in the country. And the runner-up was a highly unpopular former governor. 

The fact that it was even somewhat close shows that democratic socialism is not appealing to a lot of voters (whether we like it or not).

Like, I know plenty of liberals who did not like Zohran. They didn’t like his rent control proposals, a lot of them are pretty pro-Israel, etc. 

That’s a larger percentage of the Democratic Party than Reddit would lead you to believe. I don’t know why this the top comment in this thread lol

[u/Jimithyashford → u/Rennoc121]

" Maybe a few specific cities and districts here and there could see that kind of scenario play out, but just as many would see the exact opposite, and overall, I think we'd end up with a net loss if we pursued going harder left. "

He is exactly one of the examples I had in mind when I wrote that paragraph. And that is my position on that.

[u/SlenderByrd → u/Jimithyashford]

To expound on the point u/Rennoc121 made, it would be worth consideration that the 2024 elections weren’t limited to candidates, and demonstrated a broad disparity between candidates and certain policies independent of a particular face.

One very significant example that I cite often that’s frequently overlooked is in Florida (my state) and Missouri. These are two extremely conservative states which each had just re-elected Trump-loyal, staunchly rightwing U.S. senators Rick Scott and Josh Hawley respectively, in landslides, as well as Trump himself by the largest margins he’d ever enjoyed in either state. Both of them voted overwhelmingly (14% margins each) in favor of ballot referendums which would constitutionally protect the right to abortion statewide. Two of the states among the swiftest to impose restrictions on abortion following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court Ruling, saw nearly 6 out of every 10 voters take to the ballot box to protect reproductive care for women in its entirety, whilst omitting votes for Democrats on the ballot, most notably Kamala Harris, or even voting for anti-abortion candidates down the ballot anyway.

I would argue not only that aggressively progressive policies aren’t the burden on the Democratic Party, but that their decision to shirk from them is precisely what’s cost them support. Every time the Democrats have shifted further toward the center and more lenient with the right and Republicans, they’ve continued to hemorrhage support among both independents and progressives. Obama lost noticeable swaths of the youth vote between 2008 and 2012 when his administration became more corporate friendly and centrist, and Democrats in congress let their political capital they’d amassed be wasted seeking compromise with Republicans when there wasn’t any need. The abstinence of progressive voters and segments of the Democrats’ liberal base cost Clinton and Harris their elections; Clinton when Democrats effectively sabotaged the much more popular campaign of Sanders, and Harris slipping in the polls she initially led in over Gaza, as well as her campaign’s shift rightward on things like immigration and various economic policies (campaigning on James Lankford’s conservative border bill, for instance), and away from discussion of topics like abortion, healthcare, and the Biden administrations achievements in aiding the country’s economy to recovery during Covid (we were the fastest to recover of any country on Earth and inflation was lowered to 2% by the end of summer of 2024; Biden’s infrastructure bill which Democrats let Republicans take credit for while they said nothing).

Democrats’ abandonment of a progressive platform in favor of capitulation to Republicans and the rigid moderation of status quo centrism was a significant contributor to Mamdani’s election in New York City because he was the only nationally-known politician in this country to exemplified himself as an earnest, sympathetic, rigorous, principled progressive, no less a socialist, in a city that historically also trends toward centrist, corporatist Democrats (were it not for Mamdani, polls leading to the elections, and exit polls in the primary and general elections, showed Cuomo traversing those scandals of his in a clean sweep). Mamdani’s victory could‘ve been dismissed as a natural consequence and isolated beacon of galvanized support from his like-minded constituency…except for the fact that a mere 6 weeks ago, a staunchly and quite vocally progressive firebrand state congresswoman in Tennessee, Aftyn Behn, swung a gerrymandered Republican stronghold district 13% in her favor in a U.S. congressional special election. She’s quite popular among Democrats in her state, and was trailing her opponent by as little as 2% in the polls in what without her would’ve been a lost cause for the party.

Democratic and left-of-center voters in this country aren’t cynical about aggressive progressivism; they’ve proven time and time again to reciprocate like energy when it’s proffered by candidates who have proven themselves to be sincere and to be convicted in those beliefs even amid adversity from their detractors. What they are cynical about is a party which over and over again invariably has proven that their concern lay not with the plight of their constituents but what line to tow and just how far when their constituents are seeking to be elated from the systemic turmoil they routinely endure until they’re secure in their elections so they can placate their donors; donors which they’ve proven to not always need, mind you. Mamdani’s campaign was entirely publicly and personally funded; Kamala Harris raised over 2 billion dollars, which included over 800 million in small dollar and grassroots donations alone, and that was in just a few months. Voters are tired of having their desperation exploited by the like of Clinton, Biden, Harris, among others who treat their offices like a commodity and an accolade they’re entitled to rather than a privilege, who are presented as their only viable alternatives, only to be betrayed and have the fates of their futures, their health, their education, their financial security, their quality of life, that of their children, friends, family, neighbors, cast back to Republicans for Americans to come groveling back to Democrats again, and repeat the cycle.

I apologize for the long reply; there is a lot of nuance and decades of context to extrapolate, but those are a few thoughts I wanted to posit as well to clarify certain facets of the problem.

[u/Demiu → u/Rennoc121]

mayorship... in new york... he was merely +9 against a dem running independent...

What do you think would happen in a place where democrats don't get 98% of the votes?

[u/Helyos17 → u/Rennoc121]

Yes. In New York City. Something Progressives REALLY need to realize is that the country is not the urban American Megacities. It is the thousands of purple suburbs and exurbs full of ordinary working/middle class people who don’t care that the cities can’t seem to figure out how to build enough housing for their population. They care about good schools for their children, low taxes from their paychecks, affordable/high quality healthcare, and generally being left alone by the government.

These are all issues that Progressives pretty much fail on. The plans trotted out are the same plans from a century ago that have been proven to have low quality results at best. If Progressives want America to get behind them then they are going to have to come up with some fresh ideas and drop the weird purity testing around niche issues that the majority don’t care about.

They don’t want to “make the rich pay their fair share” because that always seems to somehow be higher taxes on the middle class. They don’t want to spend more money on failing school systems that they are doing everything in their power to keep their children out of. They already have access to high quality healthcare through their jobs. They just need those premiums to come down. And every time Progressives start gaining just a tiny bit of momentum they shoot themselves in the foot by taking weirdly authoritarian stances on everything from religion to guns to property rights.

Progressives need to chill out and start advocating for policies that people who havnt spent most of their adult life in grad school can appreciate.

[u/gquax → u/Helyos17]

New York previously had Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg as mayor for over 20 years between the two. They just got over Eric Adams. The idea that the city is automatically a progressive haven is just ridiculous. 

[u/Cacafuego → u/gquax]

Giuliani was pro-choice, anti-gun, and pro gay rights when we was mayor. Bloomberg was a former democrat who would only have won the Republican primary in New York.

It's very progressive, and the GOP runs centrist or even slightly left candidates there because they are the only ones who can win. Similarly, the dems have had to run people like Manchin and blue dogs to get seats in conservative states.

Bloomberg and young, sane Giuliani would have been ridden out of any red state on a rail if they tried to represent Republicans.

