Centrist Dems Have Already Forgotten About Kamala Harris: Pivoting to the right didn't work in 2024. It won't work now.

[Celerity]

https://prospect.org/politics/centrist-democrats-pivot-right-kamala-harris/



For decades, many Democratic pundits and strategists have had a simple answer for how the party could win: move to “the center.” Just look at Bill Clinton: After three consecutive routs in presidential elections from 1980 to 1988, Clinton ended the longest period of continuous Republican White House occupancy since the run-up to the Great Depression.

Democrats’ 1992 win is often attributed to Bill Clinton’s embrace of “Third Way” neoliberal politics, seasoning conservative economic policy with a pinch of putative social liberalism. However, as his secretary of labor (Robert Reich) recently observed, the 1992 campaign was far more heterogeneous than that telling lets on. In line with his iconic “it’s the economy, stupid” declaration, Clinton ran on significant fiscal stimulus, raising taxes on the wealthy, and public health care. Crediting moderation for the 1992 win misstates the order of events; tacking to the right followed winning the election.

Moreover, Clinton’s “New Democrats” did worse in congressional elections following the party’s embrace of Third Way politics over the course of early 1993, when advisors like Robert Rubin successfully pushed for abandoning more populist campaign promises in favor of austerity. From 1930 to 1994, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for all but four years, or about 94 percent of the time. From 1994 to the present, the party has held a House majority only 27 percent of the time—eight years total. Democratic dominance in the Senate in the 20th century was less pronounced, with Republican majorities for 12 years between 1930 and 1994. Since 1994, Democrats have held Senate majorities for 12 years. That’s a drop from controlling the upper chamber 81 percent of the time to just 40 percent.

Now, this was not entirely about neoliberalism. The main reason for the party’s dominance in that period was the Democratic “Solid South,” and that was doomed once Democrats became the party of civil rights (though it took some years to shake out). Still, if Clintonite politics was so powerful, then one would expect winning the House more than a quarter of the time. Whatever the case, on the heels of the party’s 2024 defeat, Democrats are again searching for a way out of the wilderness. Unsurprisingly, a loud chorus is insisting the shortest path is a sharp right turn. It is hard to predict exactly what will work in politics, but compulsively playing up moderation and savvy positioning on key issues undermines the party’s brand, legitimates Republican talking points, and reinforces the perception that the Democratic Party stands for nothing.

snip

[Ping Tung]

1. Will John Fetterman turn Republican before the Centrist Dems can nominate him?

Capturing "The Center" in politics is like trying to capture a mosquito with a monkey wrench in a dark warehouse.

My late Republican sister voted for JFK because he was better looking than Nixon.

[gab13by13]

26. Fetterman is not the person I voted for,

I'm not a doctor but his stroke changed him.

[leftstreet]

2. Sigh. Why do they never talk about Ross Perot?

The centrists have been fooling themselves for decades, bleeding off representation and voters, all the while unable to repeat the alleged success of their exalted "move to the right."

Bill Clinton happened because Ross Perot grabbed Bush voters

end of

[dsc]

4. That actually isn't true, at least not entirely

while he did help Clinton in some places, he hurt Clinton in others. Clinton was lucky in that, Perot only hurt him in states he won anyway (NJ, NY, and CA to name three). One way to see that is that in 1996, when Perot did considerably worse, Clinton had both a higher percent of the vote and a larger margin.

[leftstreet]

6. Perot got over 19 million votes

It was significant in terms of a 3rd party run. Yet in more contemporary times, we've had to suffer through the screechings about Nader - who got what? less than 3 million. Stein?

I get what you're saying, but see no reason for expensive young consultants to keep feeding the Democrats this "go right" crap, without being able to prove it works.

[W_HAMILTON]

5. This has been proven wrong.

Clinton was the second choice for most Perot voters; if anything, Perot kept the race closer than it otherwise would have been.

Here's one source, but there are plenty out there that came to the same conclusion: https://split-ticket.org/2023/04/01/examining-ross-perots-impact-on-the-1992-presidential-election/

[SocialDemocrat61]

9. That's a BS GOP talking point

That has been disproven by numerous studies. Exit polls revealed that Perot's support came from across the political spectrum. Analyses found that roughly equal percentages of his voters would have otherwise voted for Bush or Clinton.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/news/2019/07/09/ross-perot-often-credited-for-costing-bush--92-election

[leftstreet]

10. I can find links that say the opposite

It doesn't matter

The point is, Democrats must stop listening to their consultants and hire new ones. There must be reasons almost 1,000 legislative seats were lost under Obama. There must be reasons 6+ million reliably Democratic voters showed up for Biden, but not for Harris.

