If Liberals are so smart why do they lose so goddam always?

[Josquius]

.

Even today I was listening to a podcast on the French election and they were discussing how "normal" Le Pen's policy documents were. There was nothing crazy or frightening the horses in them. But there is a profound difference between her and Macron it's in who they are, the agenda they represent and the direction they want their policies to take society. Just looking at policies in isolation won't tell you that which is why it's not what politics is about in a representative democracy - but could be in, say, Switzerland or California.

Disclaimer in my view of course that I don't mean Mr Jewkill can show up one election with a policy of peace and love and all that went before is forgotten.
Who someone is matters in terms of policy history and likely future policies as well as those directly promised.
Also have to be sure they are actually telling the truth since there's no legal protection for the person elected on a policy of nationalise things to decide actually more privatisation is what we need.
Beyond these aspects however personality meanwhile matters not at all. My point is slick salesmen types have an outsized influence on the world and I detest it.

[The Minsky Moment]

Even today I was listening to a podcast on the French election and they were discussing how "normal" Le Pen's policy documents were. There was nothing crazy or frightening the horses in them. But there is a profound difference between her and Macron it's in who they are, the agenda they represent and the direction they want their policies to take society. Just looking at policies in isolation won't tell you that which is why it's not what politics is about in a representative democracy - but could be in, say, Switzerland or California.

It's about giving cover to people that would otherwise be embarrassed to admit voting for a neo-fascist party.  Marine has done a bang up job of normalizing the indefensible; she is a far more skilled politician than dead old dad.

[crazy canuck]

The fact is that the left wins a lot of elections outside the US and perhaps the UK.

Perhaps the question is better posed as to why the US is such an outlier.

[ulmont]

Perhaps the question is better posed as to why the US is such an outlier.

Both are poor questions for a number of reasons.

First, the rules are radically different.  In a first-past-the-post system where the head of the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative branch, you get 2 parties, period.  And that forces many disparate groups into an unofficial coalition from the jump.

Second, the right wins a lot of elections around the world as well, so the US is only so much of an outlier in the grand world scheme.

But, to recap (I had this half written and spilled coffee on my computer, RIP):

This is attributed to Adlai Stevenson, almost certainly apocryphally:

"Governor, you have the support of all thinking people!"

"But Madam, we need a majority!"

It's easier to run a campaign of demagoguery than to pull together dozens of different groups into a coalition, where each can plausibly make the claim that their issues are most important and are being ignored by the larger group...

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps the question is better posed as to why the US is such an outlier.

Both are poor questions for a number of reasons.

First, the rules are radically different.  In a first-past-the-post system where the head of the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative branch, you get 2 parties, period.  And that forces many disparate groups into an unofficial coalition from the jump.

Second, the right wins a lot of elections around the world as well, so the US is only so much of an outlier in the grand world scheme.

But, to recap (I had this half written and spilled coffee on my computer, RIP):

This is attributed to Adlai Stevenson, almost certainly apocryphally:

"Governor, you have the support of all thinking people!"

"But Madam, we need a majority!"

It's easier to run a campaign of demagoguery than to pull together dozens of different groups into a coalition, where each can plausibly make the claim that their issues are most important and are being ignored by the larger group...

 In Canada we have a first past the post system and the liberals are famously known as the natural governing party of the country.

That remained true even when the left vote became split between the liberals and the NDP. There is no significant competition for the one federal right wing party and yet they rarely form government.

I think it's striking that the US and Canada can be culturally similar in so many ways and yet be so completely different politically

[PJL]

Perhaps the question is better posed as to why the US is such an outlier.

Both are poor questions for a number of reasons.

First, the rules are radically different.  In a first-past-the-post system where the head of the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative branch, you get 2 parties, period.  And that forces many disparate groups into an unofficial coalition from the jump.

Second, the right wins a lot of elections around the world as well, so the US is only so much of an outlier in the grand world scheme.

But, to recap (I had this half written and spilled coffee on my computer, RIP):

This is attributed to Adlai Stevenson, almost certainly apocryphally:

"Governor, you have the support of all thinking people!"

"But Madam, we need a majority!"

It's easier to run a campaign of demagoguery than to pull together dozens of different groups into a coalition, where each can plausibly make the claim that their issues are most important and are being ignored by the larger group...

 In Canada we have a first past the post system and the liberals are famously known as the natural governing party of the country.

That remained true even when the left vote became split between the liberals and the NDP. There is no significant competition for the one federal right wing party and yet they rarely form government.

I think it's striking that the US and Canada can be culturally similar in so many ways and yet be so completely different politically

The clue is right there. Because there are more than 2 parties, the centrist Liberal party can claim to be paty of moderates, seeing off challenges from both the left and the right. The problem the Democrats face is that they have no such leftwing equivalent. So they need to create one by disowning/throwing out the progressives from their party. By doing, they stand to gain more than they lose. Because right now, many Republicans think the progessives in the Democratic party ARE the party. By splitting into two, they can at least show waverers they are not the same.

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps the question is better posed as to why the US is such an outlier.

Both are poor questions for a number of reasons.

First, the rules are radically different.  In a first-past-the-post system where the head of the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative branch, you get 2 parties, period.  And that forces many disparate groups into an unofficial coalition from the jump.

Second, the right wins a lot of elections around the world as well, so the US is only so much of an outlier in the grand world scheme.

But, to recap (I had this half written and spilled coffee on my computer, RIP):

This is attributed to Adlai Stevenson, almost certainly apocryphally:

"Governor, you have the support of all thinking people!"

