Primaries versus the general
Ann Althouse mentions that the following is the top-rated comment at this NY Times article:
Third Way and some other centrist [Democrat] groups seem far more interested in defeating progressives than defeating MAGA and far more interested in telling Democratic voters they’re wrong than earning their votes. If moderates are losing, then the problem is with those candidates, not the progressives who beat them.
Top-rated comment? But it seems to be ignoring the difference between primary elections and general elections, a distinction that’s been known for just about forever. What appeals to the primary voter in a party tends to be more extreme than what will win in the general – not always, but often.
It’s a problem that doesn’t exist in deep blue or deep red states; in such venues, the candidate of the majority party almost inevitably wins. But in states that are at least potential toss-ups in the general, one way to deal with the dichotomy between the primary and the general is to manage to nominate a candidate who is perfectly positioned: extreme enough to satisfy the “base” but moderate enough to appeal to the more moderate voters in the state. Another way to deal with it in such states is to have the nominated candidate pretend to be moderate in the general election, but show his or her extreme leftism only after the win. Call it the Spanberger approach.
Then again, perhaps the author of the most-favored comment believes that extreme leftists really are in the majority, or can control the outcome of elections through fraud.
Note that Michigan’s El-Sayed won the primary election with less than 50% of the vote from Democrats. He beat his Democrat opponent Stevens by a tiny margin, and some of the votes went to distant third-place candidate Mallory McMorrow, who had previously withdrawn from the race and yet received 4% of the vote. McMorrow’s withdrawal was widely thought (and I agree) to have been an effort to increase Stevens’ changes of a win. If so, it didn’t work. But if Michigan had a system whereby primary winners had to receive 50% or more of the vote, it would have forced a runoff. Who would have won such a race? I can’t say.
Nor can I say who will win the general in Michigan, El-Sayed or Rogers (the Republican). Needless to say, I sincerely hope it’s the latter.
The problem these leftist primary winners have is that they’re going to have a hard time pretending to be moderate in the general election.
I’m greatly encouraged by the stupidity exhibited in the highest rated NYT comment. “Centrist’ democrats are trying to keep the DSA from dragging the Democrat Party into the abyss.
The Democrat Party’s “suicidal empathy” led to their insane ‘progressive’ DSA faction. The DSA is the natural offspring of the democrat party. Sanders, Warren, Raskin, etc. are all essentially fellow travelers.
Kate:
One would think they’d have a hard time pretending. The problem as I see it, though, is that many voters pay no attention to the candidates until late in the game. They may have missed what was said prior to the primary. This would make the pretending more successful.
@Geoffrey Britain:
2 words: Completely agree.
I’m not sure if Gad Saad actually coined the phrase “suicidal empathy” but it is so dead on re: what’s happening in our whole country. Perhaps the world. I don’t think it’s limited to Democrats. I am not liberal, may be moderate on some social issues, but even I catch myself speaking with “more appropriate or acceptable” language.. It’s a very stealthy phenomenon. Sort of like (or maybe deliberately like) “Rules For Radicals.” Repeat, repeat, repeat, and reality changes.
Kate: The problem these leftist primary winners have is that they’re going to have a hard time pretending to be moderate in the general election.
A further problem is that it may poison moderate Democrat candidates in purple states and counties.
Except for eccentrics like Carville and Fetterman, Democrats are too frightened to draw a line with the DSA.
Neo’s right that the NYT comment ignores the primary vs general difference. Primary voters are a smaller, more ideological group. Winning there (especially with under 50% like El-Sayed) doesn’t automatically mean you can win the general.
Same thing happened with Tea Party candidates in competitive districts. When the party doesn’t push back, it starts dragging down the moderates too – they end up having to explain why they’re not the primary winner.
We’ll see if it costs them in November.
“…a stealthy phenomenon…”
Indeed…but some exult in it:
“Ireland Offers 26 Weeks’ Paid Maternity Leave to ‘Pregnant Men’”—
https://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2026/08/07/ireland-offers-26-weeks-paid-maternity-leave-to-pregnant-men/
Taking blarney to the next level!
Trump-backed incumbent loses primary after super PAC bankrolled by Dems meddled in race
Cindy Simon wrote …I catch myself speaking with “more appropriate or acceptable” language…
So true, and the “Left’s” language has infected the “Right” and this blog:
transman/transwoman, biological man/woman, illegal migrants/immigrants, blue/red states, LGBTQ etc., radical Islamic terrorists, Black etc.
Third Way and some other centrist [Democrat] groups seem far more interested in defeating progressives than defeating MAGA…
Two points: Yes, there is the primary versus general effect. But the “most liked comment” can be strongly affected by how motivated these partisans are. One could “like it” on multiple devices, or other tricks, if sufficiently motivated.
Secondly, I found it interesting that the comment mentions The Third Way. Now, I don’t engage in the more serious left-wing debates with anyone these days, but it has been ages since I’ve heard that term. There is still interest in The Third Way??
Looking it up, out of curiosity I found Pres. Bill Clinton pictured first on the Wiki page. Huh. Appropriate, and in some ways, not so bad; at least compared to these new candidates.
If you ignore Bill Clinton the person, his sociopathic wife, and some of his national security actions, such as Somalia and Black Hawk Down, he wasn’t such a bad president. Well…, maybe one needs to add to that “ignore” list too.
Kate, the DSA group won’t have a hard time coming across as moderate if the GOP candidates let them.
I just saw the first Mike Rogers ad vs El-Sayed, and its a total waste of electrons. Just a milk toast set of words sitting next to his wife (I guess) who sits there making an occasional face as he speaks in cliche’s to the camera. Low energy, zero mentions of El-Sayed’s wildly extreme positions, no quotes, no videos of him. Just a waste of space.
Reminded me of McCain who refused to let anyone use Barack HUSSAIN Obama in his campaign.
El-Sayed was caught on a hot mic as he walked on Mackinaw Island saying how much he hated the place. Assuming it’s not an AI fake voice, this should hurt him in the general. If the media were fair (yes, I know) the 1st question from the moderator in the 1st debate between him and Rogers should be, “Could you explain to the people of Michigan what it is you hate about Mackinaw Island?”
@ Telemachus > The success of your suggestion depends on if the moderator is for or against the DSA.
We know for a fact that none of them are unbiased.
The first question to every Democrat candidate should be, “Could you explain to the people of the United States what it is you hate about America?”
— TommyJay
Yes, he was.
That’s the thing people who don’t follow this stuff closely miss out on. Bill Clinton was a pretend-moderate, after the GOP took control of Congress in 1994. But all the while he postured as a moderate, he was laying the groundwork that Obama would build on and that the DSA wants to take up to Warp 9.
Clinton made the subsequent disasters possible. Granted, he had help from the GOP. But his moderation was never for real. He set a whole bunch of precedents for abuse of power and election corruption, too.