Progressives How Many?

[Zardnaar]

So somewhat recently I posted a link to a video for the UK where 16% identify as progressives with another 14% soft left.

I've often stated words to the effect that the problem with progressives is that there's not enough of them. In the USA Trump won more votes than the Democrats. The Democrats however are a big tent party a good chunk of them would be center right anywhere else. They're 2-4 parties anywhere else and combined they make up around a third of the US electorate. One third don't vote.


Here generally 20-30% don't vote (25% last time iirc) and of those that do the progressive parties usually get around 15% combined. NZ Labour gets 25-35% typically. The right gets similar numbers or at least they both have a similar floor. Some of the Labor voters are progressives as well but a few are also old trade unionist types and Polynesian religious types where social progressives aren't exactly a thing for them. They still vote left (whites split, Polynesian leans left, Asian leans right).

2023 New Zealand general election - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Labor+Greens 38.5% through in Maori party for 1.5% approx for 40% of those that turned up. This was a somewhat bad election but not a disaster (they have had close to 30% combined before). The right has also gone down to around 30% combined on a bad year eg 2002.

Anyway approximately 40% on 75% turnout voted left on a bad result means around 30% voted left. This includes all of the Labour vote (center left). The right got 53% combined so 38% approx, 25% didn't vote approx.

Overall population 2023 (approx)
Left 30%
Right 38%
Indifferent 25%

These numbers often inverted when left gets a good result but that's more swing voters. Electoral disasters (sub 30%) happen when an event or group is so incompetent they are reduced to dedicated voters only (Right in 2002, 2020) and a few vote for the other side (often to undermine the Greens strategic voting). Absolute disaster often close to 20% for main parties but in those situations there's often bleeding off to the minor right or left wing parties.

2020 left got closer to 60% but that was a Covid election worst result ever for right in MMP and only time in proportional we had a majority election win. 2017 was a good win for left previous 3 elections went right, previous 3 left, then next 3 right (2 L,3 R,1L next 6 elections pre MMP though)

Interesting that number isn't to different from the UKs number or even USAs number in terms of left wing voters.

If Labour UK and NZ aren't left enough however that probably means actual progressives are even smaller number 16% UK apparently, here 10-20%.

I'm not sure about Canada and Australia. Proportional countries in Europe give you an idea of what % of voters that turn up swing.

So in the Anglosphere what % of voters by country do you think are actually progressives? How about conservatives? If USA had proportional voting and the Democrats split up into say 3 parties (progressives, soft left, soft right)where do you think the numbers would lie (GoP 2 parties?).

Any other country is fine as well btw. USA is obvious one due to cultural weight.

 

[Voidwalkin]

US, number is low. I suspect basically about 15, 20%.

Dems can't seen to reconcile the two wings well, either. It's in the name. Progressive is not satisfied unless further progress is forthcoming. As it turns out, many of these values and positions aren't shared by majorities.

I would prefer if Dems went further left economically, but adopted a decentralized, "let the people decide" approach to most social issues. Basically, utilize the 50 state, decentralized structure to enact social progress locally. The federal level would only be used to enact social change in seriously egregious cases clearly beyond the unfairness the majority would be willing to tolerate(where it'd pass without issue, being intolerable)

The Sherrod Brown philosophy, just with his political strategy taken closer to the logical conclusion. Hard on economics, light and local on the social.

The basis of the New Dems would be the widely popular economic populism, on which they would be belligerent. They would have to be - a belligerent stance will be the only thing, realistically, that's going to keep the coalition together if you're de-emphasizing social issues. Race would be de-emphasized, but obviously minorities are gonna be watching that they benefit equally, which should act as an effective check against dire disproportion.

What would social de-emphasis look like? On an issue like abortion, you let the states decide. This is presently anathema, but it worked for Trump: the expected pro-choice wave didn't materialize, in large part because it was on the ballot locally in so many states. It subtracted the one clearly winning social issue from Dems, and stuck them with the losing attitudes and policies the party has adopted generally, at a federal level. The cost is basically eating some portions of the country are conservative socially and the unfairness that arguably brings just gets swallowed, rather than ineffectively opposed.

Just restore trust that the local sensibilities will be respected, and you'll get the brand back in quick time, and probably a population more willing to be cooperative rather than moving towards more dire competition over a shrinking pool of resources.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I can only speak for the US, and I think the progressive movement here basically shot its bolt with gay marriage.

(at the time, I thought it strange thereafter that the target of all America's woes then became some cake shop owner who as far as I can tell didn't harm a fly. He of course prevailed legally, and things have been fairly listless since.)

Presumably another issue will come along for enough voters to say "yeah that's all me; I'm on board"...I just don't know what that thing will be...

