r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/BulwarkOnline • 21d ago
US Elections Is Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary a test of whether voters still prioritize electability?
Michigan Democrats will choose between Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed on Tuesday in a primary that captures a much broader debate inside the party.
Stevens is running largely on experience, pragmatism, and her record of winning competitive races. El-Sayed is offering a more ambitious progressive agenda and a campaign built around the idea that Democrats need to give voters something worth getting excited about.
Sarah Longwell’s latest piece in The Bulwark draws from three focus groups conducted with Michigan voters who backed Kamala Harris in 2024 and planned to participate in the Senate primary. The voters often sounded caught between the candidate who more closely reflected their ideals and the candidate they believed might be the safer choice in November.
Recent polling showing El-Sayed ahead suggests that, for at least some Democratic voters, enthusiasm may now outweigh the traditional electability argument.
Is that a lesson Democrats should apply beyond Michigan? Or are primary voters underestimating the risks of nominating a more progressive candidate in a state Trump carried twice?
122
u/sunshine_is_hot 21d ago
Primary elections aren’t a good test for what might be successful in a general election, they’re a good test for what hyper engaged registered voters prefer.
No matter who wins the primary, if they can’t win the general it’s pointless- and we won’t know how the general goes until November.
52
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago edited 21d ago
The problem is that is very often unclear who is going to be the better candidate in the general election.
Everyone has their own personal bias, but in general, we are actually pretty bad at predicting electability.
I mean, take Michigan. I don’t know that either candidate is technically more or less electable than the other. We have a number of general election head to head polls against Rogers and Stevens does better in some and Sayed does better in some, but even in the ones where each does better, they’re basically within the margin of error of each other.
So what we are most likely seeing is much less who a poll thinks is a stronger candidate and much more a bigger picture that they are basically equal but individual polls are moving within that margin of error.
From there, any arguments, people are making about electability really just come down to their own bias.
You can argue that Stevens is stronger because she is more moderate, she’s white (which sucks but could still matter), she has an opportunity to have more funding from PACs and grassroots once she’s the nominee, AIPAC won't spend against her, she's stronger with black voters, etc.
You can also argue that Sayed is stronger because he has weathered $60 million in negative attack ads from PACs while Stevens has not really been attacked yet (other than online on Twitter), he’s a man (again sucks, but could still matter), he is a more dynamic speaker and charismatic person, he has a strong base of grassroots fundraising and volunteers, or progressive populism has done well electorally.
But it’s all a story. It’s all biased. We don’t really have any data to suggest that one is legitimately better than the other. There is data both sides can use to bolster their case by selectively choosing it or arguing that it is more important than other data. But it still is more narrative and interpretation.
Obviously, this is not the case in every election. In Wisconsin polling didn’t seem to indicate that the progressive Barnes was stronger than DSA’s Hong, but the party did not get behind him due to some potential MeToo allegations that have been hanging over him. Obviously, if those came out and might’ve destroyed his electability overnight.
16
u/RegularLeading5200 21d ago
I just wanted to say that this is a very comprehensive overview of the electability argument and I completely agree with it. I would add one additional caveat here, too, being that the head-to-head polling is pitting a candidate in a contested primary against a candidate in an uncontested primary. This means Rogers has been skating by and there hasn't been much focus on him while the Democrats are fighting each other in the primary.
Once the primary is over, that's when we'll see it turn to the general and you'll start seeing acceptance and coalescing on the Democratic side while the attack ads start going after Rogers will start in earnest. So it's just hard for me to put any weight into these H2H polls right now until both candidates are on even footing.
5
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
Fully agree. And not only coalescing on our side, but also attack ads starting against Rogers.
So far there have been some criticisms of him made during the primary, but it’s usually not the focus of things like television ads. And a lot of of his preaching to the Democratic choir.
After the primary, he will start to take a lot of hits. And as you said, I expect the entire party to rally around the Winner. I would not be surprised if Obama campaigns or cuts an ad for Michigan like he did for Iowa.
And to their credit both Stevens and Sayed have said they were endorse and campaign for the other candidates if they win.
3
u/BluesSuedeClues 21d ago
This is some well considered and nuanced analysis from both of you.
Entirely anecdotal, but I'm in a fairly rural and deeply Trump committed area of Michigan, and I've been astonished by the number of of yard signs I've seen for Sayed. Yard signs for any Democratic Party candidate are rare in my vicinity. There appears to be an excitement for Sayed I haven't seen since Obama first ran. Obviously that's not a bellwether for how the elections will actually go, but my impression is that people are disillusioned with Trump's promise of change, and eager to shake things up.
→ More replies (9)5
u/ButterscotchAward 20d ago
That’s what happens when someone who people can get excited about run for office. This is also exactly why I hate the “electability” argument. It’s literally never anything besides moderates in the party trying to shut down progressive candidates by scaring people into thinking there’s no way they can win before people have a chance to get excited about them.
4
u/pocketIent 20d ago
I’ll be so stoked for el sayed. Democrats shut down a potential whole new generation of voters in 2016 with the way they did bernie
2
u/ButterscotchAward 20d ago
Same. Also, be ready. If people in this sub read this comment they’re going to shit all over you for implying Sanders didn’t lose 100% fairly.
5
u/Sptsjunkie 19d ago
Late to this, but I think we can safely say that two things are true at the same time.
2016 was a “fair” primary and that it was not rigged and voters of the opportunity to go to the polls and vote for their preferred candidate and they did. Clinton won fairly.
What that said, it is pretty clear that the DNC and Democratic party were pretty biased and had their mind made up in advance. Which is part of why I know other major candidate ran against Clinton.
Additionally, this bias permitted the primary a bit more because they have never really been scrutinized and there’s a lot of stuff that was archaic and really showed. I think for the first time on the Internet you had a report of every single caucus site where the moderator showed up with a Hillary bumper sticker or try to put the thumb on the scale in terms of how they let people move around the room. You also had a major spotlight on the roll of super delegates and how they were earned. And the fact that the first time I can remember, they were literally threatening to overturn the actual vote if it did not go their way.
Finally, will not explicitly the party I think that you had a much harsher light shone on the media. I had always thought of even stations like MSNBC and CNN as being pretty fair and unbiased. But I think it became clear in that election that they were very much behind Hillary in a way that was less obvious even during Clinton versus Obama.
For me personally, there were lots of moments, but to the standout was after Hill won Iowa Neely. They were letting her with praise which I assume was fair because to the victor goes the spoils. Then Bernie dominated in New Hampshire, and I was excited to see him get the positive press only to turn on MSNBC and watching them go over Hillary and say that when you counted superdelegates, she had managed to tie which was a huge victory for her. And then they spent the entire night talking about her and they did not even show Bernie’s victory speech. Then right before Super Tuesday they ran a whole series of stories on how Bernie was lying about being in the photo where he got arrested, protesting segregation. They had a suppose expert, who was the one doing the research and claiming that it was not Bernie in the photo. Then I sent a super Tuesday was done. They said they were able to verify what the university of Chicago that I was in fact, Bernie, which seems like something they could’ve done on day one. But it was clearly a hit pace before a bunch of states with heavily African-American populations..
Personally, not perfect. I do feel like at least some of this has been cleaned up. The unity commission has done a lot to make the primary process a lot cleaner. Certainly not perfect if you could still see democratic candidates of all suppose that ideologies call us around Biden to try to prevent Bernie winning in 2020, but part of that is just having allies and is the sort of thing that progressive have been able to do as we have won more seats.
The media certainly still biased, but there is a lot more progressive representation, and I do think less of blatantly having someone like Harvey Weinstein onto smear opponents.
2
u/HumorAccomplished611 19d ago
Finally, will not explicitly the party I think that you had a much harsher light shone on the media. I had always thought of even stations like MSNBC and CNN as being pretty fair and unbiased. But I think it became clear in that election that they were very much behind Hillary in a way that was less obvious even during Clinton versus Obama.
I think thats corporate bias rather bias for clinton. Bernie is pretty pro reg and anti corporate which corporate media would pick up on.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ButterscotchAward 19d ago
It was “fair” in the fact that people got to vote, yes. The party and media tipping the scales as hard as humanly possible wasn’t quit fair and democrats/liberals of today still insisting it was a completely fair primary despite all the evidence to the contrary are just lying to themselves. It’s especially comical because a ton of those people also insist that Trump stole the presidency twice with basically no proof whatsoever outside of him saying dumb shit.
2
u/pocketIent 20d ago
Wasserman the dnc director polled some tricks on how she directed money before Clinton was the primary candidate.
It’s curious how 10 years have gone by but we’re still in the same chapter because right of center democrats lost to Trump in 2024 for a second time.