Hammering out positions on border walls and trans rights isn't going to cut it

[SocialDemocrat61]

11. Really?

So show them.

[W_HAMILTON]

3. The Biden administration was the most progressive in decades...

...and Kamala was only going to build on that.

For these types, nothing is ever good enough for them. They claim that we need to run further and further left because those sorts of policies are popular and are what the people want, but then why can't they get politicians running on these policies elected in purple/red states?

Stop criticizing state/national politicians for doing what they can to win rather than following your advice, advice that has failed to translate into electoral wins, from the presidency all the way down to the damn dog catcher in purple/red areas.

If the policies you want national Democrats to run on are so popular, start running and winning on these policies somewhere other than the bluest of blue areas.

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. The policies of the left *are* popular, supported by a majority of Americans

It’s the label/identity of Democrat that red state voters often reflexively reject.

Most voters know very little about policy positions of the candidates, they just look at the (D) or (R) and vote who they identify with.

In close races, ads on tv and social media about “transgender surgeries for illegal immigrant prisoners” or “build the wall!” Can move numbers a point or two.

But when asked if they support reproductive rights, healthcare for all, raising the minimum wage, and other progressive policies, anywhere from 60-80% of Americans support these policies when they aren’t linked to a particular political party .

Running as “diet MAGA” won’t help Dems win.

Focusing on the widespread suffering caused by the Republicans (the economy will almost certainly be in recession by this time next year), and the progressive remedies to end that suffering, or at least block the republicans from making it worse, will.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. Oh, so it falls back to the dastardly DNC rigging everything, just so we can ... lose.

If it's all the Democrats' fault, why not run as Independents then? It's certainly not because they are worried about the spoiler effect because they often advocate for more political parties and regularly run third-party spoilers for president, so surely they can run for local office in Idaho or someplace like that, yes?

PS - If AOC left the Democratic Party, you think Republicans would start supporting her rather than continuing to use her as a boogeyman all across the nation?

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Don't ask me, ask the DNC

It’s their responsibility to figure out how to communicate their plan for implementing the progressive policies most Americans support, while stripping away the republican created stain on the label “liberal”.

Perhaps if, once Dems regain power, they killed the filibuster and governed fearlessly and unhesitatingly as progressives (as Whitmer did in Michigan with just a one seat majority in the legislature), ramming through bill after bill of policies that benefit the poor and middle class, and expanding the court so those bills don’t get overturned- then the general public just might appreciate the value of a government run by the Democratic Party.

They could do it in as little as two years, from January 2029 to the 2030 midterms. Whitmer did it in one.

But it would mean ousting folks like Fetterman and Golden, and replacing them with Dems who will support the policies of a progressive Dem administration.

[W_HAMILTON]

19. There's nothing stopping them from running as an independent progressive.

But we don't see that.

We see these sorts of progressives running and (sometimes) winning in the bluest of blue areas -- and that's it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. I think you're missing the point

It’s not about far left Dems leaving the party and running as independents, it’s about Dems in swing districts not running away from the progressive policies that are supported by a majority of Americans.

[W_HAMILTON]

22. You are the one that blamed their losses on labels -- liberals, Democrats, etc.

So, yes, running as an individual that supports progressive policies should solve that problem, yes?

And do you think Democrats in swing districts/states want to lose? Why would they run away from policies that are supposedly so popular with Americans?

Fact of the matter is the Democrats that are mostly winning in those swing areas are more like Jared Golden than AOC. Who is the last ultra-progressive to win in those areas? Maybe John Fetterman ( )?

Speaking of which, we, as progressives, need to start vetting our candidates better. Wanting younger and """non-Establishment""" candidates sounds nice in theory, but it also means they have less history when it comes to championing progressive ideals and proven progressive accomplishments.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. Again, you misunderstand my position

Your conclusion that I want progressives to run as independents is logically flawed and based on your assumptions, not on anything I said.

I want the party to evolve, be courageous, flaunt its traditional values, not run from them.

People like Golden and Fetterman are essentially serving as independents, but using their caucusing with Dems to gain privileges such as committee assignments while giving little back to the caucus, at least while Dems are in the minority.

Again, it is time for Dems to fearlessly champion their traditional values- I agree that candidates should be vetted better for their loyalty to those values, and rejected/primaried if they go rogue and vote against those values or sabotage a Dem president’s agenda.

