Democrats’ votes are coming from center

Recent elections give the lie to the notion that America wants fiery liberal activists to run the country — an idea put forth mainly by fiery liberal activists. It turns out that even Democrats don’t necessarily want them.

Consider a recent House primary race in Illinois. If there is any Democrat a liberal might want to see the last of, it’s Chicago-area Rep. Dan Lipinski. He voted against the Affordable Care Act because of the mandate requiring employers to cover birth control. (He has since opposed Republican efforts to kill Obamacare.)

Lipinski’s Democratic opponent, Marie Newman, had the ardent backing of progressive activists, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). But Lipinski won, albeit by a hair. Blue-collar voters stuck with him.

For all the talk of how the Democratic Party’s “energy” comes from the left, ballot counts indicate that voters generally prefer what we call “the center.” Nothing wrong with more radical contenders giving it a try, but in the end, the voters decide. Most Democrats aren’t looking for a revolution. They want health care, good wages and a decent education for their children.

On the issues, there was little difference between Hillary Clinton and Sanders in 2016. She came off as moderate and he as firebrand. When the primary-season dust cleared, Clinton had 3.7 million more votes than Sanders. Some Sanders disciples persist in waving the bloody shirt. They argue their man lost because the Democratic leadership helped Clinton. They are not wrong about the favoritism, but they ignore the thumbs that pressed on Sanders’ scale. His strength came in the caucuses, time-consuming affairs that empower activists, not ordinary Democrats. In Washington state, which ran both caucuses and a primary, Sanders won the former and Clinton the latter.

Television thrives on spectacle, deeming crowds of cheering supporters as measures of grass-roots support. Recall the wall-to-wall coverage of Sanders’ torchlight parade in Greenwich Village as harbinger of an upset. Six days later, Clinton won the New York primary by nearly 16 percentage points.

The left wing reveres Zephyr Teachout, the ultimate Berniecrat. Come the 2016 general election, though, Teachout lost her congressional race to a Republican in a district that includes the Hudson Valley and the Catskills just north of New York City and in a state where Clinton bested Donald Trump by more than 22 points.

Last month in California, activists denied Sen. Dianne Feinstein her party’s endorsement at the state convention. The political media began cogitating on “Feinstein’s troubles,” declaring her setback as evidence of California’s shift to the left. More accurately, it was activists being active at the state convention. After all, a recent Public Policy Institute of California poll had Feinstein ahead of her leading challenger, Kevin de Leon, by almost 30 points among likely voters.

A few left-wing purists did not rejoice at Democrat Conor Lamb’s win in a Pennsylvania district that backed Trump by 20 points. He veered from liberal orthodoxy on a few issues, which helped him win. A Rolling Stone writer worried that Democrats like Lamb will deflate the sensitive leftists in “the Resistance.”

Some resistance. When Democrat Ralph Northam ran a close race for Virginia governor last year, Sanders’ Our Revolution advocacy group refused to endorse him. Northam’s sin? Expressing a skepticism toward sanctuary cities, which Americans share by large majorities.

Some on the left prefer the drama of agitating over the grind of winning elections, and that’s their right. But Democrats should regard them less as threats and more as useless. Democrats need to go after the people who voted for Trump in 2016 but Lamb in 2018. That’s how the Trump era will end.

Froma Harrop is a syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate.