What the Primaries Say About Extremism

[_honorentheos]

There have been a few threads tossing around the right-wing talking point that the Democratic party is being overrun by so-called Leftists. We don't need to rehash that, but the point behind both those threads and their sources was that traditional liberals and Americans in general should be terrified of a surge in voters and candidates hell bent on knocking the nation off it traditional moorings. The result being a bitterly divided nation set adrift in a hellscape of identity politics, anti-business economic policies, forced atheism in the public square, and oppressive taxation where ivory tower inhabiting post-modern Marxist talking heads Big Brother us into either loving the government or suffering the consequences.

So, with last week's primaries over we have the opportunity to look out across the political landscape and assess where the extremist threat really lies. And shocker of all shockers, it turns out two things generally held true: The most important factor in determining if a Republican primary candidate won to go on to the midterm election was how they aligned and were seen as getting the nod from Donald J. Trump. And second: A Democrat candidate who was supported by the DCCC (in other words, the traditional establishment Democrats) was significantly more likely to win over extreme progressive candidates.

While headline grabbing surprises such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York or more recently Andrew Gullium in Florida turned heads and fueled the TV cycle's need for 24 hour non-stop drama, the reality is that many more Democrats were showing up for the primaries than in past midterms, and they were still largely picking moderate candidates over those who were much more progressive.

For example, from back in July from Vox which is decidedly left on the media spectrum in an article that was selling a surge in progressives -
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... sio-cortez

The Brookings Institution’s Primaries Project, led by Elaine Kamarck, has analyzed 1,600 House and Senate candidates across nearly 600 Democratic primary elections. They found that this year an unprecedented number of self-identified progressive candidates are running for office: 280 nonincumbents in House primaries in the 31 states that have held primaries so far, up from a mere 60 in 2014.

They are winning more than ever too: 81 progressives have either won those Democratic House primaries or advanced to a runoff so far in 2018, versus just 24 six years ago and 31 in 2016.
This is in conjunction with a general surge in Democratic candidates: 681 non-incumbents have run this year, compared to 347 in 2014 and 371 in 2016. Progressives have also become a bigger share of the candidate pool in 2018, making up more than 40 percent of the nonincumbent candidates, versus 17 percent in 2014 and 26 percent in 2016.

But the progressive gains don’t quite equal a takeover of the Democratic Party. According to Brookings, 88 Democratic candidates they categorized as “establishment” have won House primaries so far in 2018 (30 percent of all establishment candidates), while 64 of the progressives have won (about 23 percent of all progressive candidates).

“For now their record is good but not great,” the Brookings researchers wrote.

This last week saw a large blue turnout picking more traditional Democrats over progressive "Leftist" types such as most prominently Cuomo over actor Cynthia Nixon in the race for the governor's seat in New York. But lest one view this as a sign the Democrats are all bark no bite, and reports of a blue wave in enthusaism don't translate into activity at the polls, the notorious Independent Democratic Caucus had most of its members booted in a sign that NY Dems aren't interested in rolling over even if they aren't ready for a hard turn to the left.

The Trump Effect, as it's known, was on full display across the country, though. Race after race saw Trump supported candidates claim victory among Republican voters while those openly opposed to him failed in their election bids. Mark Stanford's June loss to Katie Arrington in South Carolina was an early indicator, with Ron DeSantis in the Florida Gub race, Jeff Johnson beating Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota, and of course Scott Walker who was another former Trump opponent in the 2016 race turned supporter. Mitt Romney winning was almost a certainty even without Trump but it says something that he picked up the nod while Trump auspiciously stood to the side in Arizona's three-way race despite crony former sheriff turned pardoned convict Joe Arpio having tossed in his hat. Trump gets some credit for learning from earlier errors in Alabama, I guess.

If a person is concerned with civility and recognizes Donald J. Trump's role in reducing it, then it seems the biggest concern they should be focused on is his continued influence over the Republican party. Especially given that at least when it comes to showing up to vote rather than just social media online noise, for now the Democrats seem to be holding a moderate center even if progressive issues make their way into the central party platform such as healthcare and income disparity.

[_EAllusion]

The main trend out of the Democratic party primaries is women getting a significant advantage just for being women.

The party does seem to be drifting leftward in nominations, but that's only part of the story because Democratic incumbents have also re-positioned more leftward to protect themselves against a left-wing tea party style movement. Cuomo is a really good example of that happening. Nixon forced him to the left.

But "leftward" doesn't mean "leftist" and I think a narrative out there is that Dems are being taken over by socialists. That's way premature. The great leftward shift we are talking about is progressives who are somewhere in the neighborhood of FDR Democrats gaining some ground.

[_honorentheos]

Women running more and winning more was a trend in both parties though women were more successful when they ran as a Democrat (40% of female Republican candidates won their primary compared to over 50% of female Democrat candidates) according to Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018 ... s-tracker/

Without a doubt Democrat candidates are moving left as apparently is the base but the alarmist narrative in right-wing media is not based on a candidate being more likely to support further healthcare reform. The single payer healthcare issue has been presented among political wonks as a rough but meaningful test of a candidate's progressive leanings. And last stats I've seen didn't pass 50% among candidates or seat-holding Democrats. But that isn't really where the fear-mongering focuses.

The fear-mongering seems more concerned with fighting a modern culture war where issues of race, religion, and elites v. the common person are being treated like they are all that is on people's minds. If the Pelosi quip that too many voters on the right vote based on guns, gays and God the fear mongering does seem to be based on Leftists forcing secularism on America, taking guns, liberating sexual norms, and opening the gates wide to let in unlimited immigration. It's not even socialism because it has almost nothing to do with economics other than bold face lies about concern over spending and the national debt.

Yet I think the primaries made it clear the Republican party belongs to Trump. For better or worse, he's defining the conservative agenda. It seems less and less plausible that a conservative who dislikes Trump but fears the current state of American politics can legitimately finger the Democrats and the rise of "leftism" as equally concerning. It's political fear-mongering, and pointing to the primary results helps demonstrate this.