Democratic Voters Don't Want Moderates or Leftists - They Want FIGHTERS!

Yesterday, I posted about how the establishment and media don't understand this year's voters - who are not choosing between leftists or moderates. They are instead looking for fighters. Today, Robert Reich comments on that:

With the victory of progressive Abdul El-Sayed over Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan’s Democratic primary yesterday, prepare yourself to hear enormous quantities of bullsh*t about the Democratic Party now being “taken over” by “Democratic Socialists.” 

Or as the reliably establishment New York Times described what’s at stake, “can an insurgent candidate, with unabashedly left-wing positions, win in a moderate state?”

Oh, p-l-e-a-s-e. 

Michigan Democrats didn’t choose El-Sayed because he’s “unabashedly left wing” or a Democratic Socialist (in fact, he’s not).

They chose him because he’s a fighter — at a time when America needs fighters willing to stand up to the worst tyrant who has ever occupied the Oval Office.

 

Corporate Democrats — such as Haley Stevens, along with Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries — aren’t up to the task because they won’t bite the corporate hands that feed them campaign money. They won’t criticize the billionaire class. They refuse to see how big money has corrupted America.

Yet it’s big corporations and the billionaire class that are supporting Trump’s neo-fascism. They’ve sucked up to Trump for corporate welfare, giant tax cuts, tariff exemptions, antitrust acquiescence, and war contracts. They’ve given Trump hundreds of millions for his inauguration, his ballroom, his 250th birthday, his superPAC. 

Jamie Dimon and Wall Street; Elon Musk and his billionaire bro’s; Brad Carp and his corporate lawyers; Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and the Ellisons — all have sold their integrity for huge profits. They’ve created media empires that won’t criticize Trump, financial empires that feed Trump’s crypto, energy empires that feed off Trump’s war, and legal empires that allow Trump to ride roughshod over the rule of law. 

Which is why America desperately needs people in Congress who will fight against Trump and his sycophants. 

The Democratic Party isn’t being taken over by Democratic Socialists. There’s no civil war between progressives and moderates. This isn’t about Israel or Netanyahu. We aren’t witnessing an ideological battle between the “left” and the “center.”

We’re seeing America wake up to the tyranny that’s engulfed us, and to a crisis of affordability that’s causing most Americans to struggle financially while fueling the biggest stock market rally in history. 

When corporate America and Wall Street are unleashed — when the president of the United States has made an implicit deal with the moneyed interests to back him and his authoritarian regime in exchange for tax cuts, deregulation, monopolization, and pay-to-play corruption — of course prices soar and wages stagnate. 

Tyranny is the handmaiden of the moneyed interests.

 

The Democratic Party’s mega-donor class may be horrified by the rising tide of progressive populism overtaking more than a few primaries this cycle. It spent tens of million of dollars on Stevens — making the Michigan primary one of the most expensive in American history. 

Too bad. It’s time that the Democratic Party’s mega-donor class recognizes that its real choice is between democracy and tyranny, between an economy that works for all or one that works for a small sliver at the top. If the mega-donor class chooses the latter, it may be acting in its narrow self-interest, but it will also be acting against the future of this nation.

"Establishment" Dems Don't Seem To Understand The Mood Of Voters This Year

The Democrats in Michigan have made their choice in the race for the United States Senate. They have chosen Abdul El-Sayed in a close vote over Haley Stevens.

That was not the outcome that "establishment" Democrats had wanted. They were afraid that the voting public, especially Independents, would view El-Sayed as too left-wing and opt for his Republican opponent. In fact, they pumped tens of millions of dollars into the Stevens campaign to defeat El-Sayed - so much money that El-Sayed was outspent by about an eleven to one ratio.

My personal view is that the DNC and other establishment Democratic groups should not have done that. They should not have sided with one Democrat over another in a primary. The Democrats in Michigan (and in other states) are not idiots - and they are not children who must be told by party leaders how to vote. 

But even more important, the interference in a state primary race tells me the establishment Democratic groups don't really understand where the voting public stands in this election year. Michigan Democrats did not choose El-Sayed because he was a leftist. In fact, he and Stevens are probably very close on most issues facing the country. They chose him because they viewed him as a fighter - someone who would fight hard for ordinary Americans, and not give in to Trump or his corporate buddies when crunch time arrived.

