Jeff Hauser

@jeffhauser.bsky.social

12342 Followers 4900 Following

Personal account. Run Revolving Door Project (@revolvingdoordc.bsky.social). https://revolvingdoorproject.substack.com #LUFC

Primaries often include harsh policy attacks from rival candidates. But on policy, Democratic candidates will be distinct from Republicans on nearly every issue. So that’s not a big problem in the general election. What’s more problematic is Democratic candidates spending primaries essentially saying other Democrats are weirdos whom swing voters won’t support. The other problem is that primaries fixated on electability aren’t good preparation for the general election. “I will win the general election” is a message that’s only for hardcore Democrats. That’s the electorate in a primary, obviously. But “I will fix your health care,” “I will make housing more affordable, “I will bring jobs to the state,” are messages that appeal to primary voters but also the broader electorate. Ideally, Democratic candidates are spending the entire cycle on such broader messages, not spending a year emphasizing their electability during the primary and having only the few months of the general election to say anything that might excite people who aren’t hardcore Democrats.
Blessed with a massive majority, in a country that is functionally a legislative dictatorship, Starmer radically transformed UK policy on social issues. Rather than try and get out of (or at least perceive) the straitjacket they had put themselves in on the economy, their political strategy was what I term reactionary centrism. In a nutshell, this posits that electorates are moving right because they have ‘reasonable concerns’ about immigration, asylum, and the excesses of social liberalism (particularly on trans rights). The fascist resurgence can hence be understood as a ‘backlash to woke’. In response, center-left parties should give ground on these issues to ‘take them off the table’. One of the many failings of reactionary centrism is its utterly unfalsifiability: if you lose an election you have to move to the right on social issues to win next time. If you win an election you have to move to the right to govern. If things are going well politically it means it’s working. If they’re not, you need to give more ground. Appeasement, for them, is something reasoned from, not reasoned to. Reactionary centrism cannot fail, it can only be failed. This makes it a hopelessly exploitable strategy: if you are committed to giving your enemies what they want, they learn pretty quickly to just keep asking for stuff. In an age where neo-fascism is on the rise, this is a very dangerous operating software to have running on a politician's brain.
Third Way President Jon Cowan on the DNC autopsy: "No wonder the chronically online, highly educated, left-leaning team at the DNC wanted to bury this report. The autopsy draft released today validates the case we’ve been making post-2024 and are making again today as we gather over 150 Nevada Democrats to chart the party’s future. Democrats must be able to win the middle, anytime, anywhere and they can do that only with a combative centrism that rejects identity politics, reclaims the vital center, and positions the party as fighters on the economic issues that matter most to voters. As the NY Times poll shows, even a majority of Democrats want the party to move center not left, and this report echoes that sentiment. For Democrats who want to win, this report should be case closed."
Yglesias arguing only economics impacts election outcomes has been his long held belief. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/winning-the-pr-battle-but-so-what-eb31bc404791/
Picture of Bolsanao and headline about going to prison