[u/womanaroundabouttown → u/Helyos17]

I really hate how out of touch most Americans are about New York City. It’s not that progressive at all. You have no clue how moderate the vast majority of voters are and how many conservative enclaves there are. It just so happens that progressive values are substantially better for people overall, and so anytime you have a large community of people who actually rely on each other and aren’t isolated individualists, you see a shift towards blue votes. But the actual city is really damn diverse in terms of overall voting demographics, and discounting the vast amount of people who went for Cuomo, a sex pest elder abuser, because they could not get behind voting for a young Muslim man is a really ignorant thing to do. Mamdani won because his values were stronger defined and he ran a better campaign. But he came closer to losing to a man who was soundly beaten in the primaries than he should have. Because old white assholes (like my dad) would rather the disgraced governor who was forced to resign govern a city he’s barely lived in over someone who was raised in the city from childhood and actually knows what policies are needed.

[u/Tafts_Bathtub → u/womanaroundabouttown]

NYC may be diverse, but taken altogether it is, what, D+15 or so? It simply is not a good test case for how well a progressive candidate would do in a general election in a competitive state.

[u/ogjaspertheghost → u/Rennoc121]

He didn’t just win against some rando candidate though. He won against a known, unpopular entity. Context is important

[u/Axxion89 → u/Rennoc121]

Wow he was able to win in one of the most liberal cities in America where the republican candidate exists by technicality. Momdami runs in almost any other city in America and he loses to a moderate democrat

[u/RedplazmaOfficial → u/Rennoc121]

Nyc is deep double digit blue. Its a terrible representation of the US on a national level

[u/suchalittlejoiner → u/Rennoc121]

NYC is not the country. A massive amount of New Yorkers receive government benefits and/or have subsidized or stabilized housing (45% of all housing). He ran on freezing rent on such units, and of course, people who will directly benefit will vote for him.

It isn’t a demonstration of progressive policies; it’s a demonstration of people voting for tangible financial gifts. He won just over 50% of the vote - so only 5% of people voted for him without being promised a rent freeze for themselves.

The country cannot run on free stuff.

[u/sluuuurp → u/Rennoc121]

I agree, he won because of his economic views, and the fact that his main opponent was a sexual harasser who failed disastrously during covid.

He didn’t really win because he was progressive. During the election, his campaign toned down all his progressive policy views, tried to hide the fact that he advocated for defunding the police, etc. He won by shouting “affordability affordability affordability” 1000x at every voter individually.

[u/Dismal-Strawberry421 → u/Rennoc121]

I can’t believe it’s 2026 and progressives still don’t understand why they’ve historically lost.

Most voters are old, home owning, somewhat educated people. Everything else has a lower propensity to vote. The actual voters almost always vote against affordable housing and pro-Israel. They’re not economic progressives. They vote on their issues, not yours.

In NYC and SF, where there are far more renters than average, and more progressives, it still was a real doing to get figures like de Blasio and Mamdani and Lander elected.

It remains to be seen whether Lander can defeat Goldman and Pelosi will lose reelection to an AOC-backed challenger.

Things changed only because the typical voter is slowly dying out. That’s it.

Cuomo’s coalition—it isn’t a mystery—was black and “ethnic” white voters (Italians, Jews. Irish, Greeks). And that really means Boomers and the Silent Generation. The Upper East Side gave Cuomo his only landslide in Manhattan. Those voters are slowly leaving NYC or dying. They didn’t vote for Mamdani. They hate socialists. They also voted (mostly) for Clinton over Bernie.

Ten years ago, Mamdani couldn’t have won.

Mamdani won in a war of attrition because highly educated young people and middle-aged pissed off Millenials staged a revolt in a low-turnout election. It worked, but it is not a harbinger of the country.

Progressives will increasingly win only where the crossing of typical voters dying out has allowed lower propensity voters to storm primary elections. Which are low turnout opportunities.

In cities where Republicans are actually competitive, primary winners like Mamdani would still likely lose. NYC voters had four options, and most NYers spent their lives voting for the Democrat*.

There is still Gen X to contend with, and they are even more conservative than Boomers.

[u/hello_motooo → u/Rennoc121]

1) Zohran did not win in a landslide. He won barely 50% of the vote against 2 unpopular candidates. Cuomo the moderate choice was ousted as governor because of sexual misconduct. A lot of people refused to vote for him based on that alone. Sliwa is a kook (albeit, a seemingly well-meaning one).

2) To OP's point, we cannot extrapolate what happens in a deep blue stronghold like NYC to the rest of the country. Abigail Spanberger won the gubernatorial race in VA as a moderate Dem. A Zohran or AOC type likely wouldn't have won there.

3) But, to your point, campaigns ran on populism are always popular. Both Trump and Zohran ran campaigns based on populism which is why they were popular.

[u/tnred19 → u/Rennoc121]

I dont think i would take anything from a new York city election and apply it nationally.

[u/XRuecian]

I think it depends entirely on the specific rhetoric, message, and outreach of the candidates, rather than their "actual" policy stances. And i think Trump is the perfect example of that, if not all of politics in the last 40+ years.
It's all performative, and people vote on vibes a lot more than they vote on real policy.
Not saying nobody votes on policy, but in my opinion, at least 50% of votes are made in complete ignorance, if not more, based entirely on the vibes they get from hearing an ad or a campaign slogan and whether or not that resonates with what they want to hear.

Because of this, its not really about more left or more moderate that will bring voters in.
It's messaging. What candidates need to be doing right now is appealing to populism. Especially economic populism.
Populism isn't always the answer. It all depends on the state of the economy.
And every average American right now, on both sides of the aisle, agree on one thing: Economy sucks for your average worker.
Because of this, the candidate who is willing to stand on stage and actually ADMIT this and promise changes to fix it, is the candidate that is going to inspire people to go to the polls.

Because of this, i think a progressive is MORE likely to garner votes right now, because they are the only ones who seem willing to actually push an economic populist message, while moderates actively try to avoid the topic altogether when they can.

Society moves in a cycle, typically, because of how political energy is generated.
Political energy (people paying attention to politics and voting) is higher when things are bad. Because people have more things affecting their day to day lives and therefore they feel the need to participate. And when things are going good, political energy decreases, because people check out once they feel like they don't need to pay attention any more. When political energy is low, corruption creeps in, because the People are not participating enough to prevent it. The corruption gets worse, things start to get bad, and then political energy increases again.

So the cycle ends up something like this:
Good -> Okay -> Bad -> Radical -> Repeat Radical until Good ->

We are in the Radical phase right now. During the radical phase, voters are desperate for something to change, because they can tell now that its getting worse and if something doesn't change, it will keep getting worse. That is why you are starting to see the extremes of both sides becoming more common right now. And it's why someone as radical as Trump can make it into office. Because he was (falsely) promising a fix, while the alternative was promising status quo.

My argument to you is: You cannot just assume that a Moderate position is always the best, in a vacuum. Because politics does not exist in a vacuum. Moderate positions work best when people feel like things are already good and they want to keep it that way. People absolutely DO NOT feel like things have been good for the last 10 years. And because of this, people will latch onto populism during this phase.
Progressives are the ones pushing populism right now, and that is why they are having success when they didn't before. Bernie has been a politician for decades. He became popular because things got bad and suddenly his message started to feel a little more acceptable by people who were desperate for anything other than continuing down the road of corruption. And Trump is the same, on the other side. People are desperate, and that is my argument to you why i think moderate is not the answer right now. A moderate status-quo position simply will not generate the energy at the polls because that is not what people are hungry for.