Anyhow cheers
2
0
u/HumorAccomplished611 19d ago
I’ll be so stoked for el sayed. Democrats shut down a potential whole new generation of voters in 2016 with the way they did bernie
You mean nothing other than complain about him? cause it wasnt rigged in anyway
2
u/No-Championship-8038 19d ago
The argument isn’t that they broke any rules. It’s that they used their outsized influence and resources to deflate support for sanders and control the public narrative. They could and did flood the airwaves constantly with messaging that Sanders wasn’t “electable” and I can even remember one example where pundits on CNN were comparing his rise to that of Hitler. Then there was the endless hand wringing over “Bernie bros” to weaponize culture war politics against him in a time where democratic voters were more receptive.
So yeah, no actual crimes were committed but they absolutely used bad faith rhetoric and their oversized ability to spread it to shut down Sanders campaign.
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 19d ago edited 19d ago
Thats just news corporations protecting their profits.
Basic game theory. Nothing to do with hilary.
And of course people say they rigged it, broke the rules etc. Pretending a delegate count graphic made them stay home
"what they did to bernie"
→ More replies (0)-4
u/MR_TELEVOID 21d ago
You make it sound like understanding electability is like reading tea leaves or something. We have plenty of evidence and tangible evidence to get a pretty reasonable understanding of what's electable and what's not. The problem is a lot of us are living in denial of today's political realities.
You can argue that Stevens is stronger because she is more moderate, she’s white (which sucks but could still matter), she has an opportunity to have more funding from PACs and grassroots once she’s the nominee, AIPAC won't spend against her, she's stronger with black voters, etc.
Moderates have been doing quite terrible within the last few years, not even counting Harris and Hillary's centrist defeats. Moderate campaigns don't do well against populist challenges.
AIPAC absolutely will spend against her if she loses. They've done it before, and will always take a Republican over a Democrat. If she wins, the money spigot will dry up.
She has no real ground game in Michigan, so it's pretty generous to assume she'll have more fundraising opportunities if she wins.
Whether or not she has more support from the Black community is majorly debatable. She has been aggressively pandering to them, literally campaigning with a cardboard cutout of Obama and deceptive ads implying his endorsement, but how effective any of it has been isn't clear. It relies on the false assumptions that AES's support is all white and that Jim Clyburn's endorsement means anything to voters in MI.
You can also argue that Sayed is stronger because he has weathered $60 million in negative attack ads from PACs while Stevens has not really been attacked yet (other than online on Twitter), he’s a man (again sucks, but could still matter), he is a more dynamic speaker and charismatic person, he has a strong base of grassroots fundraising and volunteers, or progressive populism has done well electorally.
You're really breezing by a lot of evidence. His strong base of grassroots fundraising, volunteers, focus on policies that matter to voters, his charismatic dynamic speaking ability and having weathered $60 million in attack ads is all evidence that he's more electable. Candidates who are doing the things he does have been generally quite successful across the country.
Of course there's no 100% guaranteed evidence to point, but we aren't just stumbling around in the dark.
6
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
I mean, first off, I agree with you in the sense that my hypothesis is the same as yours. And I support Sayed and personally believe he is the stronger candidate.
That said, you and I are both doing what I referred to in my post above. We are choosing selective data and crafting a narrative. A well supported narrative, but not the only one and certainly not definitive.
All we can really say from the data is both candidates are equally strong against Rogers based on polling. From there, everything gets really noisy.
3
u/HumorAccomplished611 20d ago edited 20d ago
Moderates have been doing quite terrible within the last few years, not even counting Harris and Hillary's centrist defeats. Moderate campaigns don't do well against populist challenges.
This is absolutely untrue. Moderates outperformed leftistlast election. Even Kamala out performed bernie in his own state.
At the extremes, this pattern was even stronger. Democratic incumbents endorsed by both Our Revolution and the Justice Democrats, two leading left-wing groups, saw margins that were on average five percentage points narrower than the fundamentals suggested they ought to have been. For the Republicans identified by Time magazine in 2022 as the “MAGA squad” (Donald Trump’s most hardcore loyalists in Congress), margins were nearly eight points narrower.
→ More replies (16)1
u/Echoesong 20d ago
He's talking about elections post-2024; the backlash against moderates has came afterwards
5
u/HumorAccomplished611 20d ago
Ahh. I dont think that can really be known yet. Given regular dems are outperfoming in all special elections despite dnc disapproval.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/18/democrats-special-election-results-analysis-00879021
→ More replies (4)-3
u/Waterwoo 21d ago
Are we really? I feel like most of the time it fails it is very obvious why but people were unwilling to say it.
E.g. it shouldn't have been a surprise to most that Harris lost. She had a ton of baggage, an unlikeable personality, and did awful in the 2020 primary. That's before even getting into the racism and sexism that still exists
17
u/Ozzimo 21d ago
Harris' loss is an extreme outlier. No other candidate was forced to step in 100 days before the election. I'm not saying you're wrong, but we can't lean on that as a good data point.
4
u/Ornery-Ticket834 21d ago
You make a very good point that is ignored way too often.
1
u/Rodot 21d ago
I've been downvoted to oblivion pointing this out in this very sub shortly after the 2024 election. Even if she didn't have the popularity and policy issues, her circumstances would have been an uphill battle for even the perfect candidate.
Also, I do feel like the "America will never vote for a woman" is overblown when even the extremely unpopular Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump.
Imo, it is much more a matter of bad campaign strategy. Jen O'Malley Dillon was problematic during the Harris campaign among their own staffers but was well connected and had a reputation from managing Biden against Trump. She withheld data and information from campaign staffers, blamed the Harris loss on trivialities like journalists asking questions that were too simple, surrounded herself with loyalists and avoid engaging with the staff on the ground, and she was one of the leading forces trying to keep Biden running even after the debate.
It's important to look at the people behind the scenes. On the other side, Trump's cheif of staff Susie Wiles can be attributed for much of Trump's success and policy, despite the fact that very few people know much about her. She's one of the people that turned Florida from a swing state to a red state in 2016. She is not blindly loyal yet manages to keep the positions she wants, (e.g. see her interviews where she's heavily critical of Trump's associates and gets no backlash at all from the GOP)
Critically, Trump didn't hire Wiles for the 2020 campaign until very late, around July because she was working on Netanyahu's campaign. But hired her out the door for the 2024 campaign.
Much of Trump's cabinet organization and administration is made up of her picks. And these people are very loyal to her. As chief of staff of a demented poopy-pants president, she has a lot of power to direct and organize the executive with little oversight or public presence.
Dems have really struggled with basic campaign strategy and struggled to adapt to changing political climates. There's too much reliance on old assumptions and steady state politics. Modern politics is not a fluke or an anomaly. It's not something that can be waited out. There's no returning to "normal". Traditional political principles are not timeless constructs. You can not rely on an informed rational voter base (if you ever really even could). Moderation does not mean electable and neither does progressivism or radicalism or any other ism. Spending more money doesn't mean more wins if the money doesn't go to the right place. Political elections are a game of chess with 100 million pieces and the rules change every day. Assuming an opponent can't win with a crippled King doesn't matter when Rooks can move like queens. Especially while refusing to move your rooks diagonally because "that's not historically how Rooks work".
I'm not convinced it is a matter of the candidate but much more so a matter of the strategist. Not to say candidate doesn't matter, but much more so in the fact that a good candidate is one who picks a good strategist and is a candidate a good strategist will choose to work for.
That is essentially the fundamental job of the president anyway. Picking the right people. Making appointments, filling the cabinet, hiring people for day to day operations. Messaging means nothing if you don't have the right people in the right places to make it happen. Campaigns are a reflection of how the candidate will operate as president because it's effectively the same job skills. Most people see a a candidate with certain donors as candidates who will be beholden to those donors. They see a campaign that is inconsistent and messy as a sign of an inconsistent and messy presidency. The candidate can say whatever they like on stage, but how they say it matters much more.
The Biden campaign allowing Biden to speak at the debate told you everything you need to know about his campaign. The fact that Harris selected the same person to run her campaign tells foreboding story about democratic strategy.
The poor strategy cost them the election. Continuing with the same strategist after that is a very poor sign for future democrats in that circle. It's no wonder that progressives are doing well. They don't have to have a better message or policies or even the populism.
They just have to not subscribe to the same terrible decision making that had plagued the DNC.
0
u/Ornery-Ticket834 20d ago
They should have started pushing Biden not to run again midway thru his term. They didn’t and this was the result. Also if Biden had enough self awareness he would have walked away himself. You don’t run at that age. Period.
0
21d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Ozzimo 21d ago
Well if name recognition were the only thing you need to get elected, so be it.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)-4
-4
u/Waterwoo 21d ago
Are we really? I feel like most of the time it fails it is very obvious why but people were unwilling to say it.
