Party leaders are not strategic geniuses, they just really like moderates, new research finds

Padawanbater2 said:

Sure. What will you accept as "proof of intent"?

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

facts and not something you believe or an opinion.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Universal healthcare could have been passed in 2009 when Democrats held a super majority

That's a fact

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Universal healthcare could have been passed in 2009 when Democrats held a super majority

That's a fact

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Universal healthcare could have been passed in 2009 when Democrats held a super majority

That's a fact

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Through all of these contests, national party leaders have argued that their decision-making is not personal or ideological. They believe in the same progressive values as the grassroots activists, goes the argument, but more moderate candidates are needed to be able to win the general election and take the House back from Republicans

That argument was made most explicitly earlier this month in the New York Times, by Brookings senior fellow Elaine Kamarck, who endorsed the practice of political parties intervening in primary elections. Kamarck was responding to The Intercept’s coverage of House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer attempting to push a candidate in Colorado out of a House race by appealing to party elites’ superior savvy (emphasis added):

Are party leaders always right? Of course not. But they are different from the activists who often dominate the party primaries because they are more concerned with electability than with ideological purity. Party leaders have the job of winning nationally; Democrats are painfully aware that not all congressional districts are Berkeley, Calif.

(where have we heard that before?)

Her contention, which mirrors conventional wisdom, is that party leaders — the loose network of campaign committees, consultants, elected officials, and key donors — are simply more strategic than activists, refusing to let ideology get in the way of their laser focus on winning elections.

That’s an assertion of fact, not opinion. And according to new political science research, it is incorrect.

A paper in this month’s edition of the peer-reviewed Legislative Studies Quarterly analyzes a decade’s worth of federal elections, finding that party organizations boost moderate candidates across the board, whether the general election is expected to be competitive or a long shot. In other words, party support for moderates does not appear to be strategic, but sincere.

“They’re not doing this to have a better shot at winning elections,” said the paper’s author Hans Hassell, assistant professor of politics at Cornell College in Iowa.

The evidence points more to the conclusion that party elites “have strong incentives to prefer loyalists who can be trusted to implement its preferred policies after the nomination,” Hassell writes.

The study not only breaks with other political science findings, but decades of rhetoric from party leaders. It’s obvious from the most casual survey of primary elections that parties support moderates, but the races that observers tend to watch closely are competitive contests in swing states, so it stands to reason that a moderate in such a district may indeed be the smarter strategic play. Indeed, in a series of high-profile battles with progressive activists, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has consistently positioned itself as being pragmatic, willing to bend on its progressive principles if doing so can lead to victory.

Hassell’s work expanded the field of vision, looking at races in which the Democratic nominee is likely to cruise to victory. The full scope of the research indicates that party leaders are actually committed to elevating candidates with a narrow range of beliefs.

If party elites were merely strategic actors, the data would show higher support for moderate candidates in swing races, while not showing as much support in seats that were either safe or out of reach. That’s not the case. In Hassell’s findings, parties consistently supported the more moderate primary candidate, regardless of the expected outcome of the general election. Even after excluding incumbents — which party committees almost always support — support for moderates holds. It’s also consistent regardless of party. And while this data set used Senate races, for his book Hassell also measured House races, finding the same result.

In Hassell’s findings, parties consistently supported the more moderate primary candidate, regardless of the expected outcome of the general election.

“Party elites are not systematically showing any preference for more moderate candidates in competitive districts,” Hassell writes. In fact, the pull for moderate candidates is stronger in noncompetitive districts.

“This shows that parties are not strategically moderating their preferences in attempts to win competitive districts.”

You should read the full article from the intercept

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Universal healthcare could have been passed in 2009 when Democrats held a super majority

That's a fact

Click to expand...

travisw said:

Sorry sport, I was just checking the facts and that definitely isn't one of them.

Did you possibly spring forth from an alternate reality where this person didn't exist?

Why Lieberman Hates the Public Option
Theories explaining the senator's threat to filibuster the health care bill if it includes a public option
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/10/why-lieberman-hates-the-public-option/347740/


Or this didn't happen.

Republicans take Ted Kennedy's seat in dramatic upset
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/20/republicans-massachusetts-scott-brown-obama-health

Click to expand...

Tim1987 said:

Why is universal health care such a bad thing?
Australians pay for "Medicare" through general taxes.
I thank my lucky stars. That if i was in a big car accident. Or stabbed/shot. Or evey time i need emergency for something. Its free, and they dont slap me with a huge bill.
It makes you feel a little safer, and more looked after. Everybody gets the same too. It doesn't differ.

Click to expand...

schuylaar said:

'there's been a decision made from above' -Steny Hoyer

who's above you, Steny?

*****

Click to expand...

Unclebaldrick said:

In the past, he thinks representatives should promote the interests and opinions of their district. This isn't true; he thinks they should all support his interests. Or perhaps it is likely that he is just so egotistical and self-centered that he thinks that he speaks for everybody.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

That's exactly what Fogdog thinks. He believes the Democratic establishment should be able to choose the congressional candidates Washington believes will be more competitive regardless of district votes.

So why aren't you as critical of Fogdog as you are of Tty?

Because you're a phony ass hack

Stop pretending, it makes you look very petty and foolish

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Democratic Party Leaders love moderates;

Perez endorses Cuomo over Nixon

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

That's exactly what Fogdog thinks. He believes the Democratic establishment should be able to choose the congressional candidates Washington believes will be more competitive regardless of district votes.

So why aren't you as critical of Fogdog as you are of Tty?

Because you're a phony ass hack

Stop pretending, it makes you look very petty and foolish

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

You are claiming you know what I think.

Click to expand...

Tim1987 said:

Why is universal health care such a bad thing?
Australians pay for "Medicare" through general taxes.
I thank my lucky stars. That if i was in a big car accident. Or stabbed/shot. Or evey time i need emergency for something. Its free, and they dont slap me with a huge bill.
It makes you feel a little safer, and more looked after. Everybody gets the same too. It doesn't differ.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

You said you support Steny Hoyer and the Democratic establishments decision above voters to choose which Democratic candidates to support. You said you support the DNC's decision to choose the candidate they support in smoke filled back rooms outside of voter approval, you support the undemocratic idea of super delegates...

Why don't you just admit you don't actually support democracy?

Click to expand...