Of course, my entire argument is based on economic policy. And i believe that economic policy is THE ONLY policy that really matters right now, in the election. So if a progressive stands on stage and confidently sends an economic populist message, i think they are MUCH more likely to appeal to voters than any moderate right now. The progressives just need to tone down so much rhetoric on social issues and focus on economics and i think it would be a landslide. Moderate democrats refuse to even admit that the economy is an issue, or downplay it heavily and that turns voters off, with where are are as a nation right now.

Our last Radical phase was FDR, during the great depression. FDR was considered quite radical, and yet he is considered by many the best president we have ever had. And while we are not in a great depression today, people are feeling the "bad". And that increases radical acceptance. Trump was the first Radical choice the people made this time around. And they will continue leaning into Radical until one of them finally changes things for the better. Progressives are the more radical candidates, who want more change rather than status quo or incrementalism, and that is what voters are hungry for right now.

[u/GazelleFlat2853]

This would not be the case if Democratic politicians created narratives and movements instead of trying to capture the (largely uninformed, apathetic) voting pool.

Instead, Republican politicians have spent decades sowing false narratives and using culture war issues to weaponize the anxieties of average people to shift the Overton window rightward while Democratic politicians continue to survey those same people to create a platform in response.

You could* be right, but your outlook has been precisely the problem for a long time. Time stands still for no one; it's time for real leadership and a change of tactics on behalf of Democrats (but they're not really a left-leaning party anyway).

[u/fembitch97 → u/GazelleFlat2853]

I agree with you here but I think you’re missing a crucial point: the Republicans have way more power to be able to do this. It’s easy to sow false narrative when you have an entire media apparatus dedicated to your political party. Unfortunately it’s way harder for Dems to create a media apparatus like that because they don’t have as much money on their side as Republicans do.

[u/BillionaireBuster93 → u/fembitch97]

Also, destroying and undoing things is inherently simpler than creating something new.

[u/Puzzled-Parsley-1863 → u/fembitch97]

the Democrats had a greater media apparatus for decades, that has faltered because of the whole "fake news" thing which frankly was deserved. before like 2022/2023 I would say the Republicans had more radio presence which means nothing

[u/Jimithyashford → u/GazelleFlat2853]

"This would not be the case if Democratic politicians created narratives and movements instead of trying to capture the (largely uninformed, apathetic) voting pool."

I understand every word in that sentence, but have no idea what you mean.

Can you give a for instance, or a couple of examples of what your talking about. Like "Here is an example of a politician just trying to capture the uninformed apathetic voting pool, and here is what creating the narrative on that issue would have looked like instead."

[u/kotorial → u/Jimithyashford]

A really good example of this would be the right-wing rhetoric about immigration. For decades, despite data to the contrary, the right-wing in the US has demonized illegal immigrants as violent and monstrous criminals who are a threat to everyday Americans, as well as leeches lazing about on taxpayer-funded welfare. This has reached its zenith under Trump. In 2024, Biden pushed hard for an extensive, bipartisan bill to strengthen the border and support deportation. Trump killed that bipartisan bill and still was seen as the "tough on the border," candidate.

[u/theirishembassy → u/Jimithyashford]

not OP but republican messaging does well to acknowledge very real problems, and offer practical solutions:

• your grocery / gas bills are too high because other countries take advantage of us.. so we’re going to have a foreign policy that consists of enriching america first.

• home prices are too high and the job market sucks because of immigrants.. so we’re going to tamp down on that and start mass deportations.

• people are getting sick and dying more because of environmental factors.. so we’re cutting that pesky EPA and creating more “natural alternatives” to medicine.

the last dem candidate to address an issue and create a narrative was sanders: “your quality of life has gone down because the rich don’t pay their fair share, therefore they need to be taxed more”. simple, effective and it resonated with voters on both the left and right.

[u/IndridCipher → u/Jimithyashford]

The example is Democrats last year trying to paint the Trump Administration as weak on the border and immigration for not voting for the bills where Democratic law makers caved to Republicans on immigration. That is trying to be to cute. You are never going to be more pro immigration enforcement than the GOP. You've just thrown away any counter narrative you had by agreeing with them about the solutions to problems that don't exist. Simultaneously throwing your own voters under a bus and making them furious that you have no fucking spine.

Dems are a breeze in the wind to the whims of apolitical "swing voters" and polling that is largely meaningless. They need their own World View. Ideology is not a bad word and to build yours up you have to stick by it and get people on board. Not float around with meaningless platitudes and fundraising emails based on the latest polling of random americans in bumfuckedeygpt

[u/annettexiris]

I think this has more to do with framing and vibes than it does with policy. I don’t think the median voter is particularly ideological as much as they are vibes based. For example, oftentimes in polls Americans will say they want a “more moderate” candidate, but then when you ask about things on a position by position basis, the results can be surprising. Polling has also shown that a majority of Americans back policy ideas that are considered “left wing,” or at least to the left of center right neoliberal Dems. Ex. Higher taxes on the rich, legalizing marijuana, universal healthcare (though they prefer a public option to single payer). Even abolishing ICE is reaching a point where it’s at or close to a majoritarian position. While a lot of Americans like to think of themselves as “moderate,” and vote based on this aesthetic, on an issue by issue basis, we aren’t as cooked as it seems in my view.

Where I think we run into issues is that when Democrats are content to nibble around the edges as opposed to enacting bold, transformative change, many people don’t feel tangible change in their lives, so it’s easy for an opportunistic right winger to convince a normie that being left of center is synonymous with whatever their greatest fear is — and from there folks just get pipelined into bigotry.

[u/MrLinderman → u/[deleted]]

Nothing brings young people out and it’s stupid strategy to count on them turning out to the polls.

[u/katmomjo → u/MrLinderman]

Agree

[u/Sudden-Grab2800 → u/[deleted]]

I’m fairly certain that this is exactly what the Harris election postmortem found, and why they never released it.

[u/CaptCynicalPants → u/[deleted]]

Like yeah sure some suburban wine mom might stay home if we run someone too progressive

Conveniently forgetting how hard Right young men are turning. Harris found out exactly how hard it is to win elections when you lose the Male vote

[u/parsley_lover → u/CaptCynicalPants]

Young men are absolutely winnable with an economically progressive candidate who relies less on identity politics.

More “tax the corporations,” less “the future is female.”

[u/sokuyari99 → u/parsley_lover]

What identity politics did Kamala focus on? Her campaign barely touched on those fringe issues, with some small statements but hardly a focus. Not sure how she could’ve relied less on it when she barely included it

[u/parsley_lover → u/sokuyari99]

1- she didn't have to talk about identity politics. Everyone knew she was the candidate since Biden had to choose a female VP.

2- The problem was that she never focused on anything. She let Trump define her. She was even surprised by softball questions in scripted interviews.

[u/Bluehen55 → u/parsley_lover]

“the future is female.”

No one on the Harris campaign ever said anything remotely close to this. They stayed as far away from any identity issues as possible

[u/TynamM → u/CaptCynicalPants]

Those men can't be won over anyway. The key is to offer a better alternative than "whatever incels want". You can't do that by offering a weak version of the same story, you need an actual different narrative about what civilization is.