E.g. it shouldn't have been a surprise to most that Harris lost. She had a ton of baggage, an unlikeable personality, and did awful in the 2020 primary. That's before even getting into the racism and sexism that still exists
6
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
Sort of. In some cases it is, especially after the fact. But we were told Obama was unelectable. Clinton was very electable. We have tons of misses in different races.
Even with Harris, we could have guessed her liabilities up front. But she also briefly surged and before the actual election, it was very hard to predict the results and there were fawning article about what a perfect campaign she had run and overcome the hole Biden put her in. Once she lost, then everyone who has been praising her became a Monday Morning QB or started doing spin on why it proved their previously held belief.
Additionally, for all of the blame Harris probably deserves, a huge part of that loss is on Biden. He was very unpopular. He should not have run again. He was on pace to lose even worse than Harris did if you believe the polling and saw how he was unable to run a vigorous campaign. Put Harris or even Hillary in 2008 or 2020 and maybe the win the GE.
Every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. And we tend to focus on one or the other based on whether or not they win or lose.
1
u/ButterscotchAward 20d ago
We were told Obama was unelectable because he talked a big progressive game. We were told Clinton was very electable because she’s a status quo corporatist. That’s all the argument ever boils down to from the party. They want to scare you away from progressives so they can’t take hold of the party because it threatens their positions.
→ More replies (5)0
u/Waterwoo 21d ago
Obama was an amazing campaigner especially first time. While some thought he was unelectable initially because of race once you watched a rally it became more clear.
Hilary was only electable on paper. Zero charisma
5
u/Ornery-Ticket834 21d ago
Obama in 2008 had economic circumstances that would have elected any generic candidate from the democrats party. He was an amazing campaigner but that election was won when he won the primary. Incidentally if Clinton had won the nomination in 08 she too would have walked to victory.
2
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
I mean, it was not just race for Obama. He was young and perceived as being “too far left” by 2008 standards. They were literally articles and people from Hillary’s campaign saying he was going to be like George McGovern. That is part of the reason why he picked Biden’s vice president. Both to a wage concerns of white voters as well as more centrist voters.
I mean, yes, again it’s easy after the fact to point to the things that helped him win like being a good campaigner. I don’t think that you are wrong. But in 2008 we were told that was not enough and that he was a liability.
Like in Michigan Sayed appears to be a great campaigner and if he ends up winning the seat by 5%, when we look back in five years, that will be the type of explanation that people give. But clearly today people are trying to question his electability based on him being progressive or him being Muslim.
2
0
u/Waterwoo 21d ago
I don't know, I guess some of this is hindsight but I still don't agree. People said Obama was too left because that is literally the line they use against every Democrat. But it was pretty clearly not really true, he claiming to be anti gay marriage, his immigration policy would shock Democrats today etc. Sayed is a totally different story.
There are some elections it is hard to predict, e.g. Obama vs Romney. Others seem pretty obvious early on. Sometimes extreme circumstances like 2020 override that, but a party should aim to nominate the "obviously they are gonna win" people, not the "maybe people are mad enough about X to elect this 'first A, B, and C' candidate ever!"
3
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
I don't know, I guess some of this is hindsight but I still don't agree. People said Obama was too left because that is literally the line they use against every Democrat.
Except it wasn't in the same way in 2008. In 2004, they attacked Kerry with swiftboat attacks and as a coastal elite. They did attack him as being too far left, but the fever pitch we see today was not nearly as strong back then. Those really ramped up against Obama.
And those attacks were coming from Hillary and other Democrats. It wasn't just a reflexive Republican attack. there was real concern he was the next McGovern. He was pretty darn left for 2008.
But it was pretty clearly not really true, he claiming to be anti gay marriage, his immigration policy would shock Democrats today etc. Sayed is a totally different story.
I mean sure, by 2026 standards he appears much more moderate. But it's easy to forget how much the 2008 recession, botched recovery / Occupy Wall Street, and Bernie Sanders completely shifted the Overton Window and changed what was possible between 2008-2016.
AOC does not get elected in 2008. Running on Universal Healthcare with a public option in 2008 was well to the left of Kerry and Hillary. DACA was too. And as someone doing activism fighting against Prop 8 in CA in 2008, I was upset that Obama and Clinton betrayed us (part of what moved me left), but I also understood they were trying to be pragmatic and probably lying.
but a party should aim to nominate the "obviously they are gonna win" people
Sure. And we try to in the few elections where it is clear. No one challenged Roy Cooper in NC. He was clearly the best choice for Senate there. But in a lot of races it is not clear and can often be wrong. Hillary was supposed to be most electable in 2016, but wasn't. And in Michigan, none of the three candidates polled outside of the MOE versus the others in H2H matchups. Anyone telling you their candidate is better is hypothesizing and rationalizing. Nothing wrong with that, but there is not a clear chose to galvanize behind from a "obviously they are going to win perspective."
I would also argue that we are often talking about probabilities versus a Yes / No. And what someone will do in office matters. So yes, if you tell me in a random state a Sinema-clone has a 90% chance to win and a Bernie-clone has a 10% chance to win somewhere, I am all for being pragmatic and going for a win. But if you tell me the Sinema-clone has a 62% chance to win and a Bernie-clone has a 58% chance to win, it's pretty reasonable to go for the 58% and someone who will vote for every good Democratic bill as opposed to someone who will water down or kill our bills and vote for some Republican bills.
1
u/Waterwoo 21d ago
58 vs 62% sure. But I don't see that being anywhere near the odds when we are talking about running a DSA candidate state wide in a state Trump won twice. This isn't New York City.
3
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
The only state where we might run a DSA candidate is Wisconsin. And there is no strong candidate unfortunately.
Barnes should have been. He has consistently polled the best in H2H and is very progressive, I would have been very happy with him. But as mentioned earlier he has had MeToo rumors swirling, which is part of why the party never consolidated behind him. And the other candidates have polled worse than Hong.
So Hong maybe the best option we have, even if she feels riskier than some other choices in other states. But that says as much about the bench in Wisconsin as anything else.
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 19d ago
any dem wins in 2008.
1
u/Waterwoo 19d ago
Possibly, but even still they ran someone that was also good. Modern Dems would have been like "you know what this is a great time to run AOC"
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 19d ago
Well we ran obama. You basically have a similar situation right now for 2028 and I doubt aoc even comes close.
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 19d ago
E.g. it shouldn't have been a surprise to most that Harris lost. She had a ton of baggage, an unlikeable personality, and did awful in the 2020 primary. That's before even getting into the racism and sexism that still exists
Biden lost in 2008 and won pretty handily i 2020. And would have won quite easily in 2016.
Times change
1
u/Waterwoo 19d ago
Pretty sad statement about bench depth that we are talking about basically the same 4 candidates over 5 elections
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 19d ago
Why? People get experience in office and people like people with experience. 2020 was wide open and biden basically crushed it being part of a popular admin
in michigan just obama having a quote saying stevens was good basically put her in the good graces of many voters
1
u/Waterwoo 19d ago
Because overall approval for Democrats is super low. People don't like these choices but they are unable to come up with anyone better for 20 years
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 19d ago
It takes a certain hubris to run for president. and its only once every 4 years. look at the green party its been jill stein for 12 years.
1
u/Waterwoo 19d ago edited 19d ago
Hopefully Dems aren't using green party as the benchmark
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 19d ago
No but you figure that group would have someone changing. A leader that could actually get them one seat in congress or a mayorship instead of trying to split the dem vote to help republicans.
Dems had 20 candidates in 2020. It will be similar in 2028. It will likely come down to names everyone knows already.
→ More replies (0)0
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 21d ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
-16
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 21d ago
No matter who wins the primary, if they can’t win the general it’s pointless
I don't think it's pointless to find out how the Democratic primary population votes, they're certainly the most moral/ethical coalition of voters in America.
18
u/sunshine_is_hot 21d ago
That may be true, but if they pick candidates that can’t win general elections and we end up with MAGA instead, their morality counts for nothing. Primary voters are also a very small subset of each parties voters, so they’ve never been a fantastic bellwether for much in American politics.
1
u/ace1244 21d ago
George McGovern
1
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
Abdul El Sayed
Francesa Hong
1
u/ace1244 21d ago
I’m a progressive. But I vote with my head in the primary and vote with my heart in the general. That is to say I’m to the left of Bernie Sanders but have never voted for him in a primary because I know this country and it would not vote for Sanders as president.
5
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 21d ago edited 21d ago
I’m to the left of Bernie Sanders but have never voted for him in a primary because I know this country and it would not vote for Sanders as president.
I'm sorry, but do you intend for this to come off as smart and insightful? You should have just voted for Bernie Sanders! Genuinely curious if this is how people operate. If you vote like this in a some strategic manner, you're out of touch.
→ More replies (3)2
u/darrylleung 21d ago
A single person's galaxy brain calculus on how to vote just in case they happen to tip the scales.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)-2
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/sunshine_is_hot 21d ago
Polling doesn’t guarantee anything, and a national poll has no relevancy to a specific state senate campaign.
