Why is the Democratic Party continuing to move to the left, when even its own voters don’t want it to?
A new Gallup poll reveals a growing divide within the Democratic Party, with 41% of Democrats now saying they want the party to move toward the center. Meanwhile, support for a more liberal direction has dropped to 36%, down from 49% in 2021—marking a significant shift in voter sentiment. …
According to Gallup, moderation is particularly popular among more affluent Democrats, while younger, white, middle-class voters remain more inclined toward progressive policies. This ideological split could have major implications for future elections, especially in swing states where centrist candidates, who rely on the suburbs, tend to perform better than their left-wing counterparts. …
Despite this, Democratic leadership continues to embrace progressive policies, creating friction between party elites and the broader electorate.
We’ve certainly seen that in the Democrats’ recent choices to head the party.
So, why can’t – or won’t – the Democrats tack more towards the middle? After all, they managed to do that in 1992, after the Reagan/Bush-One years, and they were quite successful for a while with Bill Clinton.
Here is my modest attempt at possible answers to that question. Take your pick, or add your own.
(1) They will, eventually. They’re just not ready quite yet.
(2) They cannot and will not, because they’re gotten rid of all their moderates. The party is now composed almost totally of committed leftist ideologues, even if that’s not true of the rank-and-file voters.
(3) The political operatives in the party live increasingly in deep blue enclaves and are completely out of touch with even their own voters, or potential voters, who don’t. It’s more or less the Pauline Kael effect.
(4) In Democrat circles, moderation isn’t just considered moderation these days. It has been labeled sexism, racism, and general bigotry.
(5) During the Obama years, the Democrats became used to the idea of the unstoppable ascendance of the left – that a permanent hold on power was not only achievable, but imminent. The Gramscian march was nearly complete, and they held the reins in education, many churches and synagogues, much of the legal system, media, the unelected DC bureaucracy, and the arts and museums. Any reversal of this is thought to be temporary.
(6) The answer to winning is better messaging. Delivering results that help people’s lives is not necessary. Communication is all.
(7) Another charismatic candidate like Obama will come along and do the trick.
(8) The right will overreach and there will be a backlash.
The intoxicating effect of power!
2, 3, 5, and 6. They have completely lost touch with reality outside their leftist bubble.
From my contact with Democratic friends, I would agree with the first sentence in 2), and disagree with the second sentence. Since the election, the rank and file voters I know have become just as strident and ridiculous as the leaders. And that ties in with the very true statement of 4).
The Democrats know they are the true sovereigns and protectors of Our Democracy(TM)…and even those who may have had some doubts are now being reassured by all those “Obama judges” who have decided that it is their responsibility to protect the Democratic Party from accountability.
So why change?
…But just in case things do get a bit hairy…
‘Eruption In “BleachBit,” “Wipe Hard Drive,” “Offshore Bank” Searches In DC Suggest Deep State Panic Mode’—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/eruption-bleachbit-wipe-hard-drive-offshore-bank-searches-dc-suggest-deep-state-panic
I think that many of the former ” moderates” have personally moved to the left . Just consider how women’s rights and sports were once promoted by the left in the 1990’s and now they consider ” trans women” as being really women.
Remember that movie ” A League of their Own” about the female softball players? If they remade that movie today there is a good chance that it would promote ” trans women”.
I’d add that the Democratic leadership makes its living through grift. Perhaps they are choosing — wisely.
physicsguy:
But if the poll is correct, people like the ones you know constitute a smaller percentage than those who’d like more moderation.
Related…
“NYT opinion piece concedes ‘Trump might have a case on birthright citizenship’”—
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nyt-opinion-piece-concedes-trump-might-have-case-birthright-citizenship
“Entrepreneur urges Dem Rep. Raskin to stop complaining about Elon Musk;
“Magatte Wade said Rep. Raskin was clearly ‘not working’ for Americans“—
https://www.foxnews.com/media/entrepreneur-urges-dem-rep-raskin-over-elon-musk-attacks-urges-him-stop-complaining
Ever the pessimist, I see a strong possibility of #8. “Overreach” might not be the right word, but I can all too easily see Trump & Co. blowing it in various ways. I really do hope I’m wrong.
The Democrats are nowhere at the moment. Completely defeated and lacking direction.
The astonishing and radical changes made by this new and very strong executive may well mean they will not return to Federal Government for the foreseeable future.
What power they have at state level will be meaningless as the States will now have to align with the Executive.
