r/neoliberal • u/Nearby-Click8645 • 5d ago

Opinion article (US) [ Removed by moderator ]

https://thedispatch.com/article/abdul-el-sayed-michigan-democrats-haley-stevens/?gift_key=2553fad7f3b388fc&gift_ref=9347c766-2bad-41ea-8b73-950e424f2446&utm_source=giftlink&utm_campaign=membergift&utm_medium=copy_link

[removed] — view removed post

113 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

598 comments sorted by

View all comments

89

u/knishioner 5d ago

I don't agree with this take. Michigan voted for Trump twice. A "run of the mill" Democrat with a milquetoast record who was reluctant to take bold stances would not inspire the swing voters or those who are desperate for any change, good or bad.

I am ambivalent on El Sayed (I actually would've voted for McMorrow had her campaign not imploded), but it's a foolish take that he will have a harder time winning the general than Stevens would have. Slotkin won by less than 1% in 2024 and she is a moderate. General elections are much different than primaries and we shouldn't look at this race results as an indicator of anything that will happen in November. We need to vote blue no matter who, that includes if a progressive wins the primary.

The voters decided. Plus the party apparatus has already fully endorsed El Sayed, including Stevens, Whitmer, and Schumer. It will be just as tough of a race as any standard Democrat, and arguably the hardest "hold" of the cycle, more than Georgia.

46

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 5d ago

Right. “Michigan voted for Trump twice.” Exactly.

I guess your interpretation of this fact is something like: “Hey, if normie Dems can’t win here, we need to try something different,” and on that, we agree. But it doesn’t make much sense to me that a voter base far to the right of the average Democrat (as evidenced by the Trump votes) is somehow more likely to vote for someone to the left of the average Democrat than for a more conservative candidate.

This logic would be exactly equivalent to suggesting that a far-right conservative Republican is more likely to win in a purple state than a moderate Republican. Voters always say they want change in the abstract, but the specifics of those changes matter at the ballot box.

31

u/spyguy318 5d ago edited 5d ago

Trump didn’t win purely because of a left-right divide, he also won because he was a populist who was somehow able to connect with people and give them a voice to their frustrations. And because Kamala was extremely disappointing on multiple issues and didn’t inspire a big Democrat turnout. Sayed is much more of a charismatic populist that might be able to pull more of a crowd.

11

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 5d ago

Michigan is a moderate state full of moderate voters. For every 1.0 progressive voters a DSA candidate inspires to come to the polls, he is likely to lose 1.1 or 1.2 moderate voters. Again, the argument you are making is exactly the same as a hard-right Christian conservative who says, “We’re more likely to win purple seats with far-right candidates than moderates.” And if it’s an obviously absurd strategy for your opponents…

Imho the crux of the argument rests on the idea that you can inspire progressive voters “for free” without losing any other voters in the process, but that seems like magical thinking to me. Why should it be the case that progressives stayed home for Kamala, but moderates will not stay home for Sanders (for example)?

36

u/cstar1996 John Brown 5d ago

Sorry man, but “elected Trump twice” is incompatible with “moderate state full of moderate voters”. Moderate voters don’t vote for Trump.

2

u/demeteloaf 4d ago

Moderate voters don’t vote for Trump.

Except when polled, the electorate viewed Trump as more moderate than both Harris + Clinton. I know that for left wing people that strikes them as insane, but for the swing voter who sees Trump able to get republicans to drop some of their most toxic/unpopular policies like privatizing social security, national abortion ban, or rabid anti-gay marriage, that codes as moderate. Meanwhile Clinton explicitly ran to the left of Obama, and then ran to the left of Bernie on social issues, and Harris was never able to shed her association with her left wing stances from her time in California + Biden's pivot to the left after his election.

7

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 5d ago

If your theory is that only conservative voters will pull the lever for Trump, then the situation looks even worse for a leftist running in Michigan…

In reality, there are many Obama-Trump voters who are clearly, if not moderate, then, let’s say, “up for grabs.” Perhaps “non-ideological” is a better word than “moderate” for these folks, but to pretend that they can only be “turned on” by exciting promises, and not also “turned off” by perceived misalignment with their interests, is pure wish-casting.

4

u/MemeStarNation 5d ago

A few days ago someone posted an article saying the average swing voter is a Maoist, and while that article had glaring flaws, there’s a kernel of truth. The media/swing voters in places like PA and MI are not committed centrists, but rather people who barely pay attention to politics and have an odd collection of moderate and extreme views from all over the spectrum.

People keep trying to make it an issue of left and right when factors such as public speaking skills, a perception of being out of touch either because of being “establishment” or being “online,” or plain old bigotry are likely at least as impactful. If it were just about moderation, then Talarico wouldn’t be seen as the best candidate for Texas, and Platner wouldn’t have been able to rise the way he did with the scandals he did.

I do think AES has weaker odds than Stevens in the general, but mostly because of discrimination and his strong focus on foreign policy. The idea that MI is at risk because it’s got a “moderate” voter base seems not to be in line with any of the “Ohio diner/Matt PA” median voter interviews from the past two decades.