So to that end, I think progressives maybe make up about 10 percent who would call themselves that 100 percent of the time. It would fluctuate higher during elections, maybe 20 percent. There isn't enough to motivate folks beyond a few one-note issues that don't coalesce.

What the latter would look like? On an issue like abortion, you let the states decide. This is presently anathema, but it worked for Trump: the expected pro-choice wave didn't materialize,

True. A federal abortion statute is DOA. The issue is done. We awoke from a 50-year fever dream on a case that was never meant for the court.

 

[warpus]

Here in Canada a lot of people are technically progressive, but it depends what you mean by "progressive" doesn't it? A lot of those who self-identified as progressive back in the early 2000s and 2010s are now finding it tough to relate to those on the far left who breathe and live identity politics. It's sort of pushed a lot of those people closer to the centre and made it easier for conservative parties to reach out to them and get their votes.

We have a Green Party for instance that focused on the environment.. as they should. But in the last 10 years or so they have completely pivoted and now the environment is a bit of an afterthought for them. They have embraced a lot of pseudoscience, like homeopathy, their leader has been outed as being anti-wifi of all things, they are anti-nuclear energy, and they have been focusing their time on identity politics, instead of the environment. They have lost a lot of momentum and voters. They were a coming of age party about 20 years ago, finally winning their first ever seat. If they had continued to focus on the environment I fully believe that they'd have more seats by now. Instead they have been brushed aside and might not even get any seats at all in the next election. They lost their focus and what they were all supposed to be about and paid the price.

Our left-leaning Liberal party has also done a poor job of focusing on the needs of Canadians and the problems that your average Canadian has to deal with - rising real estate and rental prices, rising food costs, the freefall of our currency, the fact that five corporations and powerful families running the whole country might just not be a good idea.. So many voters on the left and in the centre have become disillusioned with them, since they don't see this party trying to address any of these issues that are making their lives difficult today. Even the NDP, our usually a bit further to the left political party has stopped being seen as a party of the people, a party for your average worker.. Very little of their recent initiatives have focused on your average Canadian worker..

And Canadian voters have reacted to all this, a bit obviously, by being wooed by right-leaning parties promising everything under the sun. Those on the left have assumed that they have a base that will always vote for them and their progressive ideals.. and even though many of those voters do support the majority of those ideals, what's most important to people right now is the worsening economic situation. Even if those on the right don't really have any good ideas as to how to fix it - all they have to do is say: "Those on the left messed it all up, vote for us" and they'll get a significant chunk of those who used to vote for the left to now vote for them instead.

I don't believe that it really matters how many people are progressive in this country. If the economy is in the crapper and people's economic outlook is as well, none of that will matter in an election. Have we forgotten about that pyramid of needs? If your basic necessities are under threat, you will focus on that. People want to be able to buy a house, to buy enough food for their families, to have good job prospects and good retirement prospects. That's more important to your average voter compared to vague progressive ideals, at a time of.. let's be honest - a crisis.

When you have a crisis you expect political parties to focus on the crisis. If they don't, voters will react and be easily swayed to parties that are promising change, even if that change is vaguely if defined at all and if there are no good plans in place on how to turn things around in the first place.

I'm progressive, or at least view myself to be so. I support minority, indigenous, gay, trans, etc. rights. But I don't see a federal party I want to vote for, at all. I have no idea who I'm going to vote for in the next election.. Likely a strategic vote against the conservative candidate, as I do not think they will help the situation at all, all while slashing social funding all over the board and funneling even more money and power to the corporations that run this country. But so many people are in a similar situation and have drawn a different conclusion and are willing to give those on the right a chance to govern.

Social media has made it easy to feed one-liner promises and talking points to voters. Complex situations are compressed down to simple sentences. And politicians and talking heads on the right are exploiting this to an insane level. Meanwhile those on the left sit there in denial, ignoring that problem and many others.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here in Canada a lot of people are technically progressive, but it depends what you mean by "progressive" doesn't it? A lot of those who self-identified as progressive back in the early 2000s and 2010s are now finding it tough to relate to those on the far left who breathe and live identity politics. It's sort of pushed a lot of those people closer to the centre and made it easier for conservative parties to reach out to them and get their votes.

We have a Green Party for instance that focused on the environment.. as they should. But in the last 10 years or so they have completely pivoted and now the environment is a bit of an afterthought for them. They have embraced a lot of pseudoscience, like homeopathy, their leader has been outed as being anti-wifi of all things, they are anti-nuclear energy, and they have been focusing their time on identity politics, instead of the environment. They have lost a lot of momentum and voters. They were a coming of age party about 20 years ago, finally winning their first ever seat. If they had continued to focus on the environment I fully believe that they'd have more seats by now. Instead they have been brushed aside and might not even get any seats at all in the next election. They lost their focus and what they were all supposed to be about and paid the price.