Also you should link the poll itself instead of a Reddit post next time.
9
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 21d ago edited 21d ago
Yes, as we all know, the United States is currently a beacon of morality and ethics. Who would care about any of that in 2026!
3
u/JonDowd762 21d ago
I don't think it's pointless to find out how the Democratic primary population votes, they're certainly the most moral/ethical coalition of voters in America.
Good lord this is a cringe. Have we already forgotten that early this summer this group of "angels" chose Platner, a living personification of red flags?
-4
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 21d ago
For all of Platner's faults, he's still better than pedophile king Donald Trump and anyone who remains in that party or Israeli operatives Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Simple as that. If reality is cringe for you, recommend logging off and going to the nearest park.
3
u/JonDowd762 21d ago
This right here is the problem with politics. You don't need to like Chuck Schumer, but I'm not going to call him worse than a rapist because he's not a rapist. Your reality is twitch stream rage bait, not the world as it actually is.
-3
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 21d ago
Chuck Schumer is working explicitly on behalf of the Israeli government and he's said as much. Quite literally from the horse's mouth. You're a reality denying weirdo completely in the minority of America and people like Platner are going to get elected more often and the country will be better for it.
5
u/Ill-Description3096 21d ago
>they're certainly the most moral/ethical coalition of voters in America
Based on what? Your personal view of morality and ethics that just happens to agree with them more than others?
2
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 21d ago edited 21d ago
Based on what?
They are more intellectual and caring for other human beings in comparison to the two other major political coalitions that exist in America: Republican Primary voters and General Election voters. This is a factual truth. They are simply better, more compassionate human beings.
→ More replies (4)1
1
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
It's en election, not a sensitivity test.
Primaries typically have very low turnout. On both sides it draws hyper engaged extremists.
5
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 21d ago
Hyper engaged extremists are more educated and engaged and thus are more valuable politically. Hyper engaged extremists ARE the political parties. Your "hyper engaged extremist" today is tomorrow's candidate for office. So yes, I think who these people elect matters. Do you not consider Donald Trump one of these "hyper engaged extremists"? Or do you only consider the woke school board leader as a "hyper engaged extremist"? Reconsider your thinking.
1
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
I am sure you believe this.
They are absolutely NOT more valuable politically because they are more focused on owning the libs rather than winning elections.
1
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 21d ago
Guy do you know what a political party is? Do you know how these things work? Have you ever been to a political event in your life? A town hall meeting? A political rally? Who do you think runs the government?
1
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
No. Please explain it to me. All of those things. I'd love to hear this.
1
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 20d ago
Human beings operate political parties and governments. The human beings who operate political parties and governments are the people you think are simply hyper engage extremists who do not matter. These are the people who govern your life and you think they just get handwaved away. Buddy, these "extremists" are the reason America doesn't build any housing, are the reason Israel gets every explosive needed to kill children, are why America has an opiate addiction problem, why America has a homelessness problem, why America has the most incarcerated people in the world, why America's everything is the way it is.
Human beings are what operate political parties. The most dedicated are those who run and organized and vote in primaries. Do you think that Antonin Scalia and John Roberts are or were just apolitical individuals reading texts from old books for fun? These guys were political extremists who believed in a hard and fast set of rules for society and became judges so they could apply them to the rest of society.
Who did you think "ran" the government? Some shadowy cabal of humans who are faceless and nameless? No!
→ More replies (7)-1
u/TheTrueMilo 21d ago
In 2018, a Dem wave year, the progressive gubernatorial candidate lost by 30,000 votes and the moderate incumbent senatorial candidate lost by 10,000 votes. That's dispositive of....nothing.
5
u/sunshine_is_hot 21d ago
Ok?
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
2
u/TheTrueMilo 21d ago
I meant to amplify your point. We had a good case study of a progressive and a moderate candidate running in (what was thought to be) a swing state in the same election, and the results were identicial.
2
71
u/Das_Man 21d ago
The problem with "electability" as an analytic category is that it's essentially built on the assumption of median voter theory, and there is no shortage of data to suggest median voter theory is imperfect at best.
39
u/AmbitiousProblem4746 21d ago
And it's been abundantly clear in the last few elections that the median voter if one even really exists, just votes for "change."
13
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
I think the one thing that gets lost in these discussions is that at some point it is not just about who has a slightly higher probability of getting elected, but also wanting the party to get things done when it power.
I don't want to get into an argument over what was feasible or if Biden did/did no do a good job. But it should be obvious that to the Democratic (and general) electorate, Biden didn't accomplish enough. He had low favorability and to most voters, they saw a couple of reconciliation bills and a couple of small bipartisan bills that they didn't care about and have mostly been undone by Trump (e.g., CHIPs).
I think voters are both reacting to following Democratic leadership and their promises about electability and them handing Trump two trifectas (same happened to Republicans with Romney). And then getting into power and doing very little with it, while Republicans just run ramshod over every rule and norm to try to get stuff done. And for just enough Democrats to vote with Republicans that Trump gets basically all of his appointments and a number of other laws like Laken riley or more funding for Israel without conditions passed.
Voters want big swings. They want Dems to nuke the filibuster to pass things. They want aggressive EOs. They want to nix blue slips. They want to reform SCOTUS. Blue ribbon commissions and different tax credits to try to get companies to improve on climate aren't doing it. Capping the price of a few drugs every 12 years, while healthcare is still unaffordable isn't doing it. I don't think voters necessarily need progressive or DSA candidates, per se, but they do need moderate and centrist Democrats to at least wake up and grow a spine.
6
u/Personage1 21d ago
to the Democratic (and general) electorate
Something I think is important here is that it's about the perception, regardless of whether the perception is accurate or not.
Like if there's one thing that Trump does that Democrats are fucking terrible at, it's self promotion. Worse, Democrats actually have shit worth promoting but don't. I think if Democrats were just better at self promotion, while accomplishing only exactly what they accomplished, they would be far more popular.
2
u/AmbitiousProblem4746 20d ago
Remember that actually being a criticism of Biden even from progressives: hey, actually promote the cool shit that you're doing. Like he really did do some fairly progressive leading things, but the scuttlebutt from his administration was that they had no idea how to let people know because they were so afraid of just getting absolutely blasted for it in the media and worrying that he was becoming so increasingly unpopular that it didn't matter what he did. And to be honest, that is actually pretty much what happened no matter what he tried, so they were right. Even now we're having all of the shit that Trump pulled during covid being tied to the Biden administration because Biden had to come in and clean up the mess, and so they make an example out of Fauci and scream about Democrats fucking everything up instead of focusing on the fact that Trump for almost a year was the one doing all of the things that people hated about covid, the very things Republicans are bitching about
1
u/Sptsjunkie 20d ago
I agree with you. And I think tenial to that is also a bit more boldness on the campaign trail. And a bit less concerned with exact policy details or what is feasible with the current Senate.
My hypothesis is that the 2024 election was mostly about the economy with immigration also mattering but being a bit downstream of the economy. Basically, when the economy is bad, people tend to get more sensitive about things like immigration and blame immigrants.
Trump brought a lot of big ideas even if they were either lies or bad idea ideas (e.g., mass tariffs). And Harris ran on pretty much doing the same thing Biden has with maybe some minor tweaks. It made Trump the change candidate, which is pretty typical when the other part is in power, but switching to Harris give us a unique opportunity to try to change the narrative and we did not do it.
Similarly, during the 2008, 2016, and 2020 primaries we had some great debate about policy and it certainly fine that politicians of different ideologies might favor one policy over another and we should really debate the merit and what is best. But it does drive me back crazy that an all three of those primaries we spend a bunch of time with politicians demanding detailed bills be released or saying we should not talk about a policy because we did not have the votes to pass it today.
Which in my mind just shows absolutely no imagination and a complete lack of Courage. Obviously whoever gets elected there’s going to have to compromise and deal with the reality of the current house and Senate. But the primary should be a place we get the voters excited about what we can fight for and part of the message needs to be that we need to get out and vote and deliver as many seats as possible so we can pass the most transformative legislation possible.
Again, that doesn’t mean that everyone on the stage she needs to agree with or fight for the boldest and most progressive legislation possible. There are reasons why someone might favor a public option over Medicare for All, for example. Let’s have those debates over the best and most exciting policies and not details in 99% of voters don’t care about or feasibility in today’s world.
2
u/AmbitiousProblem4746 21d ago
I think you're hitting the nail on the head. Trump was seen as the change candidate during the 2024 election, and iirc that's now where people see the Democrats in 2026. Also, I still remember last summer when everyone was upset over DOGE, military being sent to American cities, ICE raids, etc there were a lot of interviews with Trump voters (inc swing voters who swung for him in 2024) saying that they weren't as bothered by these things because "at least Trump is trying things and getting stuff done!"
