With a potentially very large field of candidates expected to seek the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2020, I made this observation about the divide within the Democratic Party being more complicated than a simple divide between a center-left establishment and a left-wing progressive insurgency:
Already, Bernie is polling well behind his 2016 national Democratic vote total (slightly over 43% of the national popular vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses that reported popular vote totals that year) in every publicly-released national scientific poll of the Democratic primary/caucus electorate so far. Additionally, polling has shown none of the potential "establishment" candidates (such as former Vice President Joe Biden) getting anywhere close to Hillary's national popular vote total in the 2016 Democratic primaries/caucuses (slightly over 55% of the national popular vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses that reported popular vote totals that year).
This brings up a few points that I'll make in the remainder of this blog post.
The Democratic Party is not simply a party of two factions
There is, to some extent, a general divide within the Democratic Party between the party's establishment, which is predominantly center-left ideologically, being left-leaning to left-wing on many social issues and moderate on some issues, such as health care and economic issues, and the progressive faction within the Democratic Party, which is solidly left-wing. However, there is a very large segment of Democratic voters who don't strongly align with an establishment label or a progressive label and are open to supporting an establishment candidate or a progressive candidate in an intra-party nomination contest within the Democratic Party, and there is probably a noteworthy amount of ideological variance among this group of voters in regards to their own political views. Also, in 2016, there were very liberal voters who supported Hillary over Bernie, and there were moderate voters who supported Bernie over Hillary, so whoever the Democratic nominee in the 2020 presidential nomination ends up being would be expected to win the nomination with a coalition of voters that has some level of ideological variance within it. There is actually more than two factions within the Democratic Party, and trying to paint the Democratic Party as consisting predominantly of two monolithic factions of voters is a major misunderstanding of the overall Democratic primary/caucus electorate.
Betomentum
One of the more talked-about potential Democratic presidential candidates is soon-to-be-former U.S. Representative Beto O'Rourke, who narrowly lost the U.S. Senate election in Texas this year to Republican incumbent Ted Cruz. In an editorial piece for The Guardian, David Sirota, who can be thought of as the Dale Earnhardt, Sr. of progressives for his hard-nosed style of criticizing political figures across the ideological spectrum from left-leaning to far-right for opposing progressive ideals (which would be comparable to the elder Earnhardt's hard-nosed style of automobile racing on the NASCAR circuit), criticized Beto by comparing him to Obama and pointing out that Beto has voted for legislation that has been opposed by progressives, like soon-to-be-former U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp's legislation to allow for exports of U.S.-produced oil (although Sirota didn't mention Heidi by name in his editorial) and legislation to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was created by an Act of Congress that was signed into law by Obama, from taking action against racially-discriminatory lending practices. I'm a long way from deciding on who I'll vote for in the Illinois Democratic primary for president in 2020, although I'm open to supporting, among many other potential candidates, Beto, because he is an incredibly gifted campaigner and a vocal critic of President Trump's hard-line anti-immigration policies. However, I will acknowledge that Beto's voting record as a U.S. House member is somewhat to the ideological right of my own political views, and I strongly believe any constructive criticism of any presidential candidate's hard political record (votes as a legislator, other official actions in political office, etc.) is fair game.
Bernie's political record isn't spotlessly progressive, and there is a difference between a progressive and a progressive's progressive
Bernie Sanders is a progressive, but he's not a progressive's progressive. In 2015, Sirota wrote a piece for the International Business Times that was actually somewhat critical of Bernie from the left, pointing out that Bernie has been a politically conflicted person on issues like gun safety and defense spending and portraying Bernie as politically pragmatic. While Bernie has a long track record on supporting progressive legislation on a lot of issues, Bernie has strayed from progressive orthodoxy on some issues, most notably gun laws (Bernie voted against the Brady Bill as a U.S. Representative), and Bernie also voted against sanctions against Russia, whose government meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. One can be a pragmatist and a progressive, with Bernie being such a political figure, but one cannot be a pragmatist and a progressive's progressive; an example of a progressive's progressive would be someone like Ocasio (who will not be legally old enough to run for President in 2020) or Kara Eastman, who narrowly lost a U.S. House race in Nebraska this year.
It's still very early in the race for the Democratic nomination
Virtually all of the high-profile contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination have not yet officially declared their candidacy, including Biden, Bernie, Beto, Elizabeth Warren, and many others. The only two high-profile (i.e., have been included in at least five national scientific opinion polls) candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination that have officially launched presidential campaigns are Richard Ojeda, a West Virginia State Senator, and John Delaney, a soon-to-be-former U.S. Representative from Maryland. Neither of those candidates have gained any significant traction among Democratic voters. In fact, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination hasn't really taken shape yet.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This blog post is reflective of the political views of its author and is not necessarily reflective of the political views of the Earnhardt family.