Young candidates are not necessarily less experienced- many have years of organizing and activism that eclipse the years of schmoozing with lobbyists that more “experienced” Dems can brag about. Young candidates attract young voters, and young voters are the largest untapped pool of voters in the nation.

[W_HAMILTON]

25. Evolve how much? We are already for most of the ideas progressives want.

Last edited Fri Oct 10, 2025, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

That's another issue: most of our Democrats run on building -- PROGRESSing -- upon past PROGRESSive accomplishments and then they lose and some on the left try to paint them as """centrist."""

Kamala was in no way a moderate -- she was a progressive. She was in favor of pretty much every-damn-thing most progressives want, so it's just a matter of extremes and how to turn those ideals into actual achievable policy.

Here is her/the Democratic Party platform for 2024: https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf

Is wanting to raise the federal minimum wage to "at least $15" instead of $25 worth it to turn our country over to MAGA fascists?

Is wanting to implement a national paid family leave of 12 weeks instead of 26 weeks or 52 weeks worth Trump tearing all the PROGRESS we have made through the years?

Is making billionaires pay at least a 25% tax instead of "billionaires should not exist" worth letting Republicans win control of the federal government and then watching as they give the wealthiest among us even more tax breaks, paid for by cuts to our social safety net programs?

I can go on and on.

Moral of the story: it's called being a PROGRESSIVE -- not a PERFECTIONIST.

Anyone on that claims to be a progressive but did not support/vote for/do everything they could to elect Kamala as president, outside of MAGA, they are the FURTHEST thing from a progressive.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. I'm not talking about perfectionism

I’m talking about replacing rogue saboteurs with better Democrats who support the parties values and will support the agenda of a Dem president.

Period.

Just a few weeks before the 2024 election, Jared Golden said he would be “OK” with a second Trump term. That statement alone should have at least gotten him stripped of his committee assignments, if not expelled from the caucus.

Others have posted in this thread how Golden helped sabotage Biden’s BBB.

Why would you support re-electing him over replacing him with a better Democrat? Surely Golden isn’t the only Democrat in the state of Maine who can get elected?

Same goes for Fetterman - Shapiro should primary him in 2028, and end his senate career.

[W_HAMILTON]

39. There aren't many "rogue saboteurs" and it's something that's been addressed.

Sinema and Manchin were run out of the party.

Fetterman was supposed to be one of the "better Democrats who support the parties values and will support the agenda of a Dem president" but he's looking like the next pain on our butt...

I don't know if Golden is as big a problem since one lone representative can rarely derail things. I'm fine with him being primaried and letting the voters decide and I hope the primary is conducted in such a way that whoever wins is not handicapped during the general because of attacks from a fellow Democrat.

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. Look at other posts in this thread for details on how Golden helped sabotage the BBB. Nt

[Bettie]

31. Consultants get paid

No matter who wins.

They are the ones setting the agenda and if their team loses, they can charge more next time.

[Celerity]

8. Biden's 2 big infrastructure bills were shredded by a handful of centrists and conservadems (Problem Solvers in the House

and Manchin and Sinema in the Senate).

Those 2 groups gutted 83.8% combined of BIF & BBB of Biden's new spend frameworks. 87.5% of the BBB alone in terms of new spending. Massively needed vital new programmes were binned, programmes that would have hugely aided us in 2022 and especially in 2024.

I am combining the totals of the two bills (BBB and the hard infrastructure bill) for the original Biden frameworks for new spending and then comparing the actual new spend passed to show how much the centrist and/or conservative Dem Problem Solvers and their Senate allies Manchin and Sinema gutted from Biden's proposals for those 2 bills.

Here are the fiscal numbers, with documentation:


Biden's original frameworks:

3.5 trillion usd for BBB

2.6 trillion usd for the BIF (see below)


A total of 6.1 trillion usd in new spend between the 2 bills was proposed by Biden


What was passed (via the IRA, aka the rump remains of the BBB after Manchin months before that, killed the BBB)

438 billion usd in new spend for the IRA (it was 433 billion usd but they added in 5 billion usd for drought programmes)

550 billion usd in new spend for the BIF (the 1.2 trillion usd total included 650 billion usd that was basic renewals of transportation programmes that have been around since at least the Obama and Trump administrations, and was not 'new programme' spending, it was just added to overarching package for budgetary reasons. Again, see below, at the bottom)

A total of 988 billion usd in new spend, which means 83.8% of the original 6.1 trillion usd has been gutted by Manchin and/or Sinema as it stands.