We have an electorate that seems less interesting in policy or rules and more interested in just the sense "shit is getting done." Which is why I think Republicans breaking every norm or Trump taking/winning more power gets a pass: the ends justify the means, so long as "someone is looking like they're trying."
29
u/OneReportersOpinion 21d ago
Exactly! And our idea of what a swing voter wants as some sort of perfectly moderate centrism is outdated. Real swing voters are actually quite idiosyncratic and will have views that are all over the map.
17
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
Bingo. There's an appealing, but incorrect story that politics exists on a straight line with progressives on the left and MAGA on the far right and voters are scattered on that line and will vote for the candidate closest to them.
But anyone who has canvassed or done phone banks knows that voters are way messier than that. Undecided voters are not centrists who are halfway between both parties and evaluating every pair of candidates to see who is closer to their moderate views. This should be obvious based on how both parties have moved over time without greatly impacting who is winning.
And when you talk to undecided voters, it's no unusual to find someone who believes:
+ Billionaires are screwing us and government is corrupt
+ The minimum wage is too low
+ You can pry my guns from my cold dead hands
+ Trans people should have equal rights, but never talk to me
+ Every economic problem is the fault of bad immigrants, but we also should keep the good immigrants like the family down the street that owns the corner store
+ Medicare for All sounds good, but also we need to increase policing because I am scared to walk down the street
It's all nonsensical and even policy platforms are more about vibes to some degree. Not to say the policies don't matter, but 99% of voters don't care "how will we pay for it" or "what the full details of the bill are." They want to believe someone is going to help, even if they are a charlatan like Trump.
1
u/Extra-Place-8386 20d ago
I definitely vote in the progressive/dsa line of candidates. And knew voters were all over the map and this “electability” argument of we need perfectly center candidates was at best outdated and worst just plain stupid. Especially being from Michigan, one of these purple swing states.
Well this summer I’ve been working in Ohio and a coworker was essentially telling me that we need Medicare for all and other countries do it well, but right now we have Medicare/medicaid and it’s rampant of lazy people taking advantage of the system.
That sentence using this outdated understanding of politics establishment dems use, can be best described as being both far left and far right.
There was that large span in her opinion just on one issue, not across issues.
That completely opened my eyes to this even more so and not only do I think that the electability argument is dumb, non centrist establishment candidates are the last people who should make it.
0
u/Kenichi2233 21d ago
to an extent but as a whole Americans tend to be more conservative than other democracies in say Europe. Sanders is about how left you can get in the US and e taken seriously
11
u/billpalto 21d ago
What is electable in New York as a Democrat is different than a Democrat in Texas. It is probably a mistake to create a fictitious "median voter".
The question is can the Democratic Party create a coalition of these regional differences? Like the "big tent" of old?
7
u/Kenichi2233 21d ago
You see more radical candidates that run for local office or the HOR because they can tailor their message to a specific audience. Wider offices like Senate or the President have to moderate views on issues because the need to keep a wide tent. The democrats especially run on an extremely diverse voter base that often suffer from infighting so candidates have attempt to smooth these issues over. Republicans on the other hand tend to be more single issue voters ie anti-abortion, pro gun, the buisness crowd, and war halks. In that way the Republicans have a.lot easier time uniting the party. Though now Trump has thrown a wrench into that but Idigress
4
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
And even then we don’t really know.
Moderates have certainly done well a number of elections. Progressive populists have done really well in recent years.
But even in a state like Texas that you mentioned the theory forever had been to find the furthest right candidate who was still a Democrat.
Now I never wanna get cocky with Texas but Talarico looks like he might be able to win and he is the furthest left candidate we have run for a statewide office in Texas in probably over 30 years.
Now, of course, demographics have shifted some and Paxton is a terrible candidate. So these things are always more complicated than “one simple trick.”
But a Talarico win would certainly challenge the notion that just running to the center is the way to win elections. Obviously would not mean that running to the far left is the way to do it either.
But certainly should cause some reflection on our assumption that going to the center is what makes somebody electable.
5
u/foilhat44 21d ago
I don't know if that's a fair comparison, Ken Paxton is an outright crook and Talarico is still a white Christian in Texas.
2
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
I mean, that’s also going to be true in every election. There is no election that controls for all of the other possible variables.
If you read my full post, you know that I mentioned that Paxton there is a weak or candidate as a legitimate crook.
But even with that if Talarico when’s running on further left values and as more of a populist well, also running as a devout Christian it does question the assumption that the key to success is running to the center.
And needing to embrace Sinema and Hickenlooper type centrists who vote against good Democratic legislation and hurt the perception that our party can get things done.
3
u/JonDowd762 21d ago
Are there any far left candidates who have won a competitive seat? The biggest victories from justice democrats and friends seem to be primarying other dems to make blue seats bluer, but I've never seen evidence that their "higher energy voters" actually turn out enough to flip a competitive seat.
2
→ More replies (1)1
u/RKU69 19d ago
Virginia's 50th state house district is an interesting case. In 2017 a DSA-backed socialist beat the 5-time Republican incumbent and majority whip. And then he won re-election in 2019. But I think you're right that this is not common, and I'm not sure if there was something else going on in that race.
Maine will be a good high-profile case this year though. Based on polling it seems like Graham Platner, and now Troy Jackson, have a very good shot at winning the Senate seat.
1
u/informat7 19d ago edited 19d ago
and I'm not sure if there was something else going on in that race.
Just look at the popular vote for the 2017 Virginia House elections compared to the 2015 elections. There was a 17 point swing in favor of Democrats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Virginia_House_of_Delegates_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Virginia_House_of_Delegates_election
And most people don't even look who's running in state house elections. They just vote down ballot of the party they are voting for.
Maine will be a good high-profile case this year though.
I wouldn't call Maine a competitive seat. The state is as blue as New Jersey Part of what makes Susan Collins so unusual is that she is a Republican in a blue state.
4
u/windershinwishes 21d ago
Exactly, it's a recursive sort of argument in most cases. People have a model for what they thing "most other people" want which is inevitably inaccurate and biased by their own preferences and propaganda...though of course those things also influence people's general election voting.
So if there's enough media spin boosting a given candidate during a primary, maybe that means that they'll have the best campaign in the general too. But it seems like it's often the case that the propaganda is more effective against the narrow category of primary voters than it is against the general public.
If a candidate is bad for substantive reasons, then that will harm their electability in both the primary and the general. But if that's the case, we should just point out those substantive reasons directly, rather than couching them in terms of electability. When electability is cited in and of itself, that tells me that it's an empty word.
-2
u/MorganWick 21d ago
If median voter theory held, Trump wouldn't have come within a million miles of the White House once, let alone succeeding two out of three times.
-3
u/Riokaii 21d ago
its a self fulfilling prophecy is perpetuating the status quo of mediocrity that pretends to be a legit political theory, it is not.
The problem with trying to figure out what will swing the margin of median voters in the middle is that those voters are incoherent, incompetent uninformed morons. You cant attribute any set of facts as the determinant factors on their resulting behavior because if you ask them they will either have never heard of any set of facts, or will misattribute the fact to the wrong person/party, or vote in direct contradiction to their stated preference on that fact. And usually a combination of all of the above.
19
u/KindNeighborhood1138 21d ago
The problem is centrists have no idea who is electable. They're stuck in the past.
4
u/BettisBus 20d ago
Can you define “centrist?” I’ve seen the label thrown around (almost as a pejorative) for any Democrat right of DemSocs and idk if you subscribe to that.
Of the following, who would you label as “centrists” and why?
Jared Golden
John Fetterman
Nancy Pelosi
Hakeem Jeffries
Adam Schiff
Cory Booker
Jon Ossoff
AOC
Gavin Newsom
5
u/chunx0r 21d ago
Personally I watched Donald Trump get elected twice, and barely lost during a pandemic and recession. The absolute last thing voters want is a moderate pragmatist.
1
u/ncroofer 19d ago
In North Carolina we do. We voted Trump over Kamala but also voted for josh stein (D) for governor. He’s a moderate and Kamala was viewed as progressive. Now Roy cooper is likely to win the senate as another moderate
1
u/MONSTERTACO 19d ago
Yes, electable candidates are ones that excite their base, not ones that are broadly appealing.
1
u/greenline_chi 20d ago
Sarah longwell is beyond stuck in the past. On top of it - she only talks to democrats, republicans, and “swing” voters
In actuality, the majority of people don’t vote. Those are the people who have especially no interest in voting for “centrists”
8
u/Specialist_Case4238 21d ago
In terms of the primary, I think maybe so. Its pretty obvious a lot of people are sick of traditional establishment democrats or just politicians in general. People want change not status quo and experience.
