He was barely center-left. None of his actual policies were progressive. He had a more progressive tone in his campaign, but none of his actual campaign promises could be construed as “progressive”. The ACA built on private insurance, not Medicare for all; his military policy built a strong global military posture; hell…he even spoke plenty about “working across the aisle”.
The only progressive thing about Obama was the fact that he was a black candidate. He was able to speak like a progressive, but still nab a massive amount of independent, and his policies reflected that.
Edit to your edit: the last overtly “Progressive” candidate was George McGovern in '72, but he lost to Nixon in a landslide. You act as if merely having a “progressive” candidate is the secret sauce to winning the election. I’m desperately trying to tell you that it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
He still ran faaaaaar to the left of any recent Democratic campaign, which still completely torpedoes your assertion that the current Democrats aren’t running right enough to win elections.
He was able to speak like a progressive, but still nab a massive amount of independent, and his policies reflected that.
Oh please, there is not some huge group of independents who voted for Obama because they saw him as a conservative centrist who then went on to not vote for Clinton, Biden, or Harris because they were too left wing. That isn’t a thing.
the last overtly “Progressive” candidate was George McGovern in '72
Oh so only 50 years then! Still means your claim that progressive candidates can’t win us totally baseless.
You act as if merely having a “progressive” candidate is the secret sauce to winning the election.
No, I am just rejecting your baseless assertion that progressive candidates can never win.
I’m desperately trying to tell you that it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
Other around: you’re trying to argue that it’s as simple as “independents are in the middle of Democrats and Republicans” and I’m telling it’s a lot more complicated then that
He was barely center-left. None of his actual policies were progressive. He had a more progressive tone in his campaign, but none of his actual campaign promises could be construed as “progressive”. The ACA built on private insurance, not Medicare for all; his military policy built a strong global military posture; hell…he even spoke plenty about “working across the aisle”.
The only progressive thing about Obama was the fact that he was a black candidate. He was able to speak like a progressive, but still nab a massive amount of independent, and his policies reflected that.
Edit to your edit: the last overtly “Progressive” candidate was George McGovern in '72, but he lost to Nixon in a landslide. You act as if merely having a “progressive” candidate is the secret sauce to winning the election. I’m desperately trying to tell you that it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
He still ran faaaaaar to the left of any recent Democratic campaign, which still completely torpedoes your assertion that the current Democrats aren’t running right enough to win elections.
Oh please, there is not some huge group of independents who voted for Obama because they saw him as a conservative centrist who then went on to not vote for Clinton, Biden, or Harris because they were too left wing. That isn’t a thing.
Oh so only 50 years then! Still means your claim that progressive candidates can’t win us totally baseless.
No, I am just rejecting your baseless assertion that progressive candidates can never win.
Other around: you’re trying to argue that it’s as simple as “independents are in the middle of Democrats and Republicans” and I’m telling it’s a lot more complicated then that