Video: UVA Prof. Larry Sabato Says DSA Primary Wins, While Few, Represent “an image problem for Democrats whether they think it is or not”

See below for excerpts and highlights from an interesting interview on CSPAN with UVA Professor Larry Sabato, in which he discussed the state of play for the upcoming midterm elections, as well as the victories in several districts by Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates. I’ll indicate after each point by Professor Sabato my agreements and disagreements (in brackets/green/bold).

In this first clip, Professor Sabato is asked whether he thinks that victories by DSA candidates represent an “image problem for Democrats.” According to Professor Sabato:

• “Well, it’s an image problem for Democrats whether they think it is or not. When you go out and you talk to groups of people and they ask questions  that people who don’t follow politics all the time ask, it’s remarkable how many people do know about it. They picked up that aspect of politics. Now, what they don’t know is also important.  What they they don’t necessarily see is that so far at least, the Democratic Socialists have won in deeply blue areas with maybe one exception, kind of a purplish district in Colorado.  But it’s overwhelmingly deeply blue, inner suburbs, central city districts…and these are primaries…the turnouts are low in primaries which is a very bad thing.” [I agree with Professor Sabato that Democratic Socialists, so far at least, have won Democratic primaries for U.S. House overwhelmingly in deep-blue districts.  However, DSA-supported candidates also won a Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Maine, which is a purple-ish state, and are currently favored to win another one in Michigan, also a purple-ish state. So it’s not really true that Democratic Socialists have only “won in deeply blue areas with maybe one exception,” at least not if you’re also looking at U.S. Senate primaries, in addition to U.S. House primaries. As for whether the DSA wins that we’ve seen represent an “image problem for Democrats whether they think it is or not,” I’d say this could cut both ways – certainly, Republicans like Trump are going to (falsely) claim Democrats are “communists,” “socialists,” etc. no matter how “moderate” or “liberal” or whatever they actually are. So that’s just sort-of baked in. As for independents/swing voters, I could see some of them being turned off by the DSA, but others might actually be turned ON by a more populist/progressive approach; hard to say. What do you think?]
• “By the way, if you don’t vote in primaries, you’re part of the problem. We need more people participating in primaries on both sides so that the crazy right-wing and the crazy left-wing doesn’t dominate our politics. And that’s really what you’re  doing when you decide not to vote in primaries. And then in November, people inevitably say, ‘how did we end up with these two turkeys; how did we end up with this Republican turkey and this Democratic turkey? We have better people to run for office.’ And one key reason why is because you didn’t participate in the primaries.” [While I 100% agree with Professor Sabato that not voting in primaries is a huge mistake, I’d argue it’s mostly because 90% or whatever of primaries are in districts that are either solid-blue or solid-red, so if you don’t vote in the primaries, then effectively you’re missing out on what is de facto THE ELECTION, and that’s really really dumb. Yet most people still don’t “get it,” as evidenced by the pathetically low turnout for party primaries, relative to general election turnout. And then they complain about the choices in November? Yeah, well, look in the mirror once in a while? LOL  As for Professor Sabato’s “both sides”/false equivalence between the “crazy right-wing and the crazy left-wing,” I’ve expressed my negative views on this many, many times. For starters, it’s inaccurate, as 90%+ of Republicans at this point are MAGA/right-wingnut, and the party is led by a far-right extremist, while only a VERY small percentage of Democrats are identifiably/clearly far-left, and the party certainly is NOT led by far-left extremists. So right there, it’s absurd to imply an equivalence. I mean, Professor Sabato himself, in this very interview, repeatedly stresses the small number of Democratic Socialists who have won primaries, basically arguing that they’re an insignificant part of the Democratic Party. But then he does the “both sides”/false equivalence thing with Republicans, who are completely dominated by their far-right extreme. I mean, why do that? Very frustrating, especially from someone as smart and knowledgeable as Professor Sabato.]
• [Q: “So, do you think this means that Democratic voters generally are moving to the left or are these outliers?”] “I’m not going to call them outliers, because I think it represents a real strain in the Democratic party, born of frustration that Donald Trump is in his second term as president and did very well in the last election. He didn’t cross the 50% mark of the popular vote, but he did very well in the swing states, carried all the swing states. And Democrats are very frustrated by what happened. They’re frustrated at Joe Biden and the Biden administration generally for – in their view – delivering the presidency back to Donald Trump. And there is such animus toward Trump. And be honest, he stokes it. He enjoys it. He likes having enemies because he uses them as devil figures.” [I mostly agree with this analysis – a lot of Democrats are, for VERY good reasons, angry, upset, anxious, scared, etc. at what they’re seeing in this country right now. What I find frustrating, though, is when they turn their anger mostly or exclusively against Democrats, when the fault for where the country is right now is OVERWHELMINGLY with: a) Republicans; b) the media; c) people who don’t vote].
• “And because of that, Democrats want to do something, and yet they have no power except in the Senate because of a rule of the Senate, the rule of 60 on some items, not on  reconciliation items where you need 60 votes and therefore since Republicans have 53 votes, they need to find six or seven Democrats to join in with them, assuming they don’t lose any Republican votes. They may need more Democratic votes. But other than that rule in the Senate, Democrats have nothing. They don’t have the White House. They don’t have the bureaucracy. They don’t have the US House. They don’t have the US Senate. They certainly don’t have the Supreme Court. Yes, a few rulings have gone against President Trump,  but overwhelmingly this court has been incredibly friendly to President Trump and has given him a lot of additional power.” [Crucial points by Professor Sabato, yet so many Democrats – at least the ones you see on social media – don’t understand the core fact of American politics right now, which is that Democrats are in the minority in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House, also don’t control the U.S. Supreme Court or the White House obviously, etc. I’d also point out that right-wing voices are DOMINANT in the media – on TV, talk radio, print media, social media, you name it.  So…yeah, this is a super frustrating situation.]
• “So what are Democrats to do other than get angry and lash out?  And sometimes, as we know in our personal lives, when you get frustrated and you lash out, you quadruple your problems…” [I agree 100% with Professor Sabato on this – at least some Democrats are getting angry and lashing out, but of course often when you do that, “you quadruple your problems.” Not that that’s going to stop the angry voices on social media or whatever from being angry and lashing out…sigh.]