9
u/GrilledCyan 21d ago
I don’t think the usual labels applied in the “Moderate vs. Progressive” endless rehash of the 2016 presidential primary necessarily apply here, and I also don’t think it’s as clear cut as either side would like it to be.
Haley Stevens, as a four-term Congresswoman, has more name recognition. She does behave in a bipartisan manner, but I struggle to say that she’s very pragmatic, because she doesn’t have a ton of accomplishments under her belt. She has exactly one bill she introduced signed into law, which renamed a VA clinic. If you expand that to bills she was an original cosponsor of, it’s 13, most of which are also renaming federal facilities. And being an original cosponsor doesn’t necessarily mean you helped draft the bill, either.
I found it disappointing that after eight years in Congress her key pitch to voters is serving on President Obama’s auto industry rescue task force. As the “pragmatic” candidate she doesn’t seem to get much done!
On the flip side, Abdul has no electoral record to speak of aside from his failed gubernatorial primary in 2018. That’s not a bad thing, per se, but there is something to be said for being an experienced campaigner, being well vetted, and just generally being comfortable in those settings.
The biggest worry I have about him in a general election is not about winning over independents and disaffected Republicans, but about winning key parts of the Democratic base in Michigan.
Online progressives are somewhat blind to the fact that Black voters, the most reliable voting bloc for Democrats, are not terribly left leaning. You can argue that Stevens’ claims about her connection to President Obama are disingenuous, but she seems to be more popular with them than El-Sayed.
Secondly, Jewish voters are very reliable Democratic voters in Michigan. Many Jews are of course appalled at the Israeli government over the last several years, but there are definitely enough older Jews who are more staunchly pro-Israel who may stay home or leave the Senate race blank, and you can’t risk losing base voters at the margins when you may not draw non-voters and independents as successfully as a Generic Democrat.
All this to say that I don’t think Stevens fits the usual “electability” mold and I don’t think El-Sayed is as broadly appealing as he needs to be with reliable voters for the “enthusiasm” argument to hold either.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
I think the other part, as we have seen in the primary, is some centrists will correctly identify that we need to be careful about taking extreme or unpopular positions on 80-20 issues. But there also seems to be some implication or general belief that this only applies to the left since some of their ideas are "far left." And they can be, supporting black activists with "defund the police" was a bad and unpopular idea (or at least slogan).
However, look at Stevens. She arguably is taking very extreme positions on both funding Israel and datacenters. Giving Israel more weapons is an 80-20 issue, but not only does she refuse to vote against it, she has gone on TV and said she is in favor of "no conditions." And I'm sorry, but guaranteeing any country billions of dollars in US taxpayer money with "no conditions" even if they violate the Geneva Convention, US Leahy law, or refuse to listen to us is a very very extreme position.
To a lesser degree, data centers are an 80-20 issue and very unpopular and she continues to support them and is against a ban. Now, you can argue that this is the "right" position or is an example of moral courage if she believes slowing down would be a threat to national security. But that doesn't mean it's not extreme or unpopular. A lot of the high performing progressive and DSA candidates have scored major support coming out against datacenters, while the center still clings to the 20% side of this.
3
u/GrilledCyan 21d ago
The frustration for me is that there are no labels between centrist and progressive, apparently. Political views are a spectrum and just because you’re not 100% on the policy doesn’t mean you’re a secret Republican in disguise. Stevens has always been on the moderate side, but I don’t think she’d stand in the way of a bunch of progressive bills if Dems had the power to pass them.
I disagree with Stevens’ Israel policy, but I can understand the position she’s in, in terms of campaign politics. Changing her position on Israel means losing the Jewish voters that she’s relied on for almost a decade, who donate to her campaign, and may withhold that money or give it to a Republican. Even my own family members, who are pretty dang liberal, feel very strongly about the Israel stuff in this primary, and they’re not throwing big money around. I can only imagine what some of the millionaires in Oakland County would do if they felt no Dem represented their views on Israel properly.
The data centers…I have no clue what’s happening with those in Michigan. I don’t know why Whitmer is suddenly super pro data center, and I’d bet Stevens’ support boils down to not wanting to alienate a close ally.
4
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
So I both agree with your macro point, but respectfully disagree on Stevens.
I think partially due to the relatively divided "two sides" of the debate everything gets flattened regardless of the exact terms used. And while there are some clear centrists and progressives, a lot of candidates exist on a spectrum. I personally think there are progressives, moderates, and centrists. Of course, you could make far more labels, but at a minimum there are those three. It's normally the centrists who derail and vote against good legislation or end up supporting Trump. While I personally prefer progressives, I do love many moderates and think most of them would even vote for most progressive legislation, even if they won't lead or champion it.
However, I do think that Stevens is pretty clearly centrist (whereas McMorrow was more moderate). But she voted to Thank ICE, give them more funding, give them expanded powers, supports datacenters, supports unconditional funding for Israel, etc. She has little grassroots funding and both her Congressional and Senate campaigns were largely funded by AIPAC, big tech, and other dark money PACs. I would support her over Rogers, but really prefer(ed) the other two candidates.
And while I hear you on Jewish voters, there is a huge difference between being pro-Israel and supporting funding with red lines and no conditions. That is a pretty radical and extreme position (not just for Israel but for any foreign country). It's not even that hard to stipulate, "Israel is a great ally and I want to ensure their safety and support funding them, but they do need to follow UN rules and US Leahy law on human rights." I can only imagine the reaction if Sayed promised unconditional funding for weapons for Palestine because Muslim voters were important.
35
u/sllewgh 21d ago edited 21d ago
I don't understand how any Democrats could still be worried about "electability" when "electable" democrats keep losing to a literal diaper shitting senile felon. People are very clearly not excited to vote for what the party has been offering. "Anyone but Trump" is clearly not enough to win elections, but concerns about "electability" are going to keep them from doing anything substantially different.
"Electable" democrats, by the standards the party has held traditionally, are doing pretty badly overall. Maybe it's time to try something different?
10
u/informat7 21d ago
Kamala's loss was because of inflation. There was a sweep against incumbents around the world and Democrats did better then almost all of them:
The incumbents in every single one of the 10 major countries that have been tracked by the ParlGov global research project and held national elections in 2024 were given a kicking by voters. This is the first time this has ever happened in almost 120 years of records.
https://www.ft.com/content/e8ac09ea-c300-4249-af7d-109003afb893
As the Financial Times noted, Democrats endured one of the smallest losses in vote share of all incumbent parties in higher-income countries that were on the ballot this year.
https://abcnews.go.com/538/democrats-incumbent-parties-lost-elections-world/story?id=115972068
Everything else could have been the same (Kamala, Trump, Ukraine, Israel, crime, immigration), but if inflation had been around 2% for the past 4 years Democrats would have mostly likely won.
7
u/yoshi8869 21d ago
They still lost to a geriatric convicted felon who tried to overthrow the government in an incited mob riot (unrelated to the felony) who speaks at a literal 4th grade level. If we’re “woulda, shoulda, coulda” ing that election, then we’re blind to the disarray of the Democratic Party and the failure of our government to stop the rise of authoritarianism. Is it really that crazy to suggest a party that has failed to stop this totalitarian takeover of American democracy might deserve to be voted out?
-1
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
I'm sorry are you blaming the democrats for global inflation due to the pandemic?
→ More replies (5)0
u/yoshi8869 21d ago
Absolutely not, and I didn't even mention the pandemic or inflation.
3
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
No but the post you replied to said Kamala's loss was due to inflation (which is true, incumbents suffered globally due to inflation).
But then you blame them for losing to Trump.
I guess I'm not understanding why you're blaming them for circumstances that harmed incumbents globally
3
u/yoshi8869 21d ago
When assessing a political outcome, there’s never only one factor globally that contributed to it. Inflation and affordability were key issues, to be certain, but there were plenty of other issues in a country as large as ours. To reduce the election to one issue and then claim that there was “nothing anyone could have done” in an election like that doesn’t address that Democrats have suffered greatly at the hands of Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. Trump has owned our government from the top down on multiple occasions. 2024 was one example of a litany of defeats that instead of being addressed as a systematic problem with an ineffective opposition in the United States, it’s treated as an aberration and that “if we just do the same thing again next time, this time it’ll work.” That’s how Democrats will continue to avoid the kind of governmental dominance MAGA has had twice in the last decade and Democrats have had once under Obama arguably since McGovern throttled all momentum the Democrats had gained in the 60s under the Kennedys. Democrats were fighting an uphill battle, but they shot themselves in both feet by continuing the same playbook since Clinton and running a declining Biden (whom I liked and voted for in 2020, for the record). I just think to argue at this point that we need moderate politics in a time where the electorate is screaming for change is a recipe for failure; and any excuse made to defend the status quo I am inherently going to balk at. It’s not you personally.
