Why Are Democrats Jilting Republicans Who Want to Like Them?

[Frodo]

I immediately thought of Fuzzy Bear when I first read this opinion piece:

Why Are Democrats Jilting G.O.P. Voters Who Want to Like Them?

Although for him, abortion is a deal-breaker.  

[John Dule]

People on this site say they want to win over disaffected Trump supporters, but the moment a candidate like Yang gets some support from those people, they call it "disqualifying."

[Agonized-Statism]

Both parties will need to become big(ger) ideological tents to make more swing voters. When you're a party of both southern segregationists and northern progressives, your coalition's going to be fluid and you're going to expect people with different opinions to vote alongside you. This makes more sense to me going forward with how diverse America will be and how complex the issues are getting.

[Beet]

Because it's become all about purity. In 2006, when liberal netroots darling Jim Webb ran for Senate in Virginia, progressives bragged about a video of him being praised by Ronald Reagan and ran TV ads touting his association with Reagan. He won the election by a paper thin margin and gave the Democrats control of the Senate. Two years later, that same win gave the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate and made the ACA, which gave health care to 18 million people, possible.

Today progressives are bashing candidates if they haven't been communists since 1955.

[Mr. Smith]

Mostly because they aren't reliable, or at least much less so compared to the usual base. 2016 was comprised of GOP voter courting, 2018 and 2012 were comparatively less so...pretty easy to see who won.

[izixs]

Every so often there's this absurd call from a Republican, who generally has no intention of jumping ship from the get go, crying about how Democrats aren't more accommodating towards conservatives who want Democrats to compromise on something rather important for most of the party or to get back to being the party of luke warm moderates so they can feel okay voting against the madness on the GOP side on occasion.

These calls are generally absurd for two reasons. First, they imply that to appeal to voters like them is specifically virtuous, and the interests of other voters for which the things they are calling the Democrats to abandon are inherently un-virtuous. Be okay with cutting social programs to appease the fiscal conservative while abandoning the base who wants more or who's very survival depends on. Be happy to give up the fight on abortion and betray the majority who see it as being a right. And more recently, maybe don't tax the right so much because the wealthy abusing people via their wealth is for realsies not screwing over millions of people every day who might, you know, be wanting the rich actually pay their fair share. Because appealing to this particular conservative or group of conservative is the most sacred thing one can do because they said so. Yeah, its a little ridiculous.

The second reason is of course that it kind of doesn't work. The Republican party has increasingly become the party of screw you, I only want to win, I only want to hurt Democrats. The reasons for this are plentiful, as are how it is expressed, but that's how most the Republican voters I run into are acting and expressing themselves as believing these days. The moderate conservative is a rare breed, if it still exists in any meaningful numbers, and even they are falling into this mentality even if they don't share the full set of extremist views as the rest of their party. Trying to convince people who have pre-decided that you are the devil is not how you win elections. All you'd do by compromising to their demands is to piss off your own people and suppressing their turnout. Sacrificing a lot for nearly zero gain.

So yeah, I don't super care to entertain yet another 'oh demon-crats, you gotta pander to me specifically!' call from a conservative. It is a waste of time.

[Crumpets]

We don't have to worry about alienating voters so long as Republicans keep doing the good work of alienating far more voters.

[Beet]

Mostly because they aren't reliable, or at least much less so compared to the usual base. 2016 was comprised of GOP voter courting, 2018 and 2012 were comparatively less so...pretty easy to see who won.

Hillary ran on the leftmost platform for a Democrat in decades. Most of those who won in 2018 were moderates. Obama's "bold move" in 2012 was coming out in favor of... SSM.

[Devout Centrist]

Mostly because they aren't reliable, or at least much less so compared to the usual base. 2016 was comprised of GOP voter courting, 2018 and 2012 were comparatively less so...pretty easy to see who won.

Hillary ran on the leftmost platform for a Democrat in decades.

This wasn't a central part of her campaign; she didn't advertise much of her platform and instead levied harsh attacks on Trump's character in a bid to win disaffected Republicans. The results speak for themselves.

Obama's "bold move" in 2012 was coming out in favor of... SSM.

This was a pretty bold move, as only a bare majority of Americans supported SSM after Obama's announcement. Furthermore, Obama never made a big effort to attract Republicans disaffected with Mitt Romney.

[Xing]

Maybe because said Republicans only "want to like" a "Democratic Party" that is basically a Trump-less Republican Party, and Democrats have realized that throwing progressives under the bus and pandering to the mythical moderate swing voter isn't the best strategy?

These "moderates" (some might even be considered conservatives) who claim that progressives need to learn how to compromise really ought to take some of their own advice.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

https://ballotpedia.org/John_Milkovich

[GoTfan]

Didn't Democrats try this 3 years ago?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I immediately thought of Fuzzy Bear when I first read this opinion piece:

Why Are Democrats Jilting G.O.P. Voters Who Want to Like Them?