And sadly, that is not how the party's elected officials are currently viewed. They are viewed by the public as being weak and ineffectual - unable or unwilling to fight hard against Trump, the GOP, or the billionaire oligarchs. Note the chart below:

Note that most Democrats don't think their current congressional leaders fight hard enough - and pluralities of Independent, registered voters, and adults agree with them.

The voters are not really worrying about left and right in this election. They want leaders who will fight hard to make life more affordable for ordinary Americans, and will fight hard to protect the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans. This is true of both Democrats and Independents. They don't want someone who will return things to "normal". Normal was already bad - even before Trump made it worse. They want real fighters who will make things better.

Instead of worrying about how left-wing El-Sayed (and others) are, the establishment Democrats should be thankful for them. They are infusing a fighting spirit into the party - one that is badly needed! They need to stop trying to make the party more "centrist", and join the voters in fighting for a more equal economy and a government that protects the rights of everyone.

Democratic and Independent voters are looking for centrists or moderates. They are looking for FIGHTERS!

There Are No "Moderate" Republicans In The House

The following is by Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post: 

Listen to the mainstream media’s coverage of House Republicans, and you might think there is a mass of “normal” Republicans who do not buy into election denial, who are not apologists for former president Donald Trump, and who understand that the party’s crazy talk and election conspiracy theories contributed to its historic underperformance in the 2022 midterms.

The mystery: Where are these people hiding?

Prime suspects would be the 18 Republicans from districts that Joe Biden won in 2020, such as Reps. David Schweikert (Ariz.), Don Bacon (Neb.) and Thomas H. Kean (N.J.). Yet every single one of them voted 15 times to make Kevin McCarthy, an election denier, the speaker of the House.

Every single one of them also voted for the rules package that the House passed this week, which sets up a standoff over the debt limit, creates a committee to “investigate” ongoing criminal cases and hobbles the Office of Congressional Ethics. Nor did they didn’t bat an eye over reports that McCarthy (Calif.) promised to give more seats on the Rules Committee to MAGA radicals. Pretty immoderate behavior.

Occasionally, members such as Rep. Nancy Mace (S.C.) declare that it would be difficult to work with extreme members such as Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.), whom she called a “fraud” on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday. She also questioned concessions McCarthy made to the party’s hard-liners to become speaker, such as his promise to cap spending at 2022 levels, which would amount to a $75 billion cut in defense spending. She even considered withholding her vote for the House rules package over the issue. Yet, in the end, she voted for the package all the same.

Then came the vote on Monday to repeal the $80 billion boost in funding for the Internal Revenue Service that Congress passed last year. Getting rid of this money would empower tax cheats and add some $115 billion to the deficit over the next decade. Yet every Republican voted for it. Again, there was no difference between how faux moderates and the worst of the election-denying extremists voted.

It should be clear now that these “normal” Republicans have deceived voters. Kean, for example, ran in the mold of his famous father, the moderate former New Jersey governor. And Bacon told The Post last month that moderates in the party “have to flex our muscles a little bit more and say, ‘We’re going to govern America.’” He added: "There’s a small number that want their way or the highway. Well, that’s how we fail. We can’t let 2 percent or 3 percent drive the whole Congress.”

But these two enable the extremists. All the time.

Likewise, a slew of Republicans are members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, but they seem to be part of the problem. Consider Rep. Young Kim (Calif.), who in her profile on the caucus’s website declares, “I came to Congress to break through the partisan gridlock and get things done.” Given that she refused to impeach Trump, backed McCarthy and regularly votes with the extreme right, that statement is about as credible as Rep. George Santos’s résumé.

Rarely if ever do the media grill these (im)moderate members on their enabling of the far right. Frankly, reporters do a disservice to the voters by characterizing them as somehow more sensible than the Freedom Caucus crazies. With the House as closely divided as it is, it would take only a few of them to defeat radical measures. Yet time and again, they cave.