IF you just want to talk the BBB (a small part of which became the IRA) alone the percentage of gutting is even higher, 87.5%


here is the BIF gutting in some detail


The Infrastructure Plan: What’s In and What’s Out

Biden's original plan:




What was left after the centrist and conservative Dems took a 2+ trillion USD hatchet to it:

[W_HAMILTON]

16. Thank you for providing evidence that the Biden administration was quite progressive.

And we all knew that Sinema and Manchin were thorns in our side, which is why both essentially were run out of the party.

Same goes for the MAGA SCOTUS that overruled Biden's attempts to take executive action to enact more progressive policies and help the people directly.

And Kamala would have been an even more progressive president based on the policies she was promoting.

[Passages]

13. Some will still not acknowledge why they lost and have been losing

seats across the country before Trump.

Easier to blame the voters, it seems.

[AStern]

14. I've seen comments on this site suggesting that Dems move further to the right

Those same people's comments on other matters are as concerning.

I am glad to see serious push back against such AWFUL ideas and suggestions.

[Happy Hoosier]

15. Harris was not a "pivot right." WTF!? NT.

[Kaleva]

17. Those who pivot to the left or are left can't win the primaries

[gab13by13]

29. There it is! was waiting for this.

What "left" policies do you have a problem with? Fiendish Thingy nailed it to a T. in his posts. How about we just be old fashioned Democrats who are the party of the working man and woman?

My dad told me 70 years ago that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the poor.

As for the DNC, I read Donna Brazille's book.

How about we nominate the best Democrat, period, and stop putting conditions on them running?

Who you got if AOC runs against Chuck?

[CivicGrief]

30. That's about money, not policy.

When money equals speech, the poor are left speechless.

[MakeThemCry]

20. Bill Clinton turned the Democratic Party into the Republican Party

And the Republican Party turned drove itself off a rightwing cliff.

Sadly, we haven't learned from our mistakes.

I'm hoping we're finally, finally, FINALLY at the stage where we realize we need to combat this madness by decidingly moving to the LEFT.

[betsuni]

24. Centrist establishment neoliberal shifted Right stands for nothing BILL CLINTON DESTROYED AMERICA

How intellectual these articles are! So consistent! Democrats must be very very bad (especially BILL CLINTON of the 20th century)! We sure missed a catastrophe by not electing that Harris person! Don't vote, insult!

Pointless. Imaginary Centrist Wars. Age Wars. Anything to divide.

[QueerDuck]

27. It's ridiculous, isn't it?

The facts are ignored and the lies amplified to suit someone's preferred narrative. Sigh.

[Nixie]

34. It's incredibly ridiculous considering the facts of the actual voting

results showed almost all voters shifted to the right.

The disinformation mongers ignore actual results in favor of their preferred disinformation:

[standingtall]

36. Not incredibly ridiculous there is some truth to it

"results showed almost all voters shifted to the right." Why did all voters shift right? Might have something to do with letting the right wing become more powerful. By losing elections. We should be driving results instead of conforming to them. We've justified running Centrist candidates in certain localities under the pretense they were the only ones that could win and sometimes it worked in the short term, but when that candidate loses which they ultimately always do. We don't get that seat back for 20 years and in the long term Democratic values in those localities erode.

[Nixie]

37. No. Just absolute disinformation. The whole reason the

RW works so hard to associate ALL Democrats with socialism is because it’s a loser. It’s a losing message, so doubling down on it for the last 10 years is the loser.

[QueerDuck]

38. As far as losing messages go, it right up there with the idiotic "Defund the Police" message/slogan.

[Nixie]

41. Yes, that was a total loser and one they tried to pin on every

Democrat. It’s stupid to act like there was no war on Woke, a war on trans, everything mocked and ridiculed. How that is ignored is just ridiculous.

[standingtall]

42. So what's happenned sense Democrats have been moving to the right

Public housing in America gutted. One of the biggest contributors to the homelessness crisis in America.
Citizens United making it easier for corporation and billionaires to give unlimited funds to candidates.
Roe V Wade repealed
voting rights act gutted
Medicare and medicaid also gutted.

A fascist dictator occupying American Cities.