Here’s hoping they never get back in and use the same level of Executive power as the Trump/Musk regime.
Maybe they are still woozy from the knockout blow Trump landed during the elections…?
I also like 1, 3, and 5. Still almost 4 years to go for President Trump, so #8 is still a strong possibility.
Trump’s opening offer to Second Buddy Putin has left him with the “Neville Chamberlain” comparison to deal with, and the MAGA ‘Crime Fanatics‘ have thrown a tantrum. The Tariff issue is still up in the air for me since I find it confusing. Yeah, #8 is one that Trump needs to watch out for, i.e., steady as she goes…so to speak.
All good, but I’ll pick 2, 4, & 6.
My additional thought is similar to Chuck’s, & dovetails with 2. The Dem party is essentially a patronage operation at best, & an organized crime syndicate at it’s worst.
If the party functions via slush funds, palm greasing, & a series of carrots & sticks; and most everyone on the receiving end is a committed leftist, then they can’t shift towards moderation.
There is one more possibly essential ingredient. The committed leftist is much more comfortable with corruption than a “good governance” moderate. The end justifies the means, blah, blah.
Thinking outside the box…?
“How Justin Trudeau Helped Donald Trump Get Elected”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-justin-trudeau-helped-donald-trump-get-elected
Neo,
Yeah, it looks like all the ones I know are in the 29% rather than the 45% if the poll is accurate. They are certainly unhinged at the moment
Cannot recall the authors, WaPo writer and his wife, about this subject. So long ago that Teddy Kennedy was a possible candidate for dem nom for POTUS.
Yes, better marketing was the point, but there was a page listing the sorts of things which happened to normal people due to lib/dem policies; passed over due to white (cop up for sergeant), raped (third shift nurse in the parking lot) by somebody let out of jail early, threatened by the deinstitutionalized demented on the subway (early shift workers) single mom whose children were bussed to distant and unfamiliar neighborhoods. For them, the promise of liberalism isn’t obvious.
But,,,marketing is the key.
Simply put, the Democratic Party is, and always has been, on the wrong side. They excuse, nay, generate, factionalism, and promote hostility and totalitarianism.
They are the anti-American Americans.
They were born of the 1960s and endure, even dominate, today.
Everyone’s going to have different experiences of trying to talk with the Marxists that dominate the Democratic Party; but, for me, numbers 2 & 4 on Neo’s list have been the predominant factors.
By calling their opponents racists, sexists, and bigots, the Marxists thought that they’d found kryptonite for Republicans and conservatives. Argument, logic, evidence, and policy were all cast aside. Any disagreement could be stifled by calling the bad guys racists, sexists, and bigots. It’s destroyed careers and ruined lives, so from the Marxist point of view, it was working just fine.
Unfortunately, the Party needs at least half the country to win an election, and more than half is sick and tired of this tactic. Now, they just laugh at it. But inside the Party, nothing’s changed. Inside the Party, all those empty words still have power. Those who want Party moderation still quietly cower before the Marxist labels, and the Party can’t move on. They’re stuck. All they can do is wait for Trump to blunder.
“They have completely lost touch with reality outside their leftist bubble.” Kate
Once again Kate has the right of it. Leftist precepts demand the acceptance of propositions that reject key aspects of both human nature and fundamental principles that govern the external reality within which we all exist. Every aspect and motivation on the left follows from the ideological imperative that reality’s inconvenient truths be rejected.
Please note that in 1984 the Democratic Party had four faces: (1) the residue of the Dixiecrat element (which had almost disappeared from Congress by 1995); (2) a concatenation of sectoral interests, the unions foremost among them; (3) a technocratic element interesting to a bourgeois electorate (typified by Gary Hart); and (4) a revanchist element typified by Jesse Jackson (but corralling crucial financing from twits like Barbara Ehrenreich). What are you looking at today?
I’m now seeing multiple posts of sad stories of people who have lost their federal job. Park ranger here, disabled vet there, college kid going to the Smithsonian getting cut. It seems to be the narrative late today to show how cold, cruel, and heartless Trump and Musk are to these folks. Of course sprinkled in are Trump voters who have been fired and so the D poster gets to say a big “I told you so!!!”.
4 is big, especially among the younger lefties. Moderation is a quaint old, white male concept. You either want the policy they want or you’re Hitler. Even being able to talk objectively and rationally about a topic betrays your “privilege.” Those folk will concede nothing to the right.
physicsguy: I’ve noticed that too, especially on LinkedIn.