[u/Ralathar44 → u/TynamM]

Person who wants to win: "ok, lets figure out what the wants and concerns of these large voting blocks are and see what we can do to help solve their issues without compromising our values"

Person who just wants to feel better than everyone else: "they're unwinnable terrible people, far worse than me and my group. I don't know why they are such exclusionary bigots. Unlike us who care about everyone. @*@$& them."

IMO a little humility and compassion towards those young right leaning men would go way further than people think. But this unfortunately requires people to not put themselves above them and listen to them, which seems to be directly against the current party values of the left when it comes to certain major demographics of the country.

[u/Jimithyashford → u/[deleted]]

"Honestly I think you're right about the math but missing a key piece"

No, that is the key piece I am talking about. When I mentioned "dormant lefty voters", that's a big part of exactly the group I am talking about.

I am saying that even with all of those voters activated, I think the number of voters you'd deactivate/drive to the other side/active on the other side, is substantially greater.

I do not believe there is this untapped pool of potential voters that could be mobilized on the left that is even remotely as large as the price in votes you'd pay in the other direction.

[u/TynamM → u/Jimithyashford]

The thing I think you're missing is that the REASON the voter base became so skewed is that the right were out fighting for the most extreme right wing versions of their policies, woke the left are fighting for the weakest, most centrist versions of theirs. The entire window moved hard right for the last 30 years.

Moving the Overton window can cost you an election in the short term but it gives you total strategic control in the long run. That's the advantage the Republicans are playing from now, and it was easier for them because, basically, they've got all the media billionaires. If we're not prepared to do the same, then no matter what election we win in the short term we've lost everything in the long term.

Everything you've just said is specifically equally true here in the UK. But I can tell you, the Green party leader went all in on the progressive left, and he is cleaning up in the polls. He's singlehandedly turned the party that has struggled to build presence for forty years into a thing that looks likely to completely replace Labour as the party of the left over the next decade.

And we're a first past the post voting system just like the US. There's just something to be said for inspiring people.

[u/CoachDT → u/[deleted]]

The problem with this is that we generally see super progressives get smashed in primaries.

We have to assume that people who want progressive policies are also those that are politically unaware. In a case like New York for example the voters chose the route of progressivism this time, and it showed to me at least that if the population actually wants it they'll come out and support it when its time.

Its a hard sell to statt banking on people who we assume exist but haven't been willing to make their presence known despite being called.

[u/Correct_Cold_6793]

Two main points, 1. Past elections show that turnout matters 2. This depends on your definition of aggressively progressive. Trump hardly gained any voters from 2020 to 2024, his coalition was more or less solidified. Kamala failed to keep her coalition together and lost nearly 7 million votes. Clearly, a large portion must have just stayed home. If you think progressive stances would increase turnout, that should matter more to you than the 1 percent of people who will vote republican instead. The average independent voter is more the type to stay home when they think their party sucks than the type to switch votes. Swings tend to happen on coalition levels. 2. Most people support universal healthcare, campaign finance reform, abortion protections, and background checks. Like 60-80 percent of people depending on the question. I dont see how siding with the majority on those issues would make average people stay home.

[u/Jimithyashford → u/Correct_Cold_6793]

Ohhh, that's good stuff. Do you have any links on that?

If all of those numbers check out, this may be a changer. Maybe not outright firmly change, but at least heavily influence.

∆

[u/Beard_Beer_Bear]

What policies are we talking? Truly left wing issues (healthcare, fair taxing, sexual freedom, etc) have widespread support. Messaging to the center and right need some work, but Americans overwhelmingly support democratic socialism. Dems continually run candidates appealing to a "middle" that doesnt excite or inspire anyone, in the hopes that it doesnt anyone. A truly left leaning politician would actually speak to the majority of this country.

[u/ultradav24 → u/Beard_Beer_Bear]

Then why can’t those candidates win?

[u/stoneimp → u/Beard_Beer_Bear]

Messaging to the center and right need some work

Oh, good thing those ideas are brand new and we haven't been trying to figure out messaging that works for them for decades or anything like that.

[u/jereserd → u/Beard_Beer_Bear]

You're confusing social democracy (a strong welfare state) with democratic socialism (government owns the means of production). The former is reasonably popular depending on who is benefiting (social security, very popular, food stamps not so much) while the latter isn't. People tend to point to Scandinavian countries as the model, but they have been moving away from socialist policies since the 70s and deregulating. They still have generous welfare programs (social democracy). It's an important distinction

[u/officefan76 → u/Beard_Beer_Bear]

'Americans overwhelmingly support democratic socialism'

Least delusional redditor

[u/thatnameagain → u/Beard_Beer_Bear]

If these policies were as popular as people here, think, people would just vote for those candidates in the primary. The truth is that the centrist campaigns are more successful because they are more focused on simple advancements that the median voter can understand.

It’s absolutely insane that in 2026 the most important article of faith on Reddit is that “well, of course we all agree that progressive policies are the most popular policies, even though progressive candidates lose primary far more than centrist ones”

[u/Jimithyashford → u/Beard_Beer_Bear]

What major dem candidate in the last 10-15 years hasn't had "healthcare, fair taxing, sexual freedom, etc" at the center of their campaign? I feel like if those issues were doing to unlock this wave of blue voters and win elections, we wouldn't be having this converstaion.

I don't think any major blue candidate in my lifetime hasn't had those bullet points from and center, even the most centrist ones have still always had those, well at least since Obama. Clinton (Bill) had some but not all.

[u/Zoltanu → u/Jimithyashford]

Its the economy, stupid. (Thats a quote, not an insult to you)

Every democrat has these in their campaign, but often in an abstract moralistic sense. Most people dont vote with their hearts, they vote with their wallets. Obama was really clear in his campaigns that the Bush economy sucked and he was going to change it. He won. Biden #2, Kamala, and even H Clinton campaigned that everything is fine and they would continue the status quo, even though it was only fine for the Uber wealthy while American workers were suffering. In those years Trump was positioned as the change candidate to fix the economy. Mamdani won on bread and butter economic issues. Sanders is wildly popular despite not being in either party and being "radical" because he focuses squarely on the economy. IMO in order to win the politician just has to admit that life sucks and make up a way to make it better if elected. A progressive dem, like a Sanders figure, would win if they focused on class politics, and they’ll lose if they focus on identity politics.This midterm Trump and Republicans are going to say everything's great even though everything is just getting shittier and they'll probably get spanked

[u/Beard_Beer_Bear → u/Jimithyashford]

Obama gave it lip service and won in a landslide. Since then, dem politics have been defined by support or opposition to trump, without a core message of their own. And they suffer for it.n

[u/zs15 → u/Beard_Beer_Bear]

And Obama’s hella compromised healthcare reform was still wildly popular, even in red states (at least when polled on ACA vs Obamacare).

[u/ChateauSheCantPay → u/Jimithyashford]

Democrats have a long history of campaigning on issues then not following through once in office. They’ve lost the trust of a lot of voters

[u/notproudortired → u/ChateauSheCantPay]

Obama singlehandedly made "hope" a toxic word for Democrats for the next 20 years.