Ultimately, this is the voters’ fault. They should have known when they casted ballots to reelect “moderate” incumbents that their voting records don’t match their rhetoric. Yet they sent them to Congress anyway — and often complain that Congress doesn’t get anything done. When 2024 rolls around, they should kick out members who voted to empower Freedom Caucus extremism. That would constitute real problem-solving.

The Progressive Case For Linking The Infrastructure Bills

House moderates and progressives in the Democratic Party are still squabbling over the infrastructure bills. The moderates want to go ahead and vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and vote later on the "soft" infrastructure bill. The progressives want the "soft" (Build Back Better) bill voted on first, and then the bipartisan plan voted on. They don't think the moderates will vote for the bigger, family-centric, bill once they get the bipartisan bill passed -- and they may be right about that. They are threatening to vote against the bipartisan bill if it is voted on first.

In the following op-ed (by Rep. Porter, Rep. Omar, and Rep. Jayapal), progressives make their case:

When President Joe Biden announced in the spring his plans for "once-in-a-generation investments in our nation's future," he said that "it is not enough to restore where we were prior to the pandemic. We need to build a stronger economy that does not leave anyone behind -- we need to build back better."

That is our shared vision -- the vision the American people voted for -- and it is what we as Congressional leaders must deliver with urgency.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced her intention that the House vote this week on a transformative economic package and a major investment in infrastructure. Congress now faces a choice: advance the entirety of an agenda that gets American families the help they need, or deliver only a fraction of it. That's why we, as leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, remain committed to voting for the infrastructure bill only after the Build Back Better Act is passed.

We lead one of the largest ideological caucuses in the US House of Representatives, and our membersrepresent a cross-section of America. From rural districts to urban, from some of the most competitive districts in the country to Democratic strongholds, our caucus is emblematic of the diversity of our party and our country.

Yet, we hear remarkable consistency in our communities' concerns.

Parents can't get back to work because they can't find affordable child care. Young people are infuriated that their country's leaders are not taking aggressive enough steps to leave them a livable planet. Families are struggling to stay healthy in dangerous, crumbling public housing. Immigrant communities are tired of living under the threat of deportation -- especially as so many are essential workers who kept our country's economy going through the pandemic at risk to their own safety. And people cannot afford the prescription drugs they need, forced to rationmedication to stay alive.

In short: Americans need the Build Back Better agenda.

This agenda was divided into two concurrent bills -- the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Build Back Better Act. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will allow for long overdue updates to our country's roads, bridges and waterways. But it's the Build Back Better Act that will deliver the child care, climate action, affordable housing, immigration reform and lower drug prices that Americans need, deserve and voted for.

The Build Back Better Act provides child care to women who have been pushed out of the workforce. It funds free community college and affordable housing. It finally expands Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing benefits for our seniors. And it takes meaningful action on climate change -- funding millions of green jobs to build our energy future.

Not only is this good policy, but it's also overwhelmingly popular. Voters support the Build Back Better package's provisions by a 30-point margin, according to an August Quinnipiac University poll. Funding for home-based care for seniors has 75% support across the political spectrum, a July AP/NORC survey shows, with universal pre-K and affordable housing funds both seeing 67% support. More than half of voters are in favor of the child tax credit (55%) and free community college (54%). And about 2 in 3 Americans support paying for these investments by taxing corporations and the ultra-wealthy.

From the beginning of this process, the Progressive Caucus has been clear that the infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better Act are two parts of a whole, so they must be passed together. Our call has been echoed by the President, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate Majority Leader. As Speaker Pelosi said in June, "there won't be an infrastructure bill, unless we have a reconciliation bill. Plain and simple."

Passing the Build Back Better Act will require standing up to powerful special interests. The investments it makes in improving our economy are paid for by getting billionaires and big corporations to pay their fair share of taxes; insisting to Big Pharma that we negotiate drug prices; and taking on the fossil fuel lobby to address the climate crisis.

That's why corporate lobbyists, Big Pharma, and Wall Street executives have declared all-out war to stop the bill. Rather than understanding that these are investments in our economy -- which should be its mission -- the US Chamber of Commerce has been one of the leaders in lobbyingagainst the bill with reported six-figure ad campaigns trying to block worker protections and climate action. The pharmaceutical industry, which already spent $92 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2021 alone, launched a multimillion-dollar ad campaign to torpedo President Biden's effort to rein in drug costs. Another corporate lobbyist decried provisions to catch tax cheats as "existential threat(s)."

