NY Times Op-Ed: The Simple Reason the Left Won't Stop Losing

[honest.abe]

How did the political left squander the opportunity that was the 2020 primary campaign?

The Trump presidency has created tremendous energy among progressives. More than half of Democratic voters now identify as liberal. Most favor “Medicare for all.” A growing number are unhappy with American capitalism.

This year’s campaign offered the prospect of transformational change, with a Democratic nominee who was more liberal than any in more than a half-century. Instead, the nominee now seems likely to be a moderate white grandfather who first ran for president more than 30 years ago and whose campaign promises a return to normalcy.

--snip--

The biggest lesson is simply this: The American left doesn’t care enough about winning. It’s an old problem, one that has long undermined left-wing movements in this country. They have often prioritized purity over victory. They wouldn’t necessarily put it these terms, but they have chosen to lose on their terms rather than win with compromise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/opinion/sanders-democratic-primary.html

This is a very good article in my opinion. Sanders and his campaign have focused too much on appealing to the fringe of the Democratic party. In fact so much so, he has probably done more harm than good to the progressive movement.

NOTE: There is a paywall but you might be able to get through it by going incognito. That worked for me.

[Turin_C3PO]

1. I think Warren

would have done much better if Sanders wasn’t in and the media wasn’t misogynistic. Progressivism will do well though as more Trump voters die and the millennials start voting in greater numbers. Sanders is certainly not the be-all, end-all of left wing politics.

[honest.abe]

2. Indeed. Warren was much closer to a "practical" progressive.

She could have won have things gone a bit different.

[ismnotwasm]

3. I ageee

I get repeatedly told I’m gender doesn’t matter, but you know? It really, really does

[TwilightZone]

4. Sanders had four years to build a coalition or adjust tactics.

Instead, his campaign strategy was to get 30% of the vote, get a plurality, and then demand the nomination.

When your entire strategy is based on luck, timing, and then demanding something from the very people you've been targeting for decades, it shouldn't be a surprise when it fails in the end.

Some would argue that he almost got away with it, but I would argue that the race was always closer than it appeared, especially going into SC. Biden was always going to do well in SC, and the wild swing in the projections based on a couple of states never made sense.

Yes, the coalescing of candidates and the party behind Biden undoubtedly helped, but if Sanders had built a coalition of his own over the years instead of alienating those would who have formed said coalition, it might have been an entirely different race.

[still_one]

5. From the beginning of Bernie's campaign he painted the Democratic party as the enemy

and his hiring of Jill Stein supporter Gray, and Hillary hating Sirota and Turner only highlighted that strategy

When you disparage 70% of the party you are running under, is it a surprise that Sanders has not been able to attract people beyond his base?

Surrogates have doubled down on this " war against establishment Democrats "

so is this really a surprise?

[msongs]

6. a candidate incapable of team building and welcoming a variety of views fares poorly nt

[elleng]

7. Many have realized that many others don't want 'transformational change,'

'return to sanity/normalcy' more appealing to BROAD electorate, which we MUST attract this time. imo.

[NYMinute]

8. People got bored with Sanders.

[Yavin4]

9. The left practices "Linear Politics" (I am trademarking that phrase.)

What do I mean by "Linear Politics"? I mean they only want pols, voters, media, etc. who lie on the same line as they do. Being near the line is not enough. Even more, being near the line in their eyes is worse than being far away from the line. No, you must be on the line perfectly.

[Hav]

17. That's a good description, almost like bit or boolean logic

Especially the point about being the bigger enemy the closer you are to their position. Reaching 80% with a Dem is the bigger travesty than steps in the opposite direction under Trump.

[abqtommy]

10. I trashed this NYT op because it's not accurate. Democrats didn't lose in 2008 and 2012 when

we elected Barack, or in 2016 when we elected Hillary but got ratfucked. If that's what the Times calls
"losing" then I'm all for it. And I'm very disappointed so many people here at DU took this sucker bait...

[honest.abe]

13. I dont think the author is referring to past elections.

He is talking Sanders and the progressive left.

[StevieM]

23. I don't really talk too much about the popular vote from 2016 because I feel it lets James Comey

off the hook for what he did.

Hillary was heading towards a decisive electoral college victory before he intervened. And that was after he pulled his devastating stunt in July with that ridiculous press conference. Had he not done that she would have obliterated Trump.

[pecosbob]

11. Personally I think the Democratic Party has gotten old and comfortable* and scared

For those of you who are uncertain or frightened or confused, listen to the youth...they will point the direction that history will take, whether it's a direction you like or not. If you insist on any other path, you are blocking progress.

Oh, yeah...and fuck the NY Times Editorial Department.

*Self-edited for an insensitive term.