Our left-leaning Liberal party has also done a poor job of focusing on the needs of Canadians and the problems that your average Canadian has to deal with - rising real estate and rental prices, rising food costs, the freefall of our currency, the fact that five corporations and powerful families running the whole country might just not be a good idea.. So many voters on the left and in the centre have become disillusioned with them, since they don't see this party trying to address any of these issues that are making their lives difficult today. Even the NDP, our usually a bit further to the left political party has stopped being seen as a party of the people, a party for your average worker.. Very little of their recent initiatives have focused on your average Canadian worker..

And Canadian voters have reacted to all this, a bit obviously, by being wooed by right-leaning parties promising everything under the sun. Those on the left have assumed that they have a base that will always vote for them and their progressive ideals.. and even though many of those voters do support the majority of those ideals, what's most important to people right now is the worsening economic situation. Even if those on the right don't really have any good ideas as to how to fix it - all they have to do is say: "Those on the left messed it all up, vote for us" and they'll get a significant chunk of those who used to vote for the left to now vote for them instead.

I don't believe that it really matters how many people are progressive in this country. If the economy is in the crapper and people's economic outlook is as well, none of that will matter in an election. Have we forgotten about that pyramid of needs? If your basic necessities are under threat, you will focus on that. People want to be able to buy a house, to buy enough food for their families, to have good job prospects and good retirement prospects. That's more important to your average voter compared to vague progressive ideals, at a time of.. let's be honest - a crisis.

When you have a crisis you expect political parties to focus on the crisis. If they don't, voters will react and be easily swayed to parties that are promising change, even if that change is vaguely if defined at all and if there are no good plans in place on how to turn things around in the first place.

I'm progressive, or at least view myself to be so. I support minority, indigenous, gay, trans, etc. rights. But I don't see a federal party I want to vote for, at all. I have no idea who I'm going to vote for in the next election.. Likely a strategic vote against the conservative candidate, as I do not think they will help the situation at all, all while slashing social funding all over the board and funneling even more money and power to the corporations that run this country. But so many people are in a similar situation and have drawn a different conclusion and are willing to give those on the right a chance to govern.

Social media has made it easy to feed one-liner promises and talking points to voters. Complex situations are compressed down to simple sentences. And politicians and talking heads on the right are exploiting this to an insane level. Meanwhile those on the left sit there in denial, ignoring that problem and many others.

Greens here gave gone from 5% to around 10-15% since 1999 when they got in the first time.

But they essentially absorbed other left wing parties to the left of Labor. That votes essentially stagnant for decades.

 

[danjuno]

How do you even define progressive? It's a relative term.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Presumably another issue will come along for enough voters to say "yeah that's all me; I'm on board"...I just don't know what that thing will be...

This isn't clear to me, either. If abortion was not it, it's hard to imagine what would be, especially if Trump doesn't get really horror show with deportation.

What seems to have happened is that the progressives and more generally, the affluent urbanite, prefer a social liberalism that is not electorally winning, definitely not within the EC structure, maybe not even PV. "Toxic masculinity", "structural racism", "internalized misogyny", the general public agrees there are issues, but are not prepared to engage in an assault on existing norms and institutions anywhere close to the extent progressives and strident liberals would prefer. On some issues, they may believe the progressive position the anti-social one, tbh.

Politics as an agent of moral change has been widely adopted on the left, they're loath to ease up, and quite willing to stigmatize internal voices skeptical of efficacy or even efficiency. Internal party reform may consequently not be possible.

Brown ran nearly 10 points better than Harris, demonstrating the brand is down but that policies and attitudes like his are extremely competitive in the Midwest. Probably elsewhere. Hard on economics, light and local on social issues is quite clearly the best political strategy, but I foresee stagnancy and continued very mixed results as more likely. Really, continued drubbings will likely go on until the trends are studied and taught at the academic level, producing a new generation willing to compromise. Current one may be lost, barring the emergence of a transcendent political leader.

 

[Farm Boy]

I still think everything started souring in mega earnest with student loan forgiveness. The other issues then just kept piling on and the king's cabinet was already nude.

 

[Voidwalkin]

How do you even define progressive? It's a relative term.

Informally? Whether you're accepted by those already calling themselves that. Requires you be with them on the social issues first and foremost. You can show up and say "Hi guys, I'm a Christian who believes life begins at conception and should be protected, and I also believe Lina Khan did a great job, do you like me?". This will not go over well. They will not tolerate it.