Although for him, abortion is a deal-breaker.  

Not really he voted for Gillum and Nelson and voted for Obama in 2012

[Hammy]

Because it's become all about purity. In 2006, when liberal netroots darling Jim Webb ran for Senate in Virginia, progressives bragged about a video of him being praised by Ronald Reagan and ran TV ads touting his association with Reagan. He won the election by a paper thin margin and gave the Democrats control of the Senate. Two years later, that same win gave the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate and made the ACA, which gave health care to 18 million people, possible.

Today progressives are bashing candidates if they haven't been communists since 1955.

You may as well put that blue avatar back because this is the same regurgitated nonsense I've been hearing from the right since I've followed politics.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This article mounts several arguments with which I agree, but it mounts them in some of the most gratingly prickish ways I've ever seen.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Maybe because said Republicans only "want to like" a "Democratic Party" that is basically a Trump-less Republican Party, and Democrats have realized that throwing progressives under the bus and pandering to the mythical moderate swing voter isn't the best strategy?

These "moderates" (some might even be considered conservatives) who claim that progressives need to learn how to compromise really ought to take some of their own advice.

I suspect that no matter how likable to Republicans the Democratic Party made itself the majority of those Republicans would still pull the lever for Donald Trump, or anyone else with an (R) after their name.

Victory for the foreseeable future will be from turning out the most Democratic voters possible, combined with not driving actual independents to vote for the opposition candidate.

[RI]

We don't have to worry about alienating voters so long as Republicans keep doing the good work of alienating far more voters.

This right here is the poisonous argument.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

[snipped]

This, but also this:

Today progressives are bashing candidates if they haven't been communists since 1955.

I really hate seeing the Warren attacked by Bernie folks because she was a Republican in the 80s and early 90s.

[GoTfan]

[snipped]

This, but also this:

Today progressives are bashing candidates if they haven't been communists since 1955.

I really hate seeing the Warren attacked by Bernie folks because she was a Republican in the 80s and early 90s.

Don't you guys bash Bernie for being an independent despite caucusing with the Democrats since being elected to Congress?

Not to mention that the Democratic Party basically cleared the field for him in 2006

[R.P. McM]

Because it's become all about purity. In 2006, when liberal netroots darling Jim Webb ran for Senate in Virginia, progressives bragged about a video of him being praised by Ronald Reagan and ran TV ads touting his association with Reagan. He won the election by a paper thin margin and gave the Democrats control of the Senate. Two years later, that same win gave the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate and made the ACA, which gave health care to 18 million people, possible.

Today progressives are bashing candidates if they haven't been communists since 1955.

Bull. When JBE and Collin Peterson are endangered incumbents, the issue isn't ideology, its partisan polarization. For a preponderance of the the GOP electorate, loyalty to the Nazi-praising p***y-grabber is everything. So it doesn't matter how many Jim Webb's we run in crimson districts, with few exceptions, they're all going to lose.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

[snipped]

This, but also this:

Today progressives are bashing candidates if they haven't been communists since 1955.

I really hate seeing the Warren attacked by Bernie folks because she was a Republican in the 80s and early 90s.

Don't you guys bash Bernie for being an independent despite caucusing with the Democrats since being elected to Congress?

Not to mention that the Democratic Party basically cleared the field for him in 2006

To be honest, I think it’s a bit silly that he’s not actually a Dem (though, I don’t believe that Vermont has partisan registration), but I personally don’t think it’s a real issue. Didn’t have an issue with it in 2016 when I supported him.

[538Electoral]

The fact of the matter is that Democrats do not need these type of voters to win. Republicans need independents far more than Democrats do as Democrats have 12 million more registered voters than Republicans as of 2018. I'm fairly confident we'll get the independent vote again and win, but these are the facts.

So at large, Most Democrats are ignoring Republicans and a majority of Independents even because Democrats have such a large edge in registration that they know they can win even if Republicans win Independents by a fairly wide margin. Mitt Romney won Independents by 5 points in 2012 and still lost. The best us Republicans can do is just keep on trying to appeal as many Independents as we can as that's our only way forward. The more the gap between Democrats and Republicans widen, the more Independents we have to win to counter that.

[BlueSwan]

Because it's become all about purity. In 2006, when liberal netroots darling Jim Webb ran for Senate in Virginia, progressives bragged about a video of him being praised by Ronald Reagan and ran TV ads touting his association with Reagan. He won the election by a paper thin margin and gave the Democrats control of the Senate. Two years later, that same win gave the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate and made the ACA, which gave health care to 18 million people, possible.

Today progressives are bashing candidates if they haven't been communists since 1955.

This. So much this. Alienating moderates is such a losing strategy for democrats.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Really? I couldn’t tell since they’re constantly calling us “mentally ill” for being liberals.

In short: Because we don’t need them.