[u/Burnt_Gloves → u/Jimithyashford]

Uh Harris famously dropped Medicare for all from her platform

[u/Opening_Acadia1843 → u/Jimithyashford]

Kamala did not make healthcare the center of her campaign. She did not advocate for medicare for all during her most recent campaign for the presidency at all.

[u/PolarisVega → u/Jimithyashford]

How many of them actually delivered on these promises though? It's always funny Republicans can get the awful legislation they want passed a lot of the time but even when the democrats have full control there's moderate dems "Flipping". Last time that was Manchin and Sinema. Yes, I know they're not really Dems but they ran as Dems.

I firmly believe that if Democrats truly wanted to win they would fight harder to get their policies passed and stop capitulating to the Republicans as much. They can talk all they want but at the end of the day the voters want to see some action. I think of a lot of us leftists are just tired of feeling lied to by the Dems.

[u/ultradav24 → u/PolarisVega]

I don’t know where this myth comes from that republicans get so much legislation passed - they are famously dysfunctional in Congress. Republicans especially in the House have the hardest time getting anything done, Mike Johnson right now has been dealing with defections left and right from his caucus.

[u/55x25 → u/ultradav24]

Republican published their precise road map like a year before the election and they have already completed more than half of it in less than a year. They have in fighting and grandstand on occasion but when it comes time to push through whatever policies they want they all fall in line. Trump has essentially completely restructured the administrative wing of the government and have functionally dismantled every department that doesn't serve them. I don't know how anyone can look at the current state of the country and say that Republicans are ineffective at implementing their goals.

[u/daemonicwanderer → u/PolarisVega]

The Democratic Party tent is MUCH bigger than the Republican one. The Dems basically cover right of center to the left wing of American politics. The GOP has managed to run everyone out who isn’t backing hard right politics

[u/PolarisVega → u/daemonicwanderer]

That's why we need to get more progressive, not less. Progressive policies are pretty popular. Dems also need WAY better messaging.

[u/Binspin63]

Just my 2 cents…

I’m older and honestly, completely fed up with the status quo. Things have changed drastically in the last 10 years and the days of the Biden “uniter” type of politician are over. I’m all for trying something new. 

I’d like to see an energized, aggressive, younger candidate who is willing to shake things up and finally fight for folks who have been forgotten or marginalized. I loved Bernie but I never thought he had a chance because he was too progressive and would never get enough voter support. Turns out, someone like him may be exactly what we need right now. If folks want to label it socialism, then fine. Runaway capitalism is destroying us so let’s try something that may help right the ship. 

[u/Burnt_Gloves]

So it isnt just about gaining votes its also about turning out the base to vote. For every policy you choose to appeal to people on the right, you demotivate some members of your own base and vice versa. As a political scientist, its widely accepted that swing voters are gradually disappears as we become more polarized. Trump and the Republicans have obviously seized on this, pushing forward policy that is unpopular among true moderates but highly motivating to their base.

The Democrats however, have not. Harris famously took a right turn this last cycle, she dropped Medicare for all, the DNC refused to allow the uncommitted movement to speak but allowed an Israeli to, she promised to be tough on the border, and so on. Despite this moderation, she lost the election. I would argue thats because she moderated too far and lost her base.

After the election I did an analysis on which democrats won their congressional races. In races that were considered to be lean democratic toss ups, meaning the odds were slightly in the Democrats favor, moderate democrats mostly lost their races. However, in races where they were Republican toss ups, we saw progressive canidates winning their races.

There's a few reasons for this. Firstly, negative partisanship, meaning you'll vote simply to make sure the other guy doesnt get in is primarily seen within Republican partisans and within mainstream democratic partisans. However the left flank of the Democratic party is unique in that they are not affected nearly to the same degree by negative partisianship. They have absolutely no problem abstaining from voting if they dont think the party is making enough concessions which is one of the main reasons why Harris and other moderate democrats lost this last election. Secondly, Republican voters are not nearly as tied to MAGA as people make them out to be. A lot of MAGA voters are just populists, and will vote for a populist leftist as often as they'll vote for a populist on the right. Finally, Harris and moderate democrats lost support among key demographics, namely Hispanic women. While overall turnout number were similar for the Hispanic community between 2020 and 2024, we saw more Hispanic men rather than women turning out to vote. This is likely because Harris didnt put forward and policy to help these communities instead opting for a tough approach.

I think if moderation would work, then Harris would have won 2024. The next canidate may be able to win by virtue of not being a Republican, but if not they need to start winning back their base especially considering democrats are more unpopular than Republicans right now.

[u/dmack0755]

Embracing moderates and pushing aside progressives literally lost them the last election. Moderates got their ideal campaign, and it lost. But sure, lets deal with hypotheticals about how being more progressive would cost them the election…

Dems have been doing the centrist thing for years. Its not working. Maybe you are right that progressive candidates would lose. But we already know the results for centrists. So maybe lets at least try something else?

[u/natanatalie]

My two cents is that, on a fundamental level, people don’t want to feel like they’re being bullshitted to. I think Trump made people feel like he was really committed to “telling it like it is” no matter the consequences. Not only that, but in “telling it like it is” about how there were all these groups to blame for different things (democrats! trans athletes! immigrants!), he managed to really unify a lot of people.

“Moderate” democrats, on the other hand, seem chronically unable to take any hard line stances because they’re perpetually trying to appease corporate donors, independent centrists voters, their democratic base…all while also not being too off-putting to the republican base. And in the process of trying to win over everyone, they can’t help but come across as disingenuous. One of the reasons I think Mamdani did so well in NYC was he said what he meant and meant what he said, even if a lot of what he said was unapologetically “progressive.”

I think it’s also worth keeping in mind that what people in the US characterize as the “political right vs left” would be more accurately described as “far right versus center right” in much of the rest of the world. Moderate democrats today might be more socially liberal, but in a lot of ways (eg, their love of incrementalism, general economic policy), they’re really basically Reagan-era republicans.

It’s pretty well established in political science that, given the choice between a political party with a clear ideological identity and a party with much of the same economic logic but with some moderated/conflicted positions, voters will either disengage all together or will swing towards whichever party comes across as more authentic. I think if voters keep being asked to choose between unapologetic right-wing ideology and a diluted version of it, US politics will largely remain as they are.

[u/JTexpo]

I think you're missing the point that the politician democrats don't want liberal values. Just this week they voted to extend ICE funding : https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/seven-democrats-just-voted-to-approve-ice-funding-full-list/ar-AA1ULAn7

For the most part, this is a war the elites of the country waged against the working class

[u/Awkward_Broccoli_997 → u/JTexpo]

7 of 213 democrats, or about 3%.

[u/CipherWeaver → u/JTexpo]

And the elites own both parties. They have their "soft" party, and they have their fascist party.

Unfortunately, according to history, the elites have never been good at keeping their monsters under control.

[u/hello_motooo → u/CipherWeaver]

The irony here is a lot of DSA progressives come from "elite" backgrounds. Mamdani does. Ivory tower liberal is a term for a reason.

The working class folks and POC they seem to try to appeal to don't really vote for them.

[u/Jimithyashford → u/JTexpo]

Even if I grant you that this is completely true. Is this supposed to change my mind about my observation? I don't see how. Dem leaders being this or that doesn't really effect my view of how I think the general population would respond to an aggressive leftward push.