Unfortunately, there will always be some young 20-something excited about their federal government job only to find out it got cut, or some well-intentioned scientist or do-gooder somewhere whose project lost funding, but the rot is so deep that we just have to keep the momentum going.
The left largely has themselves to blame. They cast their lots with the deep state, defended the Democratic Party despite its blatantly anti-democratic actions, cried “evil ruthless capitalist who wants to throw old people off a cliff!” every time funding cuts were suggested, and tried to ram through their DEI and gender ideology in every social institution. They’re just gonna have to reap it. Because we can’t go back to the status quo. The next few years will be tough, but necessary.
I would say all of the above, and add the power of grift, or the stronger graft, or the strongest, corruption.
However, as the recent polls have shown, the voters, even Democrats, are falling in line with some of the Republican actions. It’s really hard to defend the massive waste and fraud that DOGE has uncovered, IF you aren’t one of the people losing their job as noted above, but ARE a taxpayer who has been funding the bloat. As the man said when he got his new health insurance premium after Obamacare passed, “I didn’t think I would have to pay for it!”
For exposition, posit that the Democrat membership, including leaders, is analogous to the full American electorate, which consistently breaks down in polls to about one-third (more or less) in each “camp” of leftists-pretending-to-be-liberals (D), conservatives-and-the-hard-right (R), and centrists-independents-libertarians-and-whatever (I).
For the Dems, that would further divide into one-third each of hard-core-leftist-true-believers (L), old-style-moderates-and-actual-liberals (M), and one-third go-along-to-get-along-progressives (P).
The mechanics of American elections pretty much force the centrists (I) to pick a side, and I suppose most of them look at which of the two major parties’ candidates are most likely to deliver on whatever each voter deems the highest priority.
Some of them (left, right, and center) also look at which party’s policies will pay off for them in some personal way, as in contracts, grants, jobs, welfare, and so forth.
At the moment, in the Democrat party, due to long years of “transformation,” most of the Moderates and the Progressives* have supported the Leftists and their policies not just our of fear, but because it paid off for them personally to make sure the gravy train kept rolling, although the Leftists were laying the tracks in this era.
Now that a derailment by the Musketeers is in progress, the center and “right” of the Democrat party are looking for berths on another conveyance and route, and it behooves them to support the party that will be in control of seating, at least for the next four years.
IOW, if they can’t get grants and jobs in the fields of climate change and DEI and LGBTQRS studies anymore, they will look to see what the Republicans ARE willing to fund, and get a ticket.
Because there WILL be a return to the fitting out of new gravy train cars as soon as the DOGE takes the current ones to the dump and retires in 2026.
UNLESS the Congress puts some serious statutory barriers in place, and I’m not betting the round house on that.
I suspect a lot of Democrat “true believers” are counting on being back in control, overtly or covertly, as soon as they can manage it, and are holding strong until then.
*I make exceptions for the true liberals who formerly were Democrat stalwarts and are appalled at the depth and breadth of the Leftist control over every facet of American and international life.
Here’s a good example of the reaction of one of them (Matt Taibbi), and Substack is full of other defectors.
The caveat is that they may ride the Republican train for awhile, but they are NOT conservatives, just honest progressives (because IMO they really believe in those tenets).
https://www.racket.news/p/my-statement-to-congress-574
https://www.racket.news/p/a-brief-note-on-todays-house-hearing
(9) The right will fix the problems, or most of them, people have short memories, and will again vote for ‘More”
My preferred theory is that they just can’t help themselves.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/444985-abrams-swipes-at-buttigieg-identity-politics-is-exactly-who-we-are/
As with any complex phenomenon there is usually more than one cause even within one person. Thus I think your list is a pretty good one. But I wanted to highlight this item:
”The right will overreach and there will be a backlash.”
The left will spend the next 2-4 years *creating* that backlash whether there is genuine overreach or not. The constant drumbeat of “unelected Elon”, “personal data”, and “racist deportations” will grow on people. As you often say, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will accept it as true.
I think Trump and Musk only have about 6-12 months to make really bold moves. I think they’ll be able to advance the agenda beyond that point but probably not in big bold steps. Still, things are off to a fine start. Good luck to them.
@ physicsguy > “It seems to be the narrative late today to show how cold, cruel, and heartless Trump and Musk are to these folks.”
And ditto to Shadow:
There was not a lot of sympathy among Democrats for people who lost their jobs due to the “fundamental transformation of America” that put the Leftist in control of CREATING jobs for their minions.