If we allow corporate lobbyists to dictate our legislative agenda, the economic recovery will grind to a halt.

Let us be clear: our caucus supports the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We see the harms that crumbling roads, structurally deficient bridges, and lead-poisoned water have on our communities. Updating our infrastructure is a necessary component to delivering a strong, stable economy that creates opportunity for all.

But equally necessary are the child care, elder care, health care, housing, education and climate actions currently included in the Build Back Better Act. Without both the infrastructure bill and the budget bill, our economic recovery will be slow, unstable, and weak. Millions of Americans will be left out or fall further behind.

A few conservative Democrats have suggested we should "pause" this urgently needed legislation by moving forward without the Build Back Better Act and providing less help to families. But we will not leave behind child care, paid leave, health care, housing, education, climate action, and a long-overdue road map to citizenship.

We must deliver for American families. Our Progressive Caucus members will put our votes on the line to send the entirety of the Build Back Better agenda to President Biden's desk. As he said when he laid out this plan: "We can do this. We have to do this. We will do this."

These were the priorities Democrats ran on in 2020. These were the values that allowed us to take the House, the Senate, and the White House. And by getting both the Build Back Better Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed into law, we will meet the needs of the American people.

Moderates Need To Say What They WOULD Support!

 

Democratic moderates support the bipartisan infrastructure plan. But they have registered disappointment with Biden's soft infrastructure plan (the Build Back Better Plan). They say it is too expensive at a cost of $3.5 trillion over 10 years. 

When President Biden brought them to the White House, Senator Manchin of West Virginia said what many of the others were thinking -- that he would not vote for a $3.5 trillion plan. President Biden then asked him what number he would support. Manchin did not answer.

President Biden was right, but he did not go far enough. Manchin does need to tell him (and us) how big a plan he would support. But he needs to go farther. He needs to tell everyone what he would cut out of the Build Back Better Plan.

The $3.5 trillion was not a number picked out of the blue. It is the amount to adequately fund what is needed to be done. It makes no sense to pass all elements of Biden's plan, but with less funding. Failing to fully fund each element means they will not accomplish what needs to be done. And failing to accomplish goals is not passing a good plan.

Since a plan should not be passed without being fully funded, the moderates need to tell us what elements of the plan they wish to exclude. Do they want to do away with the child tax credit, funding for day care to let women get back to work, improving Medicare and Medicaid, pre-kindergarden for all children, free tuition at community college, or what?

I think all those programs are needed and should be fully funded so they will work. If the moderates don't believe that, it's time the told us what plans they don't think Americans need. Failure to do that is just more whining about numbers and means nothing.

Public Sees Biden As More Moderate Than Obama

 

From NBC News:

Americans perceive Joe Biden as more moderate than Barack Obama at the same stage of his presidency, a new survey shows, even as progressive activists say the incumbent is governing to the left of the former president.

The perception of Biden as a moderate may be helping him win support from congressional Democrats in competitive parts of the country who might otherwise feel pressure to oppose his agenda.

In April 2009, the NBC poll found that 59 percent of registered voters saw Obama as "very" or "somewhat" liberal, while 30 percent saw him as moderate. A new NBC poll released Sunday finds that 44 percent see Biden as "very" or "somewhat" liberal, while 42 percent see him as "moderate."

This surprises me. While President Obama was a moderate in an attempt to get some Republican support, President Biden has asked for that support but refused to moderate his agenda to get it. The programs announced by President Biden are the most progressive of any president since Lyndon Johnson.

But I don't mind the public viewing him as a moderate. It just means the Republicans have failed in their effort to demonize him, and it will make it easier to get his programs through Congress and accepted by the public.

Number Of People Identifying As Conservative Is Dropping

The chart above reflects the results of the Gallup Poll. The poll asked 3,079 adults in May and June what they considered themselves to be politically, and their survey had a 2 point margin of error. They then compared the answers to those they got back in January and February.