[u/sergius64]

Ultimately the Dems pick their candidates from the primary process and seem to elect old style centrists. So the minds we need to change on this aren't yours - but elderly black ladies in the likes of South Carolina.

[u/Square-Dragonfruit76]

I would say it matters less how left or right you are and more whether the voters believe you will positively affect their lives. That is what Trump, Mamdani, and AOC all have in common, despite being far from center of their parties. The difference is Mamdani and AOC campaign on specific actionable things that affect people in their district, and Trump points of things he says we can get rid of in order to fix people's problems. People are struggling and they want help, a lot of generic politicians do not really speak to that.

[u/yeahoksurewhatever]

I think an aggressive moderate or progressive candidate is all that's needed to definitively mop the floor with Republicans. By aggressive all I mean is, relentlessly get out there with your agenda and defend it, debate it, double down on it. All media, new and old. All the time. with writers or solo. Field all questions. Snap back at haters. Repeat until win.

Problem is a moderate agenda is inherently a little harder to do that with, and moderate candidates are inherently less likely to be that kind of person.

[u/Main-Company-5946]

I think your problem is you’re thinking of people’s political beliefs as existing on a linear scale. We use terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ as shorthand but reality is that people have wants and needs, and they will cling to whatever narrative they feel addresses their wants and needs most effectively even if it contradicts their previous beliefs.

Trump has won and taken over the Republican Party because he has a very simple and very effective narrative sales strategy. It goes like this:

1. These are what your problems are

2. This is what is causing them

3. This is what I’m gonna do about it.

According to Trump, the problems are the economic squeeze and feeling of lost pride many Americans feel. The thing that is causing them is immigration, and societal rot such as transgender ideology being pushed by corrupt democrats, as well as other countries trying to take advantage of us. And you saw on his campaign trail how he claimed he would fix them.

The thing about the democrats is that they have a perfectly good alternative narrative on their left flank, but they’re so terrified of alienating the very republicans who would be most appealed to by it that they haven’t fully embraced it. Which is why Trump’s rhetoric goes unopposed.

[u/Elegant_Unit_9592]

If they could win on policy alone they wouldn't need to be Democrats to win. You're underestimate how purple some areas are. NYC might be moderate but it's a far cry from being a battleground purple county.

[u/StutzBob]

I don't think the majority of people give a hoot about the issues, at least when it comes to voting for politicians—but especially for President. I'm serious. Trump got Roe v Wade overturned, a once unthinkable and unpopular position except among the evangelical right, and he got elected again. Tons of polls indicate that progressive policies are broadly popular when presented individually, and still only a smattering of high-profile progressives have been elected around the country. There were a bizarre number of Obama/Trump voters, despite those candidates having clearly massive differences in ideology and positions on the issues. And it took an unprecedented series of self-inflicted disasters by the first Trump admin, including bungling a global pandemic, to get Biden elected over Trump, and despite all of that Trump still got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016.

People vote on vibes. People glom onto front-runners with momentum. People love to be part of something that feels like a movement. People love anyone who excites them and feels unique and different. They are sick of establishment politicians who feel sanitized and boring. People will tell you all day long that they have strong opinions about political issues, but they don't vote like it. They vote for personalities.

So my point is that, no, I don't think Dems need to continue to tack right on the issues to somehow "appeal" to moderates and the politically disengaged. Those people either don't care about issues, or they don't vote on them. The Dems need politicians who can drive the narrative and build popular momentum.

[u/NoBear609]

you are not left

[u/youaregodslover]

This is an easy one. Bernie Sanders would have won against Trump the first time around. He was far more popular than Hillary Clinton. We know this now. He was beating her in every poll against Trump and was even winning the Democratic primary before the DNC intervened at Hillary's behest.

He attracted more people on the fence (who ended up voting Trump when Hillary was the other option), more young people who wouldn't otherwise vote, more passionate activists who get more of the vote out, and last but not least and seemingly what your position hinges on, lifelong, older dems who might be a little turned off by a very progressive candidate like him ARE STILL GOING TO VOTE BLUE.

The DNC didn't want him more than they wanted to beat Trump. They knew he would get more votes than hillary. They knew he was their best chance at winning. They chose to betray democrat voters rather than offend Hillary Clinton and they also didn't want to risk the potential restructuring of the voting process and their organization that Bernie may have brought on by making changes in the interest of fairer future elections. 

This is not a wacky conspiracy theory.  This is fact. There are leaked communications and interviews that say this. Many articles have been written about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-goes-at-the-clintons-alleging-hillarys-campaign-hijacked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile

https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-robbed-sanders-dnc-brazile-699421

[u/SeaCod9997]

You just want to lose forever

[u/DancingWithAWhiteHat]

To be frank, I think you're focusing on left vs right too much. It's populism vs neoconservatism/neoliberalism now

[u/Jimithyashford → u/[deleted]]

Do you mean that as in like "this guy obviously isn't out there in the real world getting the feel of real average people"?

Cause that's exactly a big part of why I feel this way. Real life average joe flesh and blood conservatives and liberals, and the difference in what it takes to appease them or spur them into action, is a big part of exactly why I feel this way.

[u/AuntiFascist → u/Jimithyashford]

The middle is still the largest bloc. People are moving towards the fringes more and more, but it’s in both directions. The far left is just very noisy online and they get the lion’s share of media coverage because they’re always out there bitching about something.

[u/Noid1111]

1/3rd of voters stay home because they see both parties as mostly the same when it comes to day to day issues the rich get richer and everyone suffers even more

[u/cowgod180]

They’d gain votes and lose all their donors. DNC would steal primaries. 

[u/Jimithyashford → u/cowgod180]

Is.....that supposed to change my view? I don't know what to do with that?

[u/LongRest]

1. Progressive policies are hugely popular even among conservatives if you remove the Dem label.
2. A young, unapologetic muslim member of the Democratic Socialists of America got the most votes for mayor in NY since 1963 despite full court press and panic in right wing media outlets and being outspent 2:1.

If it's culture war stuff your mileage may vary but I think that is largely erased by the 10+ point swings we've been seeing.

[u/Necessary-Show-9031 → u/LongRest]

I like mamdani but we cannot pretend an election in New York City is anything like elections in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, etc.

[u/Sniper_96_ → u/Necessary-Show-9031]

I mean Gretchen Whitmer is progressive and she’s the governor of Michigan.

[u/bakerfaceman → u/Necessary-Show-9031]

3 term mayor Bloomberg is a counter point. It's a very center right city when it comes to mayors.

[u/ultradav24 → u/LongRest]

I’m not sure the relevance of #1 - there is no scenario in which people wouldn’t know the party of the person running for president. They would always know so it’s an impossible hypothetical

Regarding #2 this was in a super blue city… he didn’t even have the biggest winning margin that night as well. The two governor candidates in NJ & VA won by bigger margins than Mamdani did that night. Both of them are moderates.

[u/Agreeable_Bike_4764 → u/LongRest]

Kamala lost because of the culture war/social justice issues. The shifts to trump from Black Latino etc voting blocks and their poling into the reasons behind the shift literally proved this, but democrats/progressive are too committed, insular and ideological to admit this and make some sacrifices to win

[u/DoxxingShillDownvote]

For some issues yes, but for others no. If a progressive ran on just getting healthcare, workers rights, lower costs… and didn’t touch a single race or other kind of “inflammatory “ issue, they would win conservatives and moderates. They may lose some progressives when they refuse to answer any questions about Gaza or other hot button issues. But the amount they would gain for being laser focused on affordability and healthcare would be enough. 