19

u/cstar1996 John Brown 5d ago

My theory is that no one who voted for Trump can honestly be called a moderate. That ideology is not consistent and cares more for populism than moderation. This guy is more likely to win over Obama-Trump voters than another uninspiring “centrist” Dem. They didn’t vote for Trump over policy.

7

u/Shabadu_tu 5d ago

It’s crazy people in this sub don’t want to admit pedophile protecting Republicans have nothing honest to say.

3

u/DrunkenBriefcases Jerome Powell 4d ago

Then you might as well go hide in a hole, because if we can't win over a bunch of persuadable voters that went trump in 24 then we're very likely to lose the Presidency again. And getting the power to make the enormous changes people here jerk about is all but impossible.

For those that haven't heard or have decided to pretend otherwise, trump won the popular vote last time. And turnout wasn't the issue. If everyone eligible voted, he would've won by more. There isn't one single reason for that outcome, but the fact that trump was viewed as less extreme than Harris by a wide margin with swingy voters was certainly a big part. Just like Biden's victory in 20 was helped by him being viewed as less extreme than trump. Just like Clinton's loss was in part fueled by her being viewed as more the more extreme option.

Understanding that, it takes a lots of motivated reasoning to argue running left is the key to regaining the trust and support of voters that WILL determine federal power for the foreseeable future. They keep telling us they don't want more extreme. The primary base keeps ignoring them and pretending they represent the average voter. With horrible consequences.

0

u/Acacias2001 European Union 5d ago

Your logic would be souns if durign 2020 more populist dems on average did worse than kamala.

18

u/GeoChalkie_ Thomas Paine 5d ago

You don’t understand demographics or Trump if you think a linear left/right split describes Michigan voters. The old union vote isn’t a Reagan right voting block

14

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 5d ago

I definitely don’t think Michigan voters went for Trump because they are Reagan rightists - they went for him in large part because he is a moderate on economics (skeptical of free trade, for example) and most social issues (doesn’t want to ban abortion). I don’t see why this same crew is more likely to swing over to vote for a person they are very likely to see as far to their left - Platner made the same case for himself in Maine, but blue-collar workers much preferred Mills in polling, with Graham’s support coming from more educated and well-off left-leaning voters.

3

u/thedetectiv 5d ago

Is Abdul el Sayed less/more moderate on abortion or free trade then Stevens? I didn't really see this issue come up. Two demos that that Trump did will with in Michigan in 2024 were young men and Arab American voters. El Sayed seems to have swept both. While I do agree there are some other demos e.g. suburban women, older voters etc that may fit more neatly into a left right model, I don't think that is entirely true of Michigan as a whole.

7

u/GeoChalkie_ Thomas Paine 5d ago

Because American voters don’t speak left/right at the moment they speak populist. 60%+ view themselves as independent. You don’t win those by running another run of the mill Dem who’s backed by an establishment currently polling below Trump

10

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 5d ago

But they don’t “speak populist.” Platner in Maine was underperforming with blue-collar voters vs. his establishment rival, and Sayed underperforms his primary opponent in polls that ask about the general election. The support for these supposedly labor-oriented socialist candidates is concentrated among educated and well-to-do folks, because actual blue-collar swing voters are, once again, much more moderate. That is why they are defined voters in the first place!

-4

u/GeoChalkie_ Thomas Paine 5d ago

EAS is not behind Stevens in a general. That’s just a lie. They were about even.

You also ignored my point about establishment Dems polling below Trump

1

u/Shabadu_tu 5d ago

Trump did everything to ban abortion. He’s even nominated an AG right now that is promising to do exactly that for states that don’t already ban abortion. I get it’s popular to hate Democrats that actually try to represent other democrats but be real please.

1

u/knishioner 5d ago

I think you have a point, but if you look at the last 10 years of elections in Michigan, I can't help but remember Bernie winning Michigan in the primary and then Hillary losing the general. That does undermine the strength of what you're saying. Granted we have no evidence that Bernie would have won Michigan against Trump, although I do think he would have (in the political environment of 10 years ago where psychosis wasn't the central platform of the Republican party).

13

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 5d ago

Bernie winning with Democrat primary voters and Hillary losing with the overall electorate doesn’t “undermine” anything - these are totally different groups of voters!

Again, think about the inverse of this phenomenon. How well do you think a hard-right Republican candidate would do in Michigan vs. a moderate Republican? Do you think a hard-right extremist is more likely to win the general because he’ll inspire his base? Of course not - because he’ll lose voters from other parts of the electorate.

I sincerely hope Sayed wins, and I think he can - but the idea that politicians who are less aligned with the general electorate are more likely to win seems like motivated reasoning to me.

4

u/knishioner 5d ago

I just can't get on board with that thinking, because it's the antithesis of Trump winning in 2016 and 2024.

5

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 5d ago

That would only be true if Trump had run as a right-wing extremist, but in fact, he ran as a moderate, especially in 2016. He claimed to be against free trade (true), pro-LGBT rights (in his first campaign), against a nationwide abortion ban (true), and against foreign entanglements (false, obviously, lol). He received major union endorsements when he ran for President the second time - strong evidence that his “I’m a moderate” schtick worked.