I don’t need to rehearse that long list for Neo’s readers.
AesopSpouse and an entire company of good people lost their jobs when a competitor bought the business and they were not needed (the buyer wanted the patents, not the buildings and staff).
Nobody gave us a pity party because of it.
Part of the problem is the extent of the job “losses” — I don’t count the ones who “planned on working for X” and aren’t even in college yet! — much like we are all more horrified at a plane crash that kills 100 people, which are less than once a year (or used to be!), than at the car accident stats that show considerably more deaths daily.
It’s the “all at once” that creates the group psychological problem.
And some of those stories are propaganda.
Nobody knows you’re a dog (or bot) on the internet.
https://usafacts.org/articles/is-flying-safer-than-driving/
“There was a total of 689 serious injuries in US air travel from 2002 to 2022, an average of 33 per year. In that same time, 48 million people were hurt in passenger vehicles on US highways — that’s approximately 2.3 million per year.”
@ mkent > “The left will spend the next 2-4 years *creating* that backlash whether there is genuine overreach or not.”
Agreed.
The precedent is settled science.
I think we call it Smolleting or something like that.
“As you often say, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will accept it as true.”
If you continually repeat the truth (or a close approximation) tied to claims of how horrible it is, you can convince most of the public to believe it.
That’s one of the most insidious forms of propaganda.
All possibly good reasons, but I think missing an important one. As AesopFan notes above, the Democratic elites who are in on the graft and corruption are much more widespread than we can currently guess, and the sheer amount of money they have stolen over past few years is massive. And as
TommyJay notes, the Democrat elites are essentially a crime syndicate, so they have no choice but to defend their actions in any way they can, otherwise they
go to jail.
The Ds seem to have a problem with their new DNC Vice chair. Apparently he is fundraising for his own PAC where he draws a nice salary. Of course, he is using the DNC lists to do so.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2025/02/15/david-hogg-took-just-days-to-wear-out-his-welcome-at-the-dnc-as-he-makes-it-all-about-himself-n2185636
Some truth to all of neo’s items.
I would add that the Democrat Party has largely been captured by the 60s New Left and the New Left — based on its experiences of the Civil Rights and the Anti-Vietnam War movements — is used to starting from zero and winning the long game by sheer persistence.
It’s in their DNA. It’s mostly worked for them.
I sure thought the New Left was dead in the 70s but Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground worker bees just didn’t give up. Obama launched his political career from Bill Ayers’ and Bernardine Dohrn’s living room.
The rest is history and we must work hard to turn it back.
”I would add that the Democrat Party has largely been captured by the 60s New Left…I sure thought the New Left was dead in the 70s but Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground worker bees just didn’t give up.
That’s because, as I’m sure you’ve experienced, this is a religion for them. They’ve dedicated their lives to creating utopia, though they haven’t called it that since the late 60’s / early 70’s. They’re not going to give up and go away no matter what Trump or anyone else does. Most of them will go to their graves believing in themselves.
The best we can do is to defeat them and keep them from proselytizing the next generation at scale.
Mkent:
“The best we can do is to defeat them and keep them from proselytizing the next generation at scale.”
Yes!! And that 2nd part requires taking over education.
I don’t know how we do that, especially with the powerful teacher unions & subgroups, like city school districts’ administrations.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove
It’s not wholly wrong, this notion. Yet too, it’s an extremely peculiar idea of “zero” they hold (and do not trouble to question themselves contra themselves). Descartes gave it a go, earnestly I believe, yet could not find more than a cul-de-sac.
Perhaps the premier characteristic of the progressives, if not the moderns taken altogether, is their insistent superficiality while beavering away at their dogmatisms. Hilarious, really.
One woman’s opinion:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/woke-god-ex-dem-fundraiser-says-party-in-shambles-after-2024-election-losses
So this morning the liberal loons I watch posted some repeat of an article from a guy in Britain who says that NATO must prepare to militarily defend itself against the US. Apparently we are descending into a dictatorship where Trump and Musk have designs to conquer to world. First he will take Canada, Panama, and Denmark. These people really seem to believe what this guy is saying. I just get blown away each day by how the insanity just keeps ramping up. What’s the endpoint??
Of course, those of us with a more sane view of things are just brainwashed by Trump.
VIDEO – It’s priceless to watch the look Tom Homan just shut down Dana Bash On live TV
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2025/02/video-its-priceless-to-watch-look-tom.html
They can’t move right, because the only was to keep a coalition of disparate races and ethnicities together is through anti-Whiteness.