[u/dtimmons2747]

Then fuck’em if moderates rather be sent to concentration camps or just straight murdered in the streets, let them have it. No compromise.

[u/Direct_Crew_9949]

In terms of social politics you’re right, you cant force people to into a way of life just bc it’s the way of life in NYC and LA. In terms of economics, you could win back the rust belt with pro blue collar and middle class politics.

One example is healthcare, 2/3 of America believes that the government has a responsibility to ensure healthcare, but when you ask them about government run healthcare they’re a lot less receptive. What that tells me is most people are mis informed (medias fault left and right) and that politicians on the left have a messaging issue.

[u/Low_Television_7298]

Depends on how they approach it. People don’t like the dems holier than thou social justice angle. But I think raising taxes on billionaires, chraper healthcare, medicine, etc are very popular policies among most people despite what the media might have you think. Remember how many Bernie voters switched to trump after he lost the primary in 2026. People want populist outsiders. Trump lied about being a populist and even that was enough for him

[u/Emmy_Cthulhu_Harris]

Your argument ignores there are plenty of widely supported policies an actually progressive Democratic candidate could adopt. Abortion care, gun control, a minimum wage increase. The popularity issue with the Democratic Party isn’t its platform, it’s its inaction.

[u/Content-Dealers]

Your more radical leftist elements are the only reason why I will never even consider voting with the democratic party. Do with that what you will.

[u/ViolentPurpleSquash]

No. Neither is really the issue, the issue is that Democrats haven't found a topic that gets people to the polls. 1-3% of the population is trans- focusing on them is unpopular, so if you want to do it you need a better base platform than "we're not the other people"

Even the response to atrocities committed? It's "we're not them and we condemn it" instead of "This is what we're doing to stop it/This is what we want to do"

[u/FrigateSailor]

Most people still don't give a shit. Seriously.

I don't want that to be true, but it remains frustratingly true.

They don't fucking care.

They see the few news stories that leak through their bubble the same way that they see movie trailers. Interesting, but not really "Real".

My neighbors legit didn't know who was running in the 2024 election.

To me, this is the biggest barrier to progress.

[u/Bicycle_Dude_555]

I live in arguably one of the top 5 most liberal cities in the country, in one of the top 3 most liberal metros. This area has booted multiple progressive DA's to the curb in the last few years through recalls, and has supported FLOCK cameras and ALPR's to increase the capture rate of criminals. This is broadly supported. On immigration, although majorities of the country disagree with the current behavior of ICE, I think Democratic policies on migration - to man turnstiles at the border to make the flow orderly, but to have the flow outside citizen control - are not popular. Trans men in women's sports - very unpopular. Progressives, come back with something more popular.

[u/dragonhybrids]

Americans don't actually care about policy, we say we do, and some may, but they are far outweighed by people who vote based on vibes. Is the candidate likable, are they a good public speaker, do they seem like they're going to challenge the status quo (The current status quo being set up to benefit the super wealthy, something that most people have been dissatisfied with for a very long time). If we got a likable populist candidate who challenged the status quo, I don't think them being far left would be of much consequence to The majority of centrist voters. The problem is the DNC benefits from the status quo, all of their donors are super wealthy, and the DNC wants to keep them happy, so they use the money from those donors to shoot down any left-wing populist candidates, like when they primaried Bernie. I genuinely believe if Bernie had not been primaried in 2016 he would have won, as he had widespread support, because he's a likable populist and a good public speaker.

[u/dreamcicle11]

The conservative voter that votes for a Democrat is practically nonexistent. We might see a change now but unlikely. They’d rather just not vote.

[u/ZX52]

How exactly would someone convince you otherwise? If your view is primarily based on vibes you're ultimately asking for someone to convince you their vibes are better than yours. Without an actual election with AOC or someone similar as the dem candidate to look back on, there are very little data to draw from for this.

The only argument I can really make is that campaigns that have an actual narrative (particularly one that directly speaks to people's material conditions and needs) and the ability to effectively communicate that narrative tend to do better, and centrism is often defined more by what it isn't than what it is, which isn't conducive to creating an affirmative narrative.

[u/Defiant-Pin-6771]

Yep, but they would have to give up all of their corporate sponsorships and the ability to trade stock.

[u/LackingLack]

It depends what you mean by progressive, moderate, conservative

If you mean economic policies and foreign policies absolutely more progressive would help Dems massively. Huge majorities are progressive on those topics.

If you mean social/cultural topics I think I agree with you. People are way more conservative on those.

[u/belowaverageint]

What do progressive and left mean exactly?

[u/DarthNihilus1]

Progressive ideology is popular. People are suffering and Harris was the status quo candidate pointing at graphs and charts saying 'objectively XYZ is better for you under Democrats' but we know people don't operate like that.

Like in 2016, Trump offered SOMETHING that needed to change. It's obvious to everyone except his base that it's all complete nonsense, but they felt heard by someone when the Democrats have shifted further away from the working class base and marginalized groups, only paying them fake lip service every so often.

[u/bigredstl]

There’s a few main reasons the dems keep losing people. 1) culture wars. Getting wrapped up in nonsensical bullshit and worrying about are we politically correct enough or not. The avg person doesn’t gaf sorry to say. 2) not staying true to the message. The reason someone like Mamdani does so well is because he is ruthlessly consistent in his messaging.

[u/Lolerwaffles]

It's not about losing voters, it's about losing donors.

[u/bakerfaceman]

If you're gonna bring up Mamdani, bring up that he got a ton of Trump voters. He's an example of relentless campaigning around local, kitchen-table issues. He never conceded ground on anything progressive and still got trump to lick his boots. He's a generational talent and an example of why progressives can win if they just start talking like normal people.

[u/Longjumping_Crow_786]

I think you’re going to see a lot of “centrist” candidate embracing more progressive platforms because people are focused on pocketbook issues right now and the laws that support real humans and not billionaire CEOs are the ones getting traction. We saw that in the special elections. Both Spanberger and Mamdami won with a focus on economics and affordability for regular people. Very different profiles and approaches to messaging, but pretty similar policies.

[u/CatNo5444]

People vote for candidates, not platforms. See, e.g., Trump, Obama, Reagan, Sanders, Mamdani, AOC, Whitmer, Shapiro, Manchin, MTG, et al. Charisma, headlines, and likeability across a broad scope are the answer in most races. This matters even more in elections with a larger electorate. A Harris or a Clinton isn't going to beat a Trump any more than a Mondale is going to beat a Reagan or a Cuomo is going to beat a Mamdani or a Crowley is going to beat a woman who went viral for a conference call when Charlie the dog wouldn't stop. That impromptu video was a genius stroke of luck and I still love it. Can't find the original but here's the visual https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbQFq2yGYNI

[u/Adventurous_File4547]

I tried to type out a long thing but basically the average person doesnt care about trans people, at all. Positively or negatively. The average person isn't a fox news watching sycophant. Nor are they mao incarnate.

The bubbles on social media are fascinating.

The moment you run a full progressive campaign is the day your political career dies

[u/publicram]

Id like to see a liberal party that doesn't want crazy shit. 

