Meet the Resistance: The Baileys

[Dans La Lune]

Chuck Schumer bases his policy decisions around The Baileys, an imaginary married couple who are conservative-leaning centrist swing voters. Make yourself acquainted with them, because they are the resistance to Trump.

Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, has long referenced an imaginary couple named the Baileys as a guiding force for his political decisions. The Baileys, who live in Massapequa, Nassau County, Long Island, are portrayed as a typical middle-class, swing-voting family. Schumer created them to represent the concerns of average Americans, using them as a personal bellwether for policy. Their names were originally Joe and Eileen O’Reilly, but were changed to the more nationally resonant "Baileys" for his 2007 book, Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class Majority One Family at a Time.

Schumer has described the Baileys in great detail over the years, including their lives, values, and political leanings. Joe Bailey works for an insurance company, and Eileen Bailey is a part-time employee at a doctor’s office. They are patriots who sing the national anthem at Islanders games and worry about property taxes and terrorism. Schumer has used the Baileys to justify positions on issues ranging from the 2008 financial crisis to cybersecurity. He has even defended the C.I.A.’s human-intelligence program by suggesting the Baileys would not have supported gutting it after a failure.

Despite being fictional, the Baileys have been used to frame Schumer’s political strategy, particularly his focus on appealing to moderate voters. In recent years, Schumer has stated that the Baileys voted for Donald Trump in the last three presidential elections, largely due to concerns about crime. This has led to criticism that his reliance on this imagined couple risks dragging the Democratic Party rightward and alienating its base. The Baileys remain a central, albeit imaginary, figure in Schumer’s political identity.

"We're in your head, you ****ing weirdo." - Eileen Bailey to Chuck Schumer

 

[Gatsby]

It's good for Democrats to think in these terms, although I'd caution against the temptation to ascribe to the Baileys whatever policies Chuck Schumer wants, rather than what the median voters actually care about.

It seems to work out for Schumer personally (he won reelection by a respectable 14 points in a D+8 state). But with Schumer, the risk is not that he's going to lose his own Senate seat, but rather that he keeps his caucus on too tight of a leash so that Democrats in more competitive seats can't appeal to the Baileys in their own states.

 

[Dans La Lune]

It's good for Democrats to think in these terms, although I'd caution against the temptation to ascribe to the Baileys whatever policies Chuck Schumer wants, rather than what the median voters actually care about.

It seems to work out for Schumer personally (he won reelection by a respectable 14 points in a D+8 state). But with Schumer, the risk is not that he's going to lose his own Senate seat, but rather that he keeps his caucus on too tight of a leash so that Democrats in more competitive seats can't appeal to the Baileys in their own states.

AKA: The median voter is a Reagan era conservative.

I can't imagine why Democrats continue to lose.

 

[Gatsby]

AKA: The median voter is a Reagan era conservative.

I suspect Chuck Schumer's conception of what the Baileys want is more driven by