Our Hostess said:
After all, they managed to do that in 1992, after the Reagan/Bush-One years, and they were quite successful for a while with Bill Clinton.
Ah there was the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) which had the remains of the moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats. Clinton and Gore came out of that strain. Clinton won limiting Bush the Elder to one term (though mainly because of the third party Reform Party throwing states to the Democrat side). However the DLC and the Democrat party got their ass handed to them in the 1994 midterm. At that point the Main arm of the DNC started clearing out the Blue Dogs who were seen as likely to side with Newt’s horde. Clinton sort of governed on the slightly less side of things, Gore sort of pretended to be there. It is not clear if this was actual tenedency to moderation or a maskirova/hudna like maneuver lieing to keep the voters. The Republican 1996 candidate Bob Dole was well about as exciting as plain oatmeal that has gone cold so the presidential election went to Clinton. W had an 8 year interim of Bush the Younger. Meanwhile the purge of the moderate wing of the Democrat party continued apace. Obama arrives quite charismatic, but with a severe case of narcissism combined with downright nastiness and starts to purge the party of anyone who might oppose him. The DLC goes belly up in the first Obama administration. We have the Trump 45 presidency which was good but rather scattershot other than judges for which we have to mostly thank the quisling Mcconnell. Biden is the figurehead, it seems certain Obama is one of the prime movers behind him and the sheer overreach (whether due to stupidity or cupidity) dwarfs even the Obama Administration. One of the things that is confounding the current Democrats is that they grew VERY dependent on the cover and adulation of the MSM. Although the MSM still has their kneepads out for the Democrat party it isn’t working as during the 2020 Covid and riots (fiery but mostly peaceful) the MSM made it clear to even the most naive that their information was nonsense. The Democrat party faithful Still think the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN etc. are still trustworthy but where people get their information has changed so few under 50 pay any attention to that, And much of the over 50 crowd uses the new media as an adjunct to the old media and feels the MSM sources do not rise to the level of Pravda or Izvestia.
I think your Position 2 is closer to the truth. Oh the Democrats will come back for a bit. But I think it more likely we see a party system shift (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States for party systems). Either the Democrats will go to being a minority (disloyal opposition) for 12-16 years or they will undergo major transformation. I think the latter is unlikely in the near term, their internal system is very rigged against change. They might try to become a party more like the old BDR Christian democrats (a return to a more DLC like model), but even that is unlikely to get power back for them other than in fits and starts. We may actually see a new party rise to the left (or maybe right ?!?) of the current Republican position and replace the Democrats (or maybe take them over internally, much harder) like the republicans replaced the whigs.
Thanks Mike for that terrific link.
(Turns out, though, that that “one woman” WAS a HYUGE Democratic Party fund raiser who’s had enough of the insanity of her former party and has decided to cross the aisle—hoping to take her donors with her. Would have been nice if she had mentioned, in addition to the sheer insanity, all the incredible dishonesty…but one shouldn’t complain too much, I guess…)
Tregonsee314, why wouldn’t they decide to go FULL FURY.
(That is, ratchet up the “mostly peaceful” violence to 11…or even 100.)
After all, if Trump/Musk is/are
Hitler/Nazisdismantling their gravy train AND exposing their crooked, labyrinthine networks—the sophisticated, elaborate and amazingly elegant ones they spent over a decade designing and—painstakingly—setting up (with all the artistry, skill and devotion at their immoral, unethical command), wouldn’t extreme violence—ENTIRELY VIRTUOUS it must be said—be precisely what is called for??@ Tregonsee314 – great comment, and I found it very informative. My first time voting was the GW Bush midterms in 2002. Around 2008-2011 was still new to politics, had moved to Dixie County, FL where Blue Dog Allen Boyd was a Congressman. Joined the Democratic Underground site and mailing list to watch what was going on with him, and he was catching hell over Obamacare.
Right of the current Republican party would be great, IMHO.
Part of the reason is an extension of the “don’t know any” effect. Not only don’t the big shots know any ordinary people, they despise ordinary people who want safety in the streets, actual education for the kids, and so forth. So, they can’t, personally, afford to agree with the ordinary democrats.
Ordinary democrats are noticing. That’s not a problem for the Bigs, since anybody who notices is a racistbigotsomethingorother.
Keeping education grounded in reality is what family dinner is for; “The teacher said WHAT?”
