Dems divided over appeal to economically progressive voters with socially conservative views, analyst says

The Democratic Party is in the midst of an internal debate over how to assemble a coalition that is large and dispersed enough to win control of Congress and the White House, according to one political analyst.

In an interview on Hill.TV’s “What America’s Thinking,” election analyst Henry Olsen said that Democrats have yet to decide whether they should try to bring back disaffected voters with economically liberal viewpoints who also hold moderate or conservative positions on social issues.

“That sort of voter is the group that has been American elections for the last 15 years,” Olsen told host Jamal Simmons. “It’s the sort of person that, contrary to what a lot of Democrats or media people believe, was the reason that Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaObama condemns attacks in Sri Lanka as 'an attack on humanity' Trump hits Romney for Mueller criticism Former Bush assistant: Mueller report makes Obama look 'just plain bad' MORE won re-election in 2012 by focusing on that voter in Ohio, in Michigan, in Iowa — and he did very well among them.”

Following Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonThorny part of obstruction of justice is proving intent, that's a job for Congress Nadler: I don't understand why Mueller didn't charge Donald Trump Jr., others in Trump Tower meeting Kellyanne Conway: Mueller didn't need to use the word 'exoneration' in report MORE’s unexpected loss to President TrumpDonald John TrumpThorny part of obstruction of justice is proving intent, that's a job for Congress Obama condemns attacks in Sri Lanka as 'an attack on humanity' Schiff rips Conway's 'display of alternative facts' on Russian election interference MORE in 2016, some Democratic leaders and intellectuals are calling on the party to re-examine its electoral strategy. During the Obama presidency, many progressive activists and commentators became convinced that the party needed to shift its rhetorical emphasis from economically progressive policies to appeals specifically targeted to women and racial and religious minority groups.

That strategic calculation followed a provocative 2002 book written by left-leaning analysts John Judis and Ruy Teixeira which argued that the Democratic Party was on the cusp of attaining a permanent electoral advantage thanks in part to Hispanic immigration and higher black turnout for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Even before Trump’s victory, however, Judis had reversed course and argued that he had underestimated how significant less-educated white voters were to Democrats’ electoral chances and how economically progressive policies were a bigger part of Democrats’ appeal to voters as a whole. According to the Pew Research Center, black Americans voted at a similar rate in 2016 to what they had in 2004 when Obama, the nation's first black president, was not on the ballot.

Since 2016, several of Judis’s opponents have argued that racial or sexist animus played a large role in Clinton’s defeat and that the party should avoid trying to appeal to this group.

According to Olsen, Democrats are asking themselves now if “we want to go back and try and engage with the white, blue-collar voter, who just eight years ago was a loyal Democrat, and make these sort of compromises” on issues like religion or immigration.

—Matthew Sheffield