"But Madam, we need a majority!"

It's easier to run a campaign of demagoguery than to pull together dozens of different groups into a coalition, where each can plausibly make the claim that their issues are most important and are being ignored by the larger group...

 In Canada we have a first past the post system and the liberals are famously known as the natural governing party of the country.

That remained true even when the left vote became split between the liberals and the NDP. There is no significant competition for the one federal right wing party and yet they rarely form government.

I think it's striking that the US and Canada can be culturally similar in so many ways and yet be so completely different politically

The clue is right there. Because there are more than 2 parties, the centrist Liberal party can claim to be paty of moderates, seeing off challenges from both the left and the right. The problem the Democrats face is that they have no such leftwing equivalent. So they need to create one by disowning/throwing out the progressives from their party. By doing, they stand to gain more than they lose. Because right now, many Republicans think the progessives in the Democratic party ARE the party. By splitting into two, they can at least show waverers they are not the same.

The problem with that analysis is that the Liberals were the natural governing party of Canada before the NDP became a political party.  But I think you have hit on a different point, the perspective of the US is very much from the right.  In Canada the Liberals need to continually steal the ideas from the NDP to stay in power.  So it is the reverse of what you proposed - the Liberals have to be left enough to maintain power - rather than appealing to the right to keep the left out of power.

A very different dynamic from the US.

[Sheilbh]

It's about giving cover to people that would otherwise be embarrassed to admit voting for a neo-fascist party.  Marine has done a bang up job of normalizing the indefensible; she is a far more skilled politician than dead old dad.

Yes.

The most far right party anyone I know has voted for is the Lib Dems. But this happened a lot with Corbyn-fans I knew. They would often point out that his policies were no more radical than mainstream social democracy - which is true. Or ask what policies I disagreed with. I would explain that for me it was anti-semitism, wanting to disband NATO, IRA-sympathising and a whole history of alarming foreign policy interests/ties. But they didn't believe, examples wouldn't help - in their view it was the bias of mainstream media, it was a hit job by the Tories/Blairites/right-wing press etc. Policy was a refuge because it gave them a credible excuse to back someone with all those issues beyond "I sympathise" or "I don't care".

Now admittedly in the end with friendships I valued we just had to not talk politics.

The fact is that the left wins a lot of elections outside the US and perhaps the UK.

Perhaps the question is better posed as to why the US is such an outlier.

Well isn't the issue that the question is wrong. The Democrats win pretty regularly at Presidential and Congressional level - it's not the dominance they had for most of the 20th century but it's competitive two party system. The issue is that the US has so many features in its system that gives power to a minority party that is broadly cohesive and almost parliamentary style that the Democrats don't win by enough. Becaue they're not that cohesive and, generally, the GOP are.

The US is - like Spain - one of the countries I'd point to of not having a "natural party of government"/party of power (though I think there's an argument they did and it was the Democrats in parts of the 20th century). The UK (although I'm unsure on the shape of our politics right now), Germany, France (at least historically), Japan have a conservative/christian democrat/right tradition that's the natural party of government; Sweden has the one from the left; Canada has the Liberals; Ireland (historically) had Fianna Fail. I think those parties in those countries, politics is on the easy setting. But I don't think it's true of the US which seems to go back and forth pretty regularly.

[Admiral Yi]

How are you using policy?  Leaving NATO is a policy.  Brexit is a policy.

[Sheilbh]

How are you using policy?  Leaving NATO is a policy.  Brexit is a policy.

The formal policy of the Labour Party due to a huge backbench revolt was support for NATO during Corbyn's leadership. Given his entire history, the people around him - including his spokesman saying the UK should withdraw its troops from Estonia - I don't think that mattered.

In terms of policies in his manifesto - there was nothing to object to. I didn't trust him on that. And I think his worldview/the direction he wanted to take the country, plus other issues like anti-semitism was really problematic - and I don't think he's a credible leader on delivery. I've no douobt there were lots of policies I'd like in a left-wing Labour manifesto but that's not enough - and not just for me, loads of his policies polled very well until people were told who was proposing them.

[Admiral Yi]

I think I get it.  You're using policy to mean like party platforms.  Whereas I (and I think Squeeze) are using it to mean things that get enacted.

[Sheilbh]

I think I get it.  You're using policy to mean like party platforms.  Whereas I (and I think Squeeze) are using it to mean things that get enacted.

I'm not sure. Policy = reduce income tax by 2%, it's a direct actionable promise/pledge/idea. Party platforms are normally made up of lots of policies.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think I get it.  You're using policy to mean like party platforms.  Whereas I (and I think Squeeze) are using it to mean things that get enacted.

The difference does not matter--most voters don't care about the platform or things that get enacted. People that talk about politics on the internet, are significant outliers in this regard.

[Admiral Yi]

The difference does not matter--most voters don't care about the platform or things that get enacted. People that talk about politics on the internet, are significant outliers in this regard.

I have yet to talk to a single person who was not happy to receive stimulus checks.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In terms of control of the House I think Democrats compare somewhat favorably to the Liberal Party of Canada over a historical timeline.

Starting in 1868 (first Canadian Parliamentary elections), there have been ~52,396 days, the Liberal Party has held governmental control for 32,693 of them--around 62%.

Starting in the closest U.S. House term, the 40th Congress, up through the present congress, there have been 77 Congresses, with the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives (the equivalent of controlling the Parliament in Canada) 46 out of 77 Congresses, or 60% of the time.