If you read closely, you will notice that I do not make an argument that the Democrats should be more centrist, but that their strategy was to be centrist, and that they failed to sell it as such. That leaves to options for the future: Not be so centrist, because you can't sell it anyway, or be centrist, but actually sell it. But being centrist and looking leftist seems like a lose-lose, whether you prefer a more leftist or more centrist approach.

That being said, it might be interesting to look at Germany, where Merkel moved the CDU left from a center/right position to the center. This secured the CDU a rather long stretch in power, essentially spelled doom for the center/left SPD, but also gave rise to a more hard-left Die Linke and, worse, an ultra-right AfD, whicht started as a conservative party, but essentially was taken over by neo-nazis.

I may have misread your previous comment -- thank you for the clarification.

I do agree with you that it's tricky to try to sell being centrist when you are not, and, in some ways, better to just be out-and-out left.

TBH I'm not sure Biden really tried to sell himself as something he is not. He's been pretty clear about wanting to address systemic racism, the green new deal, a science-based response to covid, valuing international coalitions, etc.

If anything I'm kind of anticipating him walking back his pledges on those things when in office. Though I hope not.

Let's also bear in mind though that, while we can armchair-quarterback, his strategy succeeded.

I think the question of if moving to a more aggressively Progressive agenda would bring in voters hungry for change who are otherwise turned off by Democrats, or if moving more to the center to bring in voters turned off by a more Progressive agenda, is an extremely vexed question to which I have no answer.

That is interesting about Germany though.

And at the end of the day my own belief is that we are living in a time of change, and that it's important to offer policies I believe to be right (mainly Progressive policies) to address that change.

Or otherwise the void will be filled, as you pointed out about Germany, by something else.

At the same time we haven't seen that approach be successful on a national level in US politics yet. So I don't know.

Curious what your thoughts are.

I do think Biden stayed true to what he believes. I think he might not have pushed the green new deal so hard by himself, maybe. My point is this: For somebody sympathetic to the Democrats, Biden appears as a rather centrist person. He isn't advocating for abolishing private health-insurance for example. But if you ask a Republican voter (not even a Trumpist), I'm not sure they would say the same. Or they believe that the party would force him to be more left.

I'm not so sure with regard to the votes. 2016, yes, I believe many people on the left were not happy with Clinton and did not vote. This time, we had record vote participation, and I believe that's from both sides, so the result should reflect the true political will in America. It's likely that the coasts would prefer a more progressive candidate, but I think on average, the US is somewhere between Biden and Romney.

I like the picture of the pendulum. While Obama was quite centrist, the USA made great advances in personal liberties. Gay marriage and so on. The world was changing too fast for many. Or they felt that their problems weren't in the focus as much, or at all. So the pendulum swung back, and we had Trump. We need to dampen the swinging to make steady progress, and I think Biden might be good at that, maybe especially because of his age.

Personally, I am somewhat wary of some of the more progressive ideas. I'm not a big fan of single-payer healthcare, seeing the results in England. I generally think that a market-run system is better than a government-run, but that markets need firm rules set by the government. ACA was pretty good, but long term, America has to get away from the employment-coupled insurances. And covering preexisting conditions necessarily means mandate (or mandate through the backdoor).

> It's likely that the coasts would prefer a more progressive candidate, but I think on average, the US is somewhere between Biden and Romney.

You might be right. Let's also bear in mind, though, that even with all the people voting this year that's still I think less than half of all eligible voters.

Other countries which have national voting holidays or making voting mandatory (which tbh I kind of like; you're a citizen, it's your duty, you can go vote for no one but goddamnit you have to vote) see much higher turnout.

This means that votes alone don't currently present an entirely accurate picture of the view of the country.

There is also the vote surpression which is nontrivial and hard to measure. Probably not a massive difference but perhaps more than a tiny one.

Lastly I'm actually not a fan of Biden's age. I'd like to see more politicians under the age of 50.

By the way although I'm sharing my disagreements I thought your comments were thoughtful and insightful and appreciate our conversation : ).

I, too, enjoyed our discussion. Thoughtful exchange with people who are not of the same opinion is so much more rewarding than the echo chambers we often find ourselves in.

It would be quite interesting to hear from those not voting why they didn't vote. My suspicion is that these people would almost never vote, or maybe only vote for so extremely perfect candidates that it's just not realistic. But yeah, maybe there is a large group of people who would vote if the candidate would just be a little bit more progressive. But honestly, in a situation like this, with the knowledge of the last four years, I just can't understand why you wouldn't vote, at least if you are left of center.

I also cannot understand why election day isn't on a Sunday, or a holiday. It should be the highest holiday the US has. Any democracy has, actually.

Biden is also somewhat too old for my taste, but no candidate is perfect. Age does bring experience though, and he has long-lasting relationships with people on both sides of the aisle. That will help. Personally, I really liked Buttigieg, and I'm happy to see that he'll like have a role in the Biden administration.

> He's been pretty clear about wanting to address systemic racism, the green new deal, a science-based response to covid, valuing international coalitions, etc.

Those are all standard centrist neoliberal goals - aside from the green new deal, which Biden already explicitly said won’t be anything nearly as radical as what AOC/Bernie were shilling.

All of which, even if inadequate are better goals than the dark authoritarian visions of the far-right : ).

Systemic racism has been danced around by centrists until now.

And yeah I agree we have to wait and see what the Biden administration actually does.

But as a Progressive I'm heartened because now there's an opportunity for Progressives to push the Biden administration. With Trump, there was zero chance of that.

As the FDR quote goes, "You’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."

I don't think any Progressives have idealistic visions of a Biden administration. What they are hoping for is a degree of influence and an opportunity to exert political pressure or leverage.

Which is how politics is : )

> He's been pretty clear about wanting to address systemic racism

In case folks haven’t clued in yet, using this phrase is probably the single most important contributor to why the democrats almost lost the election and lost so many seats. The house is absolutely going red in 2022 if they don’t clue in and drop the identity politics nonsense. There is no “systemic” racism, and this is an unnecessarily divisive narrative.

The really interesting thing is that when Democratic platform proposals are on the ballot, they pass even in red states.

For example, this year Florida voted for Trump by 2% AND a $15 minimum wage by 20 points.

The actual policy is extremely popular, but if a Democratic politician brings it up it just gets labelled socialism.

It's funny, because if you talk about gun control, most Republicans think the same thing about Democrats. The difference being they've been burned over and over by compromise and the fact once something is passed it never gets reviewed or sunset for relevance.

It cuts both ways. People disagree, and where they disagree is the most likely place for both sides to hold the other side to account for previous behavior.

It's part of why I was so disgusted about fast tracking the Supreme Court nomination after McConnell set a precedent the Presidency before.

In terms of game theory it just cemented that the other side couldn't be trusted.

This is very inaccurate, and seems to be a misunderstanding among the “defund the police” democrats. And that’s precisely the problem.