Centrist really shouldn't be talking about a losing message when they have compromised with republicans to undermine good Democratic policies that helped people as well as running losing campaign strategies of trying to get the wives of maga to not vote that their husband. When they should've been going to their base. The strategy of centrist shitting on the Democratic base, compromising and collapsing should be buried once and for all. This isn't a 10 year problem, but for like a 40 or 50 year problem. If Democrats would've stuck to their guns and not threw marginalized groups under the bus to appeal to suburbanites and rural communities they might have been able to hold enough seats in Congress to pass laws to prevent right wing oligarchs from buying up media to brainwash people. They also never should've stopped gerrymandering, because republicans weren't going to stop. Kamala Harris won poor people and most marginalized groups. We can't keep throwing our most loyal supporters under the bus and think it's not going to have negative consequences long term.

[Nixie]

44. Very selective and biased. As usual. "centrist shitting on

the Democratic base.” Socialists don’t get elected so your screeds aren’t even reality. The answer sure isn’t giving Republicans’s more power because no one is perfect enough. Look at what’s happened. How anyone can shit on Democrats after the Supreme Court was handed to Republican’s on a silver platter. How many decades will you even have to wait to ever come close to get back what generations have fought for.

This BS is exactly what republicans use against us. I think my responses started answering a post about why we don’t get elected. Good lord, getting elected and staying in power is what the republicans goals are and look how it’s paid off for them. Time to face reality.

[standingtall]

45. Democrats lost the majority in the Senate

which is how the Supreme Court handed everything to republicans on a silver platter in the first place. We will not get elected and stay elected by not delivering for our voters. You can't lose everything and think if you say don't vote for us or you will lose even more is an effective selling point. How do you think we will ever get anything back what was lost by shouting socialist alongside republicans?

[Nixie]

47. There would have been no Iraq war if Gore was elected, but

that’s another huge republican power grab almost 30 years ago that the anti-democrats handed them on a silver platter. Instead, we heard more bitching about which democrats voted for whatever resolution instead of acknowledging that giving Bush the presidency was a really stupid idea.

As long as we’re into random gripes, explain why 100,000 voters in the various red states completely cancel out California’s 30,000,000 voters. That’s the reality that politicians face , but bitching about democrats takes precedence over reality. No thanks. It’s a waste of time.

[standingtall]

48. Strawman

I'm not a Naderite and the Supreme Court stole the 2000 election from Gore. Yes there would've been no Iraq war if Gore was President and probably no 911 either.

"As long as we’re into random gripes, explain why 100,000 voters in the various red states completely cancel out California’s 30,000,000 voters. That’s the reality that politicians face , but bitching about democrats takes precedence over reality. No thanks. It’s a waste of time. " That's a problem with the electoral college system. The only thing that could be done that is plausible is to add States, because constitutional amendment on this will never happen. Your conflating pointing out the mistakes Democrats have made with anti-Democratic party factions.

[Nixie]

49. Your screeds are also straw men. Based on reality, those that said Gore was the same as republicans

are the problem. Admitting they gave their power away seems impossible for them. Instead they want to bitch about this Democrat or that Democrat when they can’t admit that Gore would have been better than Bush. It’s not hard; just admit it.

My obvious point was that this country does have the electoral college. Getting in power and staying in power is the Republican’s long game and it’s paying off big time for them. The Supreme Court is lost for at least a generation. Bill Clinton was the first president in 25 years to nominate a Supreme Court justice. Let that sink in. Trump was handed the Supreme Court on a silver platter.

I don’t come here to bitch about Democrats, but I’m sure you will find someone to join you. Have a great day.

[gulliver]

32. Being able to deliver is a prerequisite

Center schmenter, left schmeft.

The only thing that matters is the ability to deliver. All of the whirligigs and showboating and promises and sweetie pie feels... none of those matter. All that matters is wise people doing smart deals for good reasons.

[Wanderlust988]

33. This entire thread is the reason why Democrats lose. You all concentrate on policy too much.

It's PERSONALITY that gets us across the line! We need to nominate someone that knows HOW to talk to people. Clinton and Obama were charismatic rock stars. You all are concentrating on silly policy disagreements.

[Nixie]

35. Exactly. The Tough Guy persona worked.

[standingtall]

46. Nah I believe policies matter

We don't talk about our policies enough that's the problem. You wouldn't believe how many republicans who vote against their own interest don't know that Social Security,Medicare and Medicaid are all Democratic policies and programs.

[Ace Rothstein]

43. This depends on the issue.

If people think we can go further left on immigration, some social issues and crime then we're going to continue to lose.