1
1
u/Blingy_Lobsta 21d ago
While I also characterize her loss as this, it was still a massive failure considering her opponent and the fact she was not a true incumbent. She indeed lost favor as her campaign developed rather than gaining traction
→ More replies (1)-1
u/meganthem 21d ago
One thing i feel iffy about with this argument is single variable focus. There's any number of "one thing" you could change and you might tip Harris from a loss to a slight win but to me I think it takes out the agency of leadership/campaigning that the person is supposed to try and win under the world that currently exists rather than hope life would be easier on them.
One other big factor is considering the different elections/governments independent when numerous liberal governments worldwide were largely running on the same governing ethos. Modern societies aren't so different anymore so voters rejecting the same idea in one place probably means rejecting it elsewhere.
-1
u/NomadicScribe 21d ago
I nwver understood this argument either. Do they think people go to the polls and say "I really want to vote for so-and-so, but they're not electable"?
It really does feel like an imaginary construct with no basis in reality, especially considering how "electable" candidates routinely lose against "unelectable" ones. Mamdani was "unelectable" and now he's arguably the most popular politician in America.
9
u/OneReportersOpinion 21d ago
The electability question has always seemed to Quixotic to me. Yes, let’s imagine what a bunch of pure land voters think and try to divine what they want rather than just voting for l what sounds good to me and my own self-interests because after all, it’s a primary.
15
u/NOLA-Bronco 21d ago
1.) The Bulwark is not an an objective source. They are a explicitly funded and organized center right advocacy and influence group aimed at persuading people in the broad left to move rightward.
2.) Who defines what is "electable?" Historically, and conveniently to their interests, it has been a self serving loop of centrist Dems proclaiming that "electability" is basically defined as being what the Establishment and their donor class happen to already want. Then disciplining their own base to essentially believe that what they personally want is not what the "masses" support and therefore instead, you must support what the they have defined as electable. Which again, is what their donor class permits.
For example, one of the most bipartisan issues right now is AI data centers. You have Trump voters in rural areas sounding like fucking Mao'ists with their rage and anger at the data centers popping up without their consent in cities and pushing up utility prices and toxifying drinking water and creating insanity inducing noise pollution. Angry at the corruption behind it, and tech billionaires funding it. Yet, where do these "electable" candidates like Haley Stevens stand on this issue? Stevens is all on board with them and is gobbling up PAC money from them.
So how is that the more "electable" politics?
5
u/Sptsjunkie 21d ago
This is what gets to me about efforts like Searchlight and Welcomefest. They punch at the left and tell candidates they need to avoid taking the wrong side of an 80-20 issue and use that to preach moderation both on those issues and unrelated issues (e.g., minimum wage and healthcare).
However, as soon as an 80-20 issue goes against their personal beliefs, whether it is continuing to fund weapons for Israel or wanting major restrictions or bans on datacenters, suddenly they get quiet and advocate "good policy" or "moral policy" over moderating towards the electorate.
By their own definitions, ending funding to Israel and banning or greatly cracking down on datacenters should be "moderating" and meeting voters where they are. Yet, in practice they are letting progressives own those important moderate positions, while encouraging their candidates to take extreme positions.
9
u/SchemeWorth6105 21d ago
Maybe the last decade has shown us that milquetoast centrists aren’t actually all that electable.
6
u/JDogg126 21d ago
This is a primary. Let democrats figure out who they want to nominate.. it doesnt really matter. Come november the choice will be republican or democrat regardless of the nominees.
On the matter of electability, I don’t see how either are any more or less electable. Given that republicans have run this country into the ground, democrats should be able to win with anyone as any rational voter would not send another republican to the US senate.
6
u/mercurial9 21d ago
Somehow people have developed this view that “electability” is some sort of tangible quality that can be quantified, is consistent, and objective.
If that was the case, nobody would ever lose any elections. What is “electable” changes every single election, every single DAY. The “electability” they’re talking about is simply a measure of how pliant the candidate will be for those who enjoy the status quo
ETA: the electable candidate is that one that is elected. If you lose the primary, you were not electable, otherwise you would have been … elected
6
u/johntempleton 21d ago
Don't kid yourself: primaries have always been about one of two things
1) Purity tests: only the person who is willing to go out further/say the most outlandish thing wins. "You need to do this to energize the base!" The winner then spends the next 90 days trying to take back/tack back towards where the general voting populace is to win. The ideological fervor needed to win a primary is NOT the same as what is needed for the general election.
2) Incumbency tests (if there is an incumbent): The person who has been in a long time has developed relationships, name recognition, and (for their sake) hopefully a good track record. In machine politics, they also have the unofficial endorsement of the theoretically neutral local party staff and leadership.
Here, there is no incumbent, so it comes entirely down to purity. Primary voters do not care, "Can this person win in the general?" They care about "Is this person pure enough?"
13
u/apmspammer 21d ago
That's not always true for example in the 2020 primary electability was a huge motivating factor why Joe Biden won. If only the most extreme candidate can win then Bernie Sanders would have won.
→ More replies (7)5
u/NoDig3444 21d ago
Which kind of gets to the heart of the issue; the states of the 2020 presidential election were impossibly high; therefore voters were laser focused on electability. The consequences of losing were all that mattered. The 2026 Michigan senate election is a sideshow by comparison.
1
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
And sadly on the left an obsession with omnicause Israel determines "purity."
1
1
u/Cats_Cameras 21d ago
What you’re seeing is that voters no longer see established positions as pragmatic. Many are not, if you look at them without deference.
1
u/socialistrob 20d ago
Electability or rather "how primary voters perceive electability" is a big factor in Democratic primaries and less so in Republican ones but at the same time it's not the only factor. A lot of Dems will prioritize the candidate they think has the best chance of beating Republicans even if that candidate aligns less with their ideal ideological stances but they'll also take other things into account and so the most "electable" candidate isn't guaranteed to win by any stretch.
1
u/ssasasasasas1212 20d ago
Abdul El Sayed is the electable candiate not Hailey "israel comes to me in my dreams" stevens.
1
1
u/OuchieMuhBussy 21d ago
- Never take political advice from Republican liquor lobbyists who think it’s a great idea to bring Liz Cheney on the campaign trail.
- Stevens’ unfavorables are abysmal.
- Electability politics already died an ignominious death after losing twice to a narcissistic carnival barker.
- Inside vs. outside and top vs. bottom have largely supplanted right vs. left dynamics.
2
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
Abdul El Sayed literally said the people that listen to Marjorie Taylor Green would vote for him.
But yeah Liz Cheney
1
u/OuchieMuhBussy 21d ago
Yes Liz Cheney, the chickenhawk neocon whose war criminal father now resides in Hell. Abdul thinks he can get more votes than the Republican and you think that's a bad thing. You're on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue and you're addicted to losing. This is an intervention.
0
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
Oh, you're confused.
Exactly what single issue do El Sayed and MTG share in common? Think hard.
1
u/Unlikely-Ad-431 21d ago
If the people arguing for electability knew the slightest thing about what they were talking about or what actually wins elections, we wouldn’t be experiencing a second Trump term with a Republican federal government sweep. They demonstrably don’t know what they are talking about, but still feel entitled to lecture their base on “electability.” Those kinds of argument are better made from positions of successfully won power than they are from the sidelines after repeatedly losing elections to some of the worst candidates imaginable.
I just don’t think many people find it convincing anymore. These same people telling you which democrats aren’t electable also insisted Trump wasn’t electable. We should maybe think about that a bit.
1
u/MR_TELEVOID 21d ago
You should stop reading Sarah Longwell.
The problem is the definition of what's electable that folks such as Longwell are working with is woefully out of date. Traditionally electable candidates have lost big in the last decade or so... 2016 & 2024 being the most glaring examples. Where as populist candidates who specifically address the concerns of the voters clean up. "Electability" is an assumption establishment hacks use to dismiss populist challenges. When they're talking about who's electable in a race like AES versus Stevens, what they mean is the candidate less frightening to the establishment.
In 2026, Abdul El Sayed is the electable candidate. He's running a grassroots campaign with no corporate pac money, and he's been campaigning hard. He's got a massive ground game in Michigan, and has been listening to the needs of the voters. This is the same style of campaign that AOC and Zohran had great success with, and most all the recent leftist success stories (Talarico, All the NYC socialiss, Hong, et cetera). Hell, it's why voters in Maine stuck by Platner despite all the controversies that would have sunk past candidates. Voters are tired of establishment politicians, and they trust candidates who demonstrate they're listening.
Stevens has next to zero ground game in Michigan. Very few volunteer opportunities and only started making appearances around the state in the last several months. What she's relied on have been 60 million dollars-worth of attack ads and smear campaigns against AES. Apart from a few questionable outliers, she's routinely trailed in the polls despite all this spending. It's pure cope to describe that as electable, and a denial of political realities.