At the beginning of this year, about 40% of the public said they were conservative. Currently, only 34% claim to be conservative. That's a drop of six points in the last six months. Those are people who no longer want to identify with Trump and the Republican officials (all of whom claim the conservative label).

Every demographic group showed a decline in people identifying as conservative -- including Republicans.

This is not good for the GOP only 100 days until the next election.

NOTE -- Moderates have gained in numbers over the same period -- from 34% to 36%. They now are a larger group than conservatives. Liberals also grew in numbers -- from 22% to 26%.

All Of Our Candidates Support Progressive Values

I get exasperated listening to cable news these days. I understand they must fill 24 hours of programming, but I think they sometimes try to make news instead of just reporting it. A good example of this is their reporting of a "war" between factions in the Democratic Party. They would have you believe it's "moderates" vs. "progressives".

If you buy that, then you might be inclined to stay home on election day if your particular faction loses the nomination. That's what happened in 2016, and it resulted in the disastrous election of Donald Trump.

I think Democrats are smarter than that this year. I hear from the supporters of all candidates (including Sanders supporters) that they will vote blue this year -- no matter which Democrat wins the nomination. They know that any of the candidates would make a much better president than Trump, and that the country needs to be saved from Trump.

But I submit it goes further. All of the candidates are really progressives. Some might be more progressive than others, but all of them would be a progressive president that would propose/sign bills to make this a better country for all citizens -- if they are given a Democratic Congress to work with.

Don't buy that? Then consider the following:

* All of the candidates would sign a bill covering all Americans with decent health insurance. They might bicker over how to do it, but they would all cover everyone.

* All of the candidates would sign a bill allowing the government to negotiate the price of drugs with pharmaceutical companies (which is currently illegal).

* All of the candidates would sign a bill raising the minimum wage to $15 and hour.

* All of the candidates would sign a bill to fix the funding problems of Social Security -- without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.

* All of the candidates would sign a bill raising taxes on the rich and corporations.

* All of the candidates would sign a bill strengthening labor unions and making it easier for them to organize workers.

* All of the candidates would sign a bill to remove the corporate tax breaks for sending good American jobs to other countries.

* All of the candidates would sign a bill to protect the voting rights of all citizens.

Those are all progressive values. And regardless of who we nominate to beat Trump, our next president will be one of the most progressive presidents in many years.

Vote for your favorite in the primaries. But in November, we must all stand together and elect a (progressive) Democrat as our president.

"The Question All Democrats Must Ask Themselves"

(This caricature of the Democratic donkey is by DonkeyHotey.)

Sometimes it seems that the news media is trying to divide the Democratic Party. They seem determined to make the nomination race of the party a fight between progressives and moderates. I think that's nonsense.

While the candidates don't all agree on every issue, the truth is that all of the candidates support many progressive values. No matter who is nominated, the next president will sign bills that help the working and middle classes over the rich (who are the only people Republicans help).

I urge all Democrats and Independents to vote for the candidate of their choice. But once you do that, ask yourself a question. What is most important -- your ideology or getting Donald Trump out of the White House? Smart voters will choose the latter.

Consider this op-ed by David Leonhardt in The New York Times -- a part of which I post below:

Moderates worry that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren aren’t just wrong on big issues, but too left wing to get elected. Progressives worry that Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bloomberg are uninspiring centrists who resemble recent presidential losers and wouldn’t solve America’s problems even if they won.

My message to panicking Democrats is: Take a deep breath, and don’t make your job harder. Neither side of the party can ensure that its preferred candidate will win the nomination. But both can help avoid the outcome they fear most — Trump’s re-election.

The current moment, when everybody is wearing a veil of ignorance about the nomination, is a good time for Democrats to ask themselves a question: If the primaries don’t turn out as you hope, will you still do everything in your power to deny Trump a second term?

Or will you instead exaggerate your differences with the nominee — say, complain about Sanders or Warren as a Trump-style radical; or buy into the caricature of Buttigieg as a corporate tool; or retweet, with outrage added, the least enlightened things Biden or Bloomberg has ever said?