Uh oh…
“Javier Milei Faces Impeachment After Endorsing $107 Million Crypto Rug-Pull”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/javier-milei-endorsed-libra-token-crashes-after-107-million-insider-rug-pull
The DOGE threat of massive Federal workforce downsizing has reached DC ground zero, and the guilty sectors within the corrupt Swamp are reacting with PANIC!
AND it is glorious to behold!!
Two recent posts on this (one Sunday updated from Saturday or Friday at Zerohedge) survey key metrics. Let me summarize.
First, the DC area evinces a surge in internet search terms like “RICO” and “defense lawyers”. Same with search terms like “bleach bit” and “foreign bank accounts!”
The ‘Rats are prepping to abandon the ship of state they managed to exploit and wreck!
The other Zerohedge.com piece reports on the year-over-year January surge home sales listings in many areas surrounding DC such as Alexandria and Fairfax, VA — a 60 to 80% surge.
I trust our host will open a new file on this evidence. We need the joy found in seeing our enemy suffering en mass defeat. In Musk we Trust.
Some people say that the Scotus headed by CJ Roberts will step in to stop the nationwide injunctions by local judges. We shall see as he has a chance now.
“Trump Seeks Emergency SCOTUS Stay Of District Court TRO Preventing Termination of Senior Employee
District Court prevented termination of Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel. Emergency Application: “The United States now seeks this Court’s intervention because these judicial rulings irreparably harm the Presidency by curtailing the President’s ability to manage the Executive Branch in the earliest days of his Administration”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/02/trump-seeks-emergency-scotus-stay-of-district-court-tro-preventing-termination-of-senior-employee/
Gentlemen, start your Humphrey’s Executors!
As others have noted, there are multiple reasons. IMHO it’s partly 2, a lot of 3 and 4, along with some 5 and 8. 8 is of course a real possibility, politics is a little like a gyroscope, movement in any direction generates a counter force.
Along with those reasons, though, I think there is another one, and it goes back to the Clinton years.
‘So, why can’t – or won’t – the Democrats tack more towards the middle? After all, they managed to do that in 1992, after the Reagan/Bush-One years, and they were quite successful for a while with Bill Clinton.’
We tend to see the Left and the Dems as monolithic, but they have their own internal power struggles and power centers just like everyone else. Some of that is family based (Clintons, Obamas, Cuomos, Kennedys, Bidens, etc.). Some of that is regional, some is ideological.
After the 1994 debacle freed Bill Clinton from Hillary’s oversight, he moved (or sometimes pretended to move) in a centrist direction, and famously ‘triangulated’, trying to seem to chart a middle course between the GOP in Congress and the liberal base of the Party. “The era of Big Government is over.” Etc.
Here’s the thing: the hardcore libs _hated_ this. Clinton became popular, and he was their only bulwark against the GOP, so they had to pretend to like it or be OK with it, but it drove them bonkers. The Party was winning in the late 90s, yes, but the liberal/progressive true believers weren’t driving the bus, and they want to drive the bus. The Dems had to make supportive noises about the death penalty, welfare reform, the military, etc. One Dem Congressman was overheard to say that when Clinton triangulated, he strangulated the base.
It only got worse after the Lewinsky scandal broke. You had feminist activists forced to get on national TV and defend him, saying ‘it’s just sex’, ‘boys will be boys’, ‘it’s no big deal’. These are some of the same people who a few years before were chanting curses at Clarence Thomas for offenses that were far less egregious even if they were true, and lining up with Dworkin’s ‘all sex is rape’ line in some cases.
This tore up the credibility of American organized feminism so badly that it took them nearly 20 years to recover.
So yeah, in theory the Dems could repeat their tactics from 1994+. But the people running the Party right now don’t _want_ to. They don’t want to go back on the back benches, to borrow a phrase from the UK. They thought they had decisively won in 2008 (several of them, including Pelosi, were saying as much) and they don’t want to go back to hiding who they are, even if it only meant deferring to different Dems.
Even in 2016, Bill Clinton (who, whatever we might think of him as a person, is definitely a sharp political operator and analyst) was advising Hillary to change her approach, but she refused. She wanted to win on ‘vote for me because I’m a woman and it’s my/our turn’. She was sick of hiding who she is.
It’s not just Dems that do this. John McCain passed up several opportunities to improve his campaign in 2008, because he wanted to win on ‘vote for me because I’m a war hero and I can work with Democrats’.