Does Moving To The Center Work?

 Morris argues that - contrary to the narrative - Bill Clinton's tack to the center in 1992 was not responsible for his victory in the election. I do think there's some truth to that, in that 1992 was clearly a "change" election with Bush becoming very unpopular due to the economy. Ross Perot's unusually robust third party campaign took from both Bush and Clinton among voters simply fed up with the whole system. This sort of free range anger is pretty typical when the economy is bad. Trump in 2016 presented as both the Republican candidate AND the third party candidate, as he was so far from any previous type of candidate.

I certainly agree with Morris that 1992 was largely about the poor economy and the 12 years of rampant wealth transfer up the tax brackets.

However, the Democratic Party was in pretty poor shape nationally 1990. Morris notes that Clinton was perceived as being further left than Michael Dukakis, but I have to wonder how much of that was his draft evasion and libertine reputation. Clinton spoke centrist, but vibed left. I also agree with Morris that most voters aren't making ideological decisions when they vote. Every election is a vibes election when you start talking about the politically disengaged.

Here's where I have questions. I do think perceived centrism matters simply as a way to allay swing voters concerns. The critical test case this year might be the Senate race in Texas. Democrats have been trying to flip Texas for quite some time. It's a diverse state with a lot of metro areas, but it's also a deeply conservative rural state. Having a majority of Democratic House members in the Texas delegation seems like a pipe dream. Winning statewide has always been out of reach for reasons that excite the center v left debate.

Obviously, this is playing out in 2026 with the Senate race. Republicans seem intent on nominating scandal factory Ken Paxton and ousting normal Republican John Cornyn. If they do that - if MAGA eats its own - then Texas would SEEM to be ripe for an important pick up in what could be a close contested race for control of the Senate. 

For Democrats, they are going to choose between the firebrand partisan in Jasmine Crockett and the choirboy in James Talarico. The argument Crockett can make is that she will "fire up the base", but previous candidates have tried that and it hasn't worked. Beto O'Rourke ran multiple times as a stalwart of the Progressive Left and came away empty every time. Maybe if he tacked to the center he might have lost by less or won....or maybe Texas simply wasn't going to elect ANY Democrat.

Talarico is betting that he can win statewide by not scaring the swing voters. That anger and dissatisfaction with Trump will not - in an of itself - carry the day. You need to give space to allow someone who typically votes Republican to shift to a Democrat to check Trump. 

Yes, race and gender play into this. Crockett is a brilliant communicator on MSNow and as a House back bencher. She's lacerating and on point, but she is also a Black woman in a state that leans pretty consistently to the right, especially culturally. The "Angry Black Woman" attacks will be relentless, especially if they GOP runs the sewer rat that is Ken Paxton. 

However, it also seems evident that elections are simply not playing out along those lines. If voters in Texas are significantly outraged at Trump, at ICE, at the corruption, at the cost of living, then the candidates themselves might not matter.

In the end, even the election results themselves won't answer this question. The context of every state and every election cycle is different. Let's say Talarico beats Paxton by 5000 votes. Was that because he didn't scare the normies? Was that because Paxton is awful? Was that because Trump is awful? Was that because of 3% inflation? Switch out Talarico for Crockett and the questions are roughly the same.

I do think that Crockett's argument that she will motivate non-voters is pretty weak, simply because this myth of latent progressive voters has been pretty thoroughly debunked. She might be able to ride outrage and disgust but the winning margins are going to come from the Texas suburbs, not some mythical wellspring of people who don't usually care.

Ironically, only one candidate has been able to pull that off has been Donald Trump, but I don't think you can pull off his crudeness, his cruelty, his norm violating, his simmering rage and grievance, his racism, his sexism...and still be a Democrat.