Yes, the candidates have their differences. But they have much bigger similarities. If elected, every single Democratic presidential candidate would act to slow climate change, raise taxes on the rich, reduce gun deaths, expand voting rights, lower health care and education costs, protect abortion access, enforce civil-rights laws, appoint progressive judges, rebuild overseas alliances and stop treating the Justice Department as a personal enforcer. The moderates are running to the left of Barack Obama, and the progressives would be constrained by Congress.

The alternative, of course, is truly radical. Many Democrats know all this, yet they still get so caught up in the passions of the primary campaign that they risk helping Trump.

Whether progressives and moderates can find common ground is likely to be a defining political question not just of 2020 but of this decade. As E.J. Dionne asks in the first sentence of “Code Red,” his new book, “Will progressives and moderates feud while America burns?”

The Field Is Set For The Second Democratic Debates

It looks like the first night is shaping up to be a battle between the leading progressives (Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders), while the second night will be a battle between the leading moderates (Joe Biden and Kamala Harris).

Democrats Favor Moderation While GOP Wants Extremism

The charts above are from a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. It was done between January 9th and 14th of 1,505 adults. The sample included 736 Democrats and 657 Republicans. The margin of error was 4.3 points for Democrats and 4.5 points for Republicans.

It shows that, by a gap of 13 points, a majority of Democrats want their party to be more moderate. The opposite is true of Republicans. While they are already on the extreme right, by a 20 point margin, a majority of Republicans want their party to move even further to the right.

While I am a progressive (liberal), I like the results of this survey. That's because I am also a pragmatist. I want to win in 2020, and neither party will do that by being viewed as an extremist party. While both parties would like to believe that they have enough members to win an election, it is just not true. The election will be decided by who the Independents support, and most of them are moderates.

This does not mean Democrats must give up hope of passing a progressive agenda. I think those moderates would support a lot of progressive ideas. They just don't want "radical change". That idea scares them.

Most of the Democrats running for president would happily support and sign laws that would raise the minimum wage, fix our healthcare system, help students afford college (or trade schools), strengthen labor unions, protect Social Security and Medicare (and fix their future funding problem), fight global climate change and protect the environment, and increase taxes on the rich and corporations.

And the public would also support them, as long as the ideas are explained to them as helping ordinary Americans. Preaching radical change would be a mistake. We do need a lot of changes, but we can only get them by winning the next election -- and we do that by convincing the moderates that we are not the party of extremism. The Republicans are the extremists. Democrats are just the party with rational solutions to the country's problems.

Moderation is not a dirty word. In the United States, it's the path to success.

The Ideological Make-Up Of The American Public

The charts above reflect information in a recent Gallup Poll. Gallup questioned 13,852 adults during 2018 to find out their ideological stance. The poll has a margin of error of only 1 point.

It shows the percentage who consider themselves to be conservative (35%), moderate (35%), or liberal (26%). Note that neither the conservatives nor the liberals have enough to win an election. Both would need the support of moderates.

The Republicans have hurt themselves among moderates by becoming too extreme -- and that was clearly shown in the last election (when voters gave Democrats a 9 point advantage over Republicans in votes on House races).

Some Democrats want their party to move far to the left. That would be a mistake. You  don't appeal to the moderate voters by becoming extremist. If Democrats want to win in 2020, they must appeal to moderate voters. This does not mean a progressive candidate cannot win, but it must be one that appeals to a majority of moderates -- a candidate that moderates view as being mainstream.

Democrats Must Not Misread The Current Political Mood

It is still looking like a blue wave is building for the 2018 elections. Polls show that Democrats currently enjoy between a 6 and 8 point advantage in generic ballot polling. That is about where they need to be to flip at least one of the houses of Congress. And polls show that Democrats are currently more enthused to vote this year than Republicans. We can only hope that enthusiasm lasts until November, and actually translates into votes.

But Democrats need to be careful. There are some progressives that want the Democratic Party to make a significant move to the left. They are interpreting the current situation as a public move to the left. As a progressive myself, I wish that was true. It would be my dream to see the country move to the left and embrace all the progressive ideas. The problem is that it's just not true -- at least not right now.