They will, however, attempt to persuade if you show up and say "I believe a woman has the right to choose, and btw Khan is terrible". Bonus if you use the lingo, definitely in if you say "state should not control women's bodies" instead, regardless of the Khan take.

The more serious thinkers are gonna be upset, but for the most part, you'll be fine. It's like two generations trained on identity politics, man. The economic side barely matters on the ground.

 

[JollyRoger]

I would prefer if Dems went further left economically, but adopted a decentralized, "let the people decide" approach to most social issues. Basically, utilize the 50 state, decentralized structure to enact social progress locally.

You mean let the states decide. I prefer the liberty to enact social progress individually.

 

[Voidwalkin]

You mean let the states decide. I prefer the liberty to enact social progress individually.

I think attitude towards Dems in rural America is basically in the gutter, that Dems have only contempt for the values commonly found there. They flat won't hear any message.

I think the only way you're really gonna get trust back is to directly show that you will indeed respect those sensibilities. It has to be real. The issues can be revisited 20 years down the line, but to get back some of these areas drifting right? Yeah... I think it's necessary. If they vote no abortion? Well...OK I guess...this is the legit democratic will...we will ignore this, if you are with us on the economic front, where we intend to have a spirit of forceful advance, not simply unyielding.

Though admittedly I don't see that happening. The contempt will continue and barring a super-charismatic candidate, Dem chances in the EC will remain very unsteady, and legislative reform very limited in scope, encountering way too much pushback to be viable even in event of victory at the presidential level.

 

[JollyRoger]

I heard those fellars in the sticks are big on individual liberty. We are aligned if they mean it.

 

[r16]

your mileage may vary

original file name suggests ı downloaded this from twitter , which allows to check a few extra posts of the account .

 

[Birdjaguar]

your mileage may vary

View attachment 713674


original file name suggests ı downloaded this from twitter , which allows to check a few extra posts of the account .

Those results are from Jan 2024.

Two-Thirds of America’s Elites Want to Ban Gas Cars and Gas Stoves; Half Think There Is too Much Freedom in America; And 80% Are for Biden - Unleash Prosperity

We just published a study entitled “Them Vs. U.S.” examining how America’s cultural elites (defined as at least one postgraduate degree, $150,000+ annual income, high-density urban residence,…

committeetounleashprosperity.com

And the complete study is here:

https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Them-vs-Us_CTUP-Rasmussen-Study-FINAL.pdf

 

[Arwon]

We have a Green Party for instance that focused on the environment.. as they should. But in the last 10 years or so they have completely pivoted and now the environment is a bit of an afterthought for them. They have embraced a lot of pseudoscience, like homeopathy, their leader has been outed as being anti-wifi of all things, they are anti-nuclear energy, and they have been focusing their time on identity politics, instead of the environment. They have lost a lot of momentum and voters. They were a coming of age party about 20 years ago, finally winning their first ever seat. If they had continued to focus on the environment I fully believe that they'd have more seats by now. Instead they have been brushed aside and might not even get any seats at all in the next election. They lost their focus and what they were all supposed to be about and paid the price.

Green parties are foundationally anti nuclear, it's in the global charter, the anti proliferation movement is where they started. These days that stance isn't even necessarily for the most part, economics alone mean new nuclear power builds are a terrible decarbonisation option.

Key thing to remember though is you guys have a FPTP system, it's extremely anti democratic in forcing most people to vote something other than their genuine wishes and it's extremely hostile to the emergence of new parties.

 

[Arwon]

You can show up and say "Hi guys, I'm a Christian who believes life begins at conception and should be protected, and I also believe Lina Khan did a great job, do you like me?".

Lmao if the test is "doesn't want to ban abortion" then basically every developed country outside the US is mostly progressives.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Lmao if the test is "doesn't want to ban abortion" then basically every developed country outside the US is mostly progressives.

When an American is speaking to another American, the  only relevant test is the American context.

You have briefly reminded us Australia exists, though cuz we are so big and strong, we will probably forget it till the next time you mention it.

 

[Arwon]

When an American is speaking to another American, the  only relevant test is the American context.

You have briefly reminded us Australia exists, though cuz we are so big and strong, we will probably forget it till the next time you mention it.

If you reckon dude saying the term is relative is a invitation to talk about a fringe American-only position then go for your life champ

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I remember this fella wanting the government to shoot a bunch of trespassers he claimed were living on government largess and lighting fires where they shouldn't be. Which would seem applicable again, but a lot of the fringe weirdos seem to have really specific hardons for who they like to watch die.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you reckon dude saying the term is relative is a invitation to talk about a fringe American-only position then go for your life champ

Not a fringe issue in USA.

Local laws may be an ass but they generally refect the fires and values of the culture.