[honest.abe]

12. Well that's helpful.

[pecosbob]

14. I know it's not...I get this way every four years

when it seems every pundit in the entire world is telling us to vote moderate or conservative...and then we go moderate and lose, more often than not.

[highplainsdem]

16. Thank you for expressing the losing attitude referred to by the NYT so well.

FWIW -- since I doubt you'll consider this viewpoint -- "the youth" can point any damn direction they want (and they'll point multiple directions since they aren't a single bloc with only one opinion), but unless they can build a coalition large enough to win elections, they'll get nowhere with their finger-pointing.

[pecosbob]

19. The fact is I vote...every time...attitude has nothing to do with it

If we don't bring more people to the polls, we will lose again. Many think we can win running the same sort of candidate we have run in the past. I do not.


Not Undecided...I voted for Warren.

[highplainsdem]

21. Thanks for voting anyway, every time. I've voted in plenty of elections where I

wasn't crazy about our candidates, but they were still much better than the Republican alternatives.

Re bringing more people to the polls -- there's no evidence from the primary race so far that the wave of new voters Sanders has talked about is materializing.

I don't blame progressives for often overestimating how many people agree with them. They're probably going on their own experience, what they hear from their friends. I remember Seth Abramson tweeting some time back that he didn't know a single person who supporter Biden. And as bizarre as that sounded, I believe he believes that -- that he's surrounded by likeminded people, and maybe those who disagree with his views simply don't tell him. People often exist in bubbles they're unaware of.

[Hav]

20. This isn't about being fat and scared

This is about what can be achieved. Progress isn't just one path and everything else is a dead end. Not one person has the right to claim that only his positions are the right ones. You couldn't have possibly proven the article right in a clearer way. Losing with purity over progress results in no progress at all. The inability to compromise and find common ground ends in achieving nothing at all. Calling something a revolution might sound fancy and cool but in a society, we move when there is a consensus. BS clearly failed in generating enough support and he failed in persuading the voters he could implement his plans.

[pecosbob]

22. And I would agree with most of your points

but I do have the ability to compromise...that is exactly what I did when I voted for a Democratic candidate in the general that I did not support in the primary.

[Hav]

29. The inability to compromise was meant more in a general way

as it is something I often see from BS supporters but in part also aimed at the line about blocking progress. I get that you understand what is at stake this November and I also think that despite differences, Biden clearly offers progress on many issues. The more important point is, for the sake of progress, the different factions of the left shouldn't sabotage each other if one of them is in the minority.

[pecosbob]

30. Absolutely

[uponit7771]

25. ... or no one wants to burn the house down to save it? tia

[pecosbob]

27. Good analogy, but wasn't that Matt Gaetz I saw playing with matches in the cloak room?

[uponit7771]

28. +1, he was trying to burn the mask off his face ... he forgot how he put it on

[NCProgressive]

15. KnR

[pampango]

18. Perhaps a 'socialist' can't be elected in the US. At least 'socialist' ideas are acceptable.

"More than half of Democratic voters now identify as liberal. Most favor “Medicare for all.” A growing number are unhappy with American capitalism."

It looks like Sanders will not be president. I am not happy but that is the way the game is played. At least some of his 'socialist' policies (which work just fine in capitalist Europe) are proving popular with Americans too. The future looks better.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

24. You could be right.

But we'll need a different person to carry this message forward.

Sanders is too old now, and 4 years from now will definitely be a bridge too far.

[pampango]

31. Agreed. I am wedded to the ideas/policies, not the candidate.

I give Bernie credit for presenting and popularizing the progressive ideas but they will survive his departure from the race, I hope.

[Ferrets are Cool]

26. "The biggest lesson is simply this: The American left doesn't care enough about winning."

So much stupid here. Sheesh

[stillcool]

32. the biggest lessson for me...

is that people do not care. They care about a Presidential election every 4 years, to elect one human being who can do absolutely nothing by themselves. They don't care who runs their states. Maybe they haven't experienced enough of life's harsh lessons, to learn enough to care.

[Me.]

33. I Think ArroganceIs Part Of It

other politicals have said that BS thinks he knows more and is better than anyone else. If this is what's being called purity, I would also say, it makes them mean spirited about others and other's ideas.

[maxsolomon]

34. Sanders and Warren split the "Left", whatever that is.

I won't speculate why 78 (soon to be 79) year old Sanders didn't step aside after his heart attack and endorse Warren, but he didn't. That opened the door for the moderates to consolidate.

Not misogyny as much as that simple analysis.

[Hortensis]

35. Because they always run against the Democratic Party

And there are a lot more Democrats than them. As said, it’s a lot less about winning than about acting out. But at base, just like their counterparts on the far right, their inability to respect or care about joining with others is a fatal and contemptible flaw that means they really shouldn’t win.