The political mood of the country is leaning toward Democrats. But a large part of that mood is because of unhappiness with Donald Trump and the Republican Congress. The see the government as moving too far too the right. But it is not a desire of the public to move to the left. It is that most people want to return to the political center. They want an end to the extreme partisanship, and they want candidates who can compromise to solve problems rather than cling to an ideology of either the right or the left. This is also exhibited in current polls (see charts below).

The truth is that while most Americans would like to see the Democrats control Congress after the 2018 elections, they are not really happy with either party. The NBC/WSJ poll shows that the public thinks both Republicans and Democrats are out of step with mainstream thought -- Democrats by 23 points, and Republicans by 24 points.

The YouGov poll shows something similar -- that 40% of voters think Democrats are too liberal and an almost equal 38% think Republicans are too conservative. They don't want extremism from either party, whether it is on the left or on the right. The Republicans have ignored that, and it is costing them dearly. Democrats should not make the same mistake. Moving far to the left right now (before the public is ready to do so) could destroy the small advantage Democrats currently enjoy.

What we have coming up in November is an election -- not a liberal or conservative wish-list. The only important thing is winning. We can discuss and push for more progressive ideas after winning, but if we don't win those ideas will not matter. There are not enough Democrats or Republicans to swing an election (except in a few safe districts). The control of Congress will be decided by Independents choosing one party over the other -- and they are mostly moderates. The party they view as the least extreme will win.

The NBC News / Wall Street Journal Poll was done between July 15th and 18th of a national sample of 900 registered voters, with a margin of error of 3.27 points.

The Economist / YouGov Poll was done between July 15th and 17th of a national sample of 1,272 registered voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

Democrats Must Remain A "Big Tent" Party To Win

I am a progressive (Liberal, Leftist, Socialist, etc.), and I have been for the last 50 years. But a lot of my progressive brothers and sisters are probably not going to like what I have to say.

Too many of them believe you cannot be a good progressive (or Democrat) unless you blindly follow Bernie Sanders. They want the Democratic Party to move farther to the left. They think American voters will flock to the party if it moves farther to the left. And to force the party to do that, they refuse to support moderate or conservative Democrats. I think that is a foolhardy position, and will only lead to defeat (and more disastrous years of Republican rule).

I would love for a majority of Americans to be progressives. But that is simply not the case. Progressives are growing, but remain a minority in this country. Conservatives are also a minority. Like it or not, the biggest portion of American voters are moderates -- and neither Democrats nor Republicans can win without appealing to those moderate voters.

This is illustrated in the chart above, which reflects results of a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between May 27th and 29th of a national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,279 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 3.1 points, and for registered voters is 2.9 points.

Note that 40% of adults, 40% of Independents, and 49% of registered voters think the Democratic Party is too liberal. Only 14% of adults, 13% of Independents, and 13% of registered voters think the Democratic Party is not liberal enough. And 24% of adults, 13% of Independents, and 25% of registered voters think the ideology of the Democratic Party is about right.

That means 74% of registered voters do NOT want the party to become more liberal (progressive). Moving to the left will not attract these voters. It will drive them away.

There are parts of this country where a progressive Democrat can do very well, and I hope as many of them as possible can be elected. But there are other areas where only a moderate or conservative Democrat has a chance to be elected. If a moderate or conservative Democrat is nominated in these areas, smart progressives will swallow their pride and vote for them. Those candidates will support at least some of the things we want to achieve, while their Republican opponents support none of them.

Let me be blunt. The worst Democrat on the ballot is better than the best Republican. As progressives, we must join other Democrats and support all of the party's candidates. That is the only way we can take control of Congress back from the Republicans -- and it is essential that we do that.

Will Rogers once said he was not a member of an organized political party -- he was a Democrat. That's because the Democratic Party has always been a "big tent" party -- contains liberals, moderates, and conservatives. It results in a lot of arguments (and some fun conventions), but it is our strength. When we stick together, we win. When we don't, we lose.

The teabaggers have a purity test for Republicans, and it has damaged their party. Democrats must NEVER do that. All Democrats are good Democrats (even if they disagree with us on some issues), and we must embrace them and support them. We saw what the alternative produced in 2016 -- and we must never allow that to happen again.