Obviously, the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries/caucuses quickly became virtually a two-candidate race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders well before the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses were held that year, and became an actual two-candidate race between the center-left Hillary and the progressive Bernie after Martin O'Malley ended his longshot presidential bid after the Iowa caucuses.The 2016 primary campaign between Hillary and Bernie has probably led a lot of people to incorrectly believe that there are only two factions within the Democratic Party. In reality, it's a lot more complicated than that.— Aaron Camp (@ProgMid) December 25, 2018
Already, Bernie is polling well behind his 2016 national Democratic vote total (slightly over 43% of the national popular vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses that reported popular vote totals that year) in every publicly-released national scientific poll of the Democratic primary/caucus electorate so far. Additionally, polling has shown none of the potential "establishment" candidates (such as former Vice President Joe Biden) getting anywhere close to Hillary's national popular vote total in the 2016 Democratic primaries/caucuses (slightly over 55% of the national popular vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses that reported popular vote totals that year).
This brings up a few points that I'll make in the remainder of this blog post.
The Democratic Party is not simply a party of two factions
There is, to some extent, a general divide within the Democratic Party between the party's establishment, which is predominantly center-left ideologically, being left-leaning to left-wing on many social issues and moderate on some issues, such as health care and economic issues, and the progressive faction within the Democratic Party, which is solidly left-wing. However, there is a very large segment of Democratic voters who don't strongly align with an establishment label or a progressive label and are open to supporting an establishment candidate or a progressive candidate in an intra-party nomination contest within the Democratic Party, and there is probably a noteworthy amount of ideological variance among this group of voters in regards to their own political views. Also, in 2016, there were very liberal voters who supported Hillary over Bernie, and there were moderate voters who supported Bernie over Hillary, so whoever the Democratic nominee in the 2020 presidential nomination ends up being would be expected to win the nomination with a coalition of voters that has some level of ideological variance within it. There is actually more than two factions within the Democratic Party, and trying to paint the Democratic Party as consisting predominantly of two monolithic factions of voters is a major misunderstanding of the overall Democratic primary/caucus electorate.
Betomentum
One of the more talked-about potential Democratic presidential candidates is soon-to-be-former U.S. Representative Beto O'Rourke, who narrowly lost the U.S. Senate election in Texas this year to Republican incumbent Ted Cruz. In an editorial piece for The Guardian, David Sirota, who can be thought of as the Dale Earnhardt, Sr. of progressives for his hard-nosed style of criticizing political figures across the ideological spectrum from left-leaning to far-right for opposing progressive ideals (which would be comparable to the elder Earnhardt's hard-nosed style of automobile racing on the NASCAR circuit), criticized Beto by comparing him to Obama and pointing out that Beto has voted for legislation that has been opposed by progressives, like soon-to-be-former U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp's legislation to allow for exports of U.S.-produced oil (although Sirota didn't mention Heidi by name in his editorial) and legislation to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was created by an Act of Congress that was signed into law by Obama, from taking action against racially-discriminatory lending practices. I'm a long way from deciding on who I'll vote for in the Illinois Democratic primary for president in 2020, although I'm open to supporting, among many other potential candidates, Beto, because he is an incredibly gifted campaigner and a vocal critic of President Trump's hard-line anti-immigration policies. However, I will acknowledge that Beto's voting record as a U.S. House member is somewhat to the ideological right of my own political views, and I strongly believe any constructive criticism of any presidential candidate's hard political record (votes as a legislator, other official actions in political office, etc.) is fair game.
Bernie's political record isn't spotlessly progressive, and there is a difference between a progressive and a progressive's progressive
Bernie Sanders is a progressive, but he's not a progressive's progressive. In 2015, Sirota wrote a piece for the International Business Times that was actually somewhat critical of Bernie from the left, pointing out that Bernie has been a politically conflicted person on issues like gun safety and defense spending and portraying Bernie as politically pragmatic. While Bernie has a long track record on supporting progressive legislation on a lot of issues, Bernie has strayed from progressive orthodoxy on some issues, most notably gun laws (Bernie voted against the Brady Bill as a U.S. Representative), and Bernie also voted against sanctions against Russia, whose government meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. One can be a pragmatist and a progressive, with Bernie being such a political figure, but one cannot be a pragmatist and a progressive's progressive; an example of a progressive's progressive would be someone like Ocasio (who will not be legally old enough to run for President in 2020) or Kara Eastman, who narrowly lost a U.S. House race in Nebraska this year.
It's still very early in the race for the Democratic nomination
Virtually all of the high-profile contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination have not yet officially declared their candidacy, including Biden, Bernie, Beto, Elizabeth Warren, and many others. The only two high-profile (i.e., have been included in at least five national scientific opinion polls) candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination that have officially launched presidential campaigns are Richard Ojeda, a West Virginia State Senator, and John Delaney, a soon-to-be-former U.S. Representative from Maryland. Neither of those candidates have gained any significant traction among Democratic voters. In fact, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination hasn't really taken shape yet.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This blog post is reflective of the political views of its author and is not necessarily reflective of the political views of the Earnhardt family.
Comments
Post a Comment