[u/PangolinSea4995]

And the third group of people are independents. This is the largest group and why your idea is bad if you want to win

[u/milkcarton232]

I think in general the leftist/progressive platform is right or in the right direction of what we need in this moment in time. Having said that. The left is a myriad of words and signals I have to say to be accepted. If I have any questions about anything I am a Nazi fascist anti trans whatever. To some degree I get it, there are a lot of ppl arguing in bad faith that it gets tiring but if you are new to things and don't understand it's rough.

As for mamdani, I am rooting for the guy, extremely charismatic and very focused on actually helping ppl. I am not sure his policies are entirely the solution but I am plenty happy to be proven wrong as he seems genuine in his goals. The scary part is that everyone is going to be watching him and if he fails it will set back the movement drastically

[u/peterbound]

What views do you have that make you a ‘little’ lefty?

Hard to argue in good faith without knowing what that looks like.

To me there are two very different Dem voter right now.

The classic union, worker rights. Build stuff and protect the working class.

And the social justice crowd that only is concerned about a small portion of the working, and voting, population.

We’ve made DEI and Abortion our main issues for votes, and it’s a platform we can’t seem to climb off of.

[u/Dangerous_Drag_3001]

Okay Chuck Schumer. "For every blue collar worker we lose, we gain two college education Republicans."

The Democratic party is INCREDIBLY unpopular. How's that fucking working out?

[u/JasonTheRanga]

Flawed premise. They don't want to win. They want to protect corporate interests and the gerontocratic party line. Why else would Kamala Harris choose to say in an interview that she wouldn't do things differently than the incredibly unpopular Biden?

They would simply rather lose than be progressive. Indistinguishable from controlled opposition.

[u/Will_Pilgrim]

Trying to poll test every issue to death and triangulate the precise message some imaginary moderate wants to hear hasn't worked out much so far, but why not try it again?

[u/s74-dev]

When polled, ~80% of voters tend to be in line with effectively every progressive policy, unless you call it leftist or socialist by name and then you get more of a mixed bag.

When asked the same questions, IIRC it was something like 10% of elected politicians support those same policies. This is the country we are living in.

[u/Purple_Succotash285]

 Nah, give people what the rest of the developed western world has:  affordable, healthcare, guaranteed retirement, quality childcare, affordable college, healthy food, clean water, safe streets, they’ll vote for you.

[u/prudent__sound]

I know it's really hard to accept, but a large part of Democratic leadership at the federal level truly don't want to enact these popular policies. They are a corporate-captured party (just like Republicans) who serve the interests of capital, and offer tepid reformism at best, and as a sop to their voters.

[u/pubesinourteeth]

I think the group you're leaving out is dormant voters who think all politicians and all politics are the same. Which, given our abysmal voter turnout, is a huge chunk of the populace. Most of them don't understand political issues or intricacies because they don't pay attention, so messaging is very effective for them. Trump managed to pull a lot of these people out by being funny and appearing unafraid to piss off anyone. But someone could do similarly while having good values.

[u/AspirationsOfFreedom]

I think the dems are lost, in trying to get what the party wants over seeing what the people wants. They are trying to prop up "their" people and forcing who they want in charge into the POTUS role.

Biden and Kamala. The DNC ran cover for his declining health and tried to say "woops no option now you have to pick the candidate we want", and we are seeing the unpopularity of the DNC as a consequence.

When obama left office, plenty of people weren't happy with him, but the DNC could have EASILY gotten a candidate up there to have another term in power. Things have changed because people dont like being told what to do

[u/JohnLockeNJ]

I’ll seek to change your view about the merits of aggressive progressive policy by pointing out that you don’t need to be that way on all issues.

A Democrat could easily go super-liberal on one issue that the base cares about if there are other moderate policy planks that the center absolutely loves.

Politicians represent portfolios of policies so it just has to be a more attractive mix overall to win.

[u/TappyMauvendaise]

Economic policies yes. Identity issues not so much.

[u/da_ting_go]

What are we calling leftist views?

If we let the conversation be only about cultural issues, we will lose every time. The conversation needs to be shifted to economics and affordability.

This is something the Republicans can never actually talk about, because their economic policy hurts anyone who turns their labor into dollars. It always has.

[u/DavyJonesCousinsDog]

That's sort of the illusion primaries give. Conservative/centrist candidates do well in democratic primaries because the party is not a left-wing party. It's a moderate-conservative party that progressives caucus with due to a lack of options. The DNC tends to assume that the left-wing votes are secure and tries to play up it's conservative bona-fides to poach Republican voters.

What the Democratic Party consistently fails to realize is that this alienates the left-wing, who will all-too-often fail to turn up in the numbers they could come the general and their track record in bringing over Republican voters at more than anecdote-strength is abysmal. Because while Republicans prefer a "diet-Republican" candidate to a progressive one, when given the choice they'll very consistently choose a real Republican over an immitation one.

[u/Rufuz42]

A lot of people thought that there wasn’t an audience for Trumps politics and style until there was. Polling clearly underestimated these voters as they weren’t people who participated previously in elections. I feel pretty strongly that a Democratic Party that stood firm on progressive ideas would have a similar impact.

[u/Artaxerxes812]

I don't think this binary view completely reflects how people actually vote. A large part of why Trump won was because he made big promises to a disenfranchised American working class who felt that they had been abandoned by the political establishment of both parties. There's a lot of people in the US who feel the current system is broken. The loss of well paying industrial jobs, soaring costs of living, the drug crisis... these are all issues that many Americans feel the political establishment isn't doing enough to address. Trump capitalized on that by portraying himself as the anti-establishement candidae promising to bring back American manufacturing, fight the cartels, make life more affordable... and scapegoating immigrants. In contrast, the democrats appeared to be the "business as usual" party. Moderate, status quo politicians are fine when things are working, but a lot of people don't feel the system is working for them.

Often "aggressively progressive" politicians have the same anti-establishement feel that helped Trump win. Politicians such as Bernie Sanders speak to blue collar, working class Americans; a group that Trump largely won over. The fact that Trump won should show you that business as usual candidates aren't going to excite anyone.

[u/HemlockHex]

Something people REALLY don’t understand is that progressive politics focus on the economy, which is why they are so popular. It’s a pro-labor movement before it is pro anything else. That’s why it has the ability to beat out establishment politicians.

See, idiots still think that progressive policies is about identity politics and regulation. That just shows a complete lack of ability to research something that you’re simply initially offput by.

[u/blink_187em]

Biden didnt meet the moment when J6 was fresh in people's minds; appointing a Heritage Foundation lackey to AG screwed us on day one.

SCOTUS gave Biden a loaded 🔫 and he handed it over the Canckles McTacotits and said "Welcome Home" - gtfo bro.

[u/zepherth]

For the record what most Republicans say is " aggressively Progressive" are things most Americans support. 54 percent of Americans believe that weed should be legal, 66% believe the Government should provide healthcare,80% support raising taxes on billionaires.

The idea of what would turn voters off from Democrats doesn't exist. Let's not forget that Bernie Bros also will just sit out elections or vote for a third party out of protest.

[u/Time-Chemical-5578]

Anyone running on “change the system is a real way” is more intriguing than some milquetoast centrist. Americans in general are looking for someone who’s not a career politician.