In this second clip, Professor Sabato talks about whether the DSA could form its own party, how significant the DSA is, etc.

• “Well, look, [DSA] could form their own party. It’s very difficult to get a third party up and running. It’s very difficult to get on the ballot in most states and and so, you know, it’s a possibility and if they have the troops and the money to do it, I suppose they could. Obviously, they are aiming for some kind of greater influence in  the Democratic Party. I wouldn’t use the word takeover, but let’s remember they’re a small segment. They’re a faction in the Democratic Party. Both  parties have loads of identifiable factions and they have to be big tent parties as they often call themselves.  They have to be because you know with 340 million Americans and tens of millions of people who are independents  and could go either way in an election, they have to have the ability to attract people who believe strongly in one idea versus another or this group of ideas  versus another group of ideas. And so we have that kind of open free-flowing system.” [I agree that it’s almost impossible to launch a successful/serious third party in America, for a bunch of reasons, including what Professor Sabato says, and also because of the way we’re set up, as a two-party system, without Ranked Choice Voting, etc. So yes, for now at least, the DSA is one “faction in the Democratic Party,” but quite likely a growing one…at least in low-turnout primaries. The question is, what happens going forward – does DSA continue to grow, stall out, or what?]
• “Now, if the Democratic Socialists cost Democrats an election, say this one, if the Republicans retain control of both houses of Congress, then you might see a more organized effort to excise them from the party. But how do you do that? If the people in local districts elect them, and again, only, you know, we’re talking about 10, 12 districts out of  435, and they’re heavily Democratic districts; how exactly are they going to take over the Democratic party?  So…[don’t] assume that massive changes are coming when I don’t think they are.  And I don’t think what we’ve seen in the primaries suggests that they are.” [I mostly agree with Professor Sabato’s analysis here; I’d just express less certainty about where we’re headed, and whether “massive changes are coming” or not. ]