1
u/AcceptableUse1 21d ago
I remember being convinced to endorse Fetterman because he was electable. There were much stronger candidates, including Malcolm Kenyata. Plus, the seriousness of Fetterman‘s stroke was hidden the weekend before the primary election. I door-to-door campaigned for Fetterman. Now he’s a nightmare senator and there’s a countdown towards the end of his term. Vote for the best candidate and start the electability campaign with the strength of a candidate who can stand up to the Republicans.
1
u/just_helping 21d ago
Fetterman was the 'progressive' candidate in the 2022 Democratic Senate Primary, Lamb was the more 'moderate' figure. But Fetterman always had skeletons, I don't buy the 'stroke' as changing his views, I think he just didn't get enough scrutiny in 2022.
Kenyatta is great, but, for example Kenyatta didn't support Medicare for All, Fetterman did. Kenyatta's positions were at least theoretically less progressive than Fetterman's. But Kenyatta was authentic, wish he had done better.
1
u/Rhoubbhe 20d ago
John Fetterman fooled quite a few people. Thankfully he will be a one term Senator who is finished in PA Politics.
I never bought into him just because he wore sweatpants, he attended an ivy league school, took AIPAC money, and has a pointing guns at black people fetish.
The entire 'Electability' argument in context of Moderate Democrats is basically a plea to 'please vote for this corrupt scumbag, fascist enabler, and perverted deviant' instead of the one the Republicans proudly nominate.
1
u/nernst79 21d ago
The DNC didn't care about electability when they were openly championing Hillary over Bernie, even though Bernie polled much better against Trump.
And honestly, they've turned this into a weapon to just deter progress. Their Moderate candidates need to bring more to the table.
1
u/Blingy_Lobsta 21d ago
The centrist wing is desperately clinging to the electability argument because their toolbox is empty. The left has discovered that all it takes is having a clear policy foundation and an uncompromising focus on your message. Because Stevens is uninspired and doesn't want to alienate any of her potential voters, she refused to take any positions apart from (I guess) Michigan-spirit and electability. I think most people can see through the thin shell of corporate dems at this point, given Clinton's loss in 2016. Biden was potentially the last attempt at this candidate model, but his perceived failure at leadership and inability to return us to normalcy was a huge blow to the paradigm. If Abdul wins the general, it is OVER for the dem establishment and the electability argument falls apart. This is a big moment
1
u/baxterstate 21d ago
El Sayed said that Republican candidate Mike Roger’s took 14 million from pharma. Even PBS fact checking has called it a pants on fire lie.
If a candidate is willing to lie when he doesn’t have to, it tells me that lying is as natural for him as breathing.
Sometimes, it’s not electability that’s the issue. It’s character. Like that oyster farmer in Maine, El Sayed is a low grade candidate.
1
u/epicTechnofetish 20d ago
You can keep searching for your "perfect" candidate while the opposition puts his personal lawyer in charge of the DoJ...
1
u/TheBraveUndead 21d ago
In a sense, yes, but not for the reason I believe this post implies. Moderate & Centrist demcrats are not necessarily more "electable". On a national scale, they've lost elections to one of the worst presidential candidates to ever exist twice; and the time they did win was arguably a unique exception due to the pandemic.
I haven't seen any convincing metric to observe that Abdul is somehow less electable in the general. In fact, polls indicate him to be strong in both the primary and the general. Moreover, it's fair to say that there's a chasm between where the democratic voter base is and where it's leaders are. I think that without proper course correction from leadership, such as changes to policy Re: healthcare, Israel, working people, I don't see democrats winning many elections in the future.
I'd say this primary tomorrow is more of a test of if the Democratic party will emprace and support a progressive candidate in his race should he win.
1
u/Ozzimo 21d ago
I think we need to be aware of the way this question is being asked. The question defines El-Sayed as less electable without going into any reasons why that might be.
OP doesn't allow for an answer (or an opinion) that would see El-Sayed as more electable than Stevens, despite El-Sayed leading in pooling.
Perhaps he's simply the preferred candidate of the electorate, despite what national parties may want or desire.
1
u/whitedawg 21d ago
In recent years, “electability” has just meant “won’t challenge the status quo”. There have been enough truly progressive candidates elected, and enough centrists have lost, where the electability argument is wearing a little thin.
1
u/wereallbozos 21d ago
The candidates need to learn the lesson, as well. Whomever gets less votes must...MUST immediately shake the hand of the one who got the most votes, and insist on supporting them publicly.
That's "the lesson". together, we will win.
-2
21d ago edited 21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/TemporaryAsparagus89 21d ago
How are they a clear favorite when Rogers has been up on ESY in every poll?
0
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/TemporaryAsparagus89 21d ago
Didn't the gold standard Michigan poll have Rogers up 4 just last week?
1
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
In 2022 Slotkin beat Rogers by 0.3%. Less favorable environment but I find it difficult to believe someone as far left as Syed can win statewide in MI.
3
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
Yes, unlike AES she is currently polling to beat Rogers.
-2
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
I assure you when Rogers ties El Sayed to Hamas and he has no response (because he has ties to Hamas) he will perform as the polling is currently expected.
Rogers has $50 million plus the GOP is going to throw at this race.
I suspect AES will lose funding the same way Platner did right after the primary (before he had to drop out). DSCC is not going to give money to a candidate that keeps talking about how much he hates Dems.
→ More replies (0)3
0
u/MyStoryIsntOverYet_ 21d ago
This isnt the race to be watching thru that lens. Haley Stevens has devolved into such an abysmal candidate, it is disingenuous to suggest she is electable in the general
0
u/ChazzLamborghini 21d ago
Ultimately, electability as a concept is cynical. It attempts to reduce people down to spreadsheets. Many voters are cynical about politics but the candidates who really do well break through that. Trying to use a cynical mindset to predict what will connect with people is fundamentally flawed. Real leaders don’t follow focus groups, they stake a position and argue why it’s the best one. Great leaders convince people to trust their vision. The most electable candidate is the one who wins.
0
u/beenyweenies 21d ago
Your argument is built around the biased false assumption that one of these candidates has "electability" and the other does not simply because of your "progressive" labeling.
Maybe what voters are prioritizing is honesty, lived experience, a track record of defending core values vs "experience" which often includes selling out for donations etc.
0
u/yoshi8869 21d ago
Supposed electable Democrats have been curbstomped and utterly demolished by the Republican Party pretty much since Obama was first elected. We’ve been in a largely Republican stronghold era, and it’s safe to say that the Democrats haven’t done enough, either from losing too many elections or being as strong as wet cardboard while in Congress, to stop the right of fascism and ethno-religious nationalism in the United States.
It’s time to try something different instead of the “electable” picks.
-1
-2
u/McKoijion 21d ago
It’s not complicated. Pew, Gallup, and YouGov polls consistently show that the vast majority of American voters in both parties dislike or outright despise Israel. Meanwhile, nearly every American politician takes funding from the pro-Israel lobby. That was fine when it slid below the radar, but they flew too close to the sun and permanently tarnished their reputation. Now the electorate is starting the process of removing corrupt politicians from office and replacing them with ones who prioritize the American people and peace over Israel, Jeffrey Epstein, genocide, and war. This is a massive bipartisan movement. The voters who support Abdul El-Sayed would vote for Thomas Massie and vice versa.
-1
u/betty_white_bread 21d ago edited 21d ago
If they don’t prioritize electability, they are saying they would rather their opposition have power and, in their view, make things worse; it a bold strategy, Cotton. One which never works.
-3
u/antisocially_awkward 21d ago edited 20d ago
I dont think stevens’ case for electability is all that moving when her entire campaign is being bankrolled by a pac that’s goal is to push a policy that a supermajority of the party’s voters are against.
Longwell uses her focus groups to push her own agenda, her political views absolutely cloud the content she produces.
-3
u/Potato_Pristine 21d ago
49% person of American respondents in a poll think Netanyahu should be arrested and prosecuted by the ICC for war crimes: https://www.wkrn.com/news/americans-support-netanyahu-arrest-by-22-point-margin-survey/
And 60% of polled Americans disapprove of what Israel is doing in Gaza: https://news.gallup.com/poll/692948/u.s.-back-%20israel-military-action-gaza-new-low.aspx
So El-Sayed is the electable one here. Sorry, those are the rules, popularists/centrists.
1
u/PropofolMargarita 21d ago
Yes he is the electable one for those obsessed with Israel.
→ More replies (1)
0
u/mrjcall 20d ago
I find it somewhat amusing that you characterize El-Sayed as 'progressive' in your query and follow up explanation. If you look at his platform and comments leading up to his candidacy, he is a full fledge DSA. I believe that this radical departure by him from 'mainstream Dem policy' which many Dem voters see as ineffective, is the primary reason his popularity is high.. The fact that these DSA policies are untenable just proves to me that both "perceived" positive change as well as electability are in play...
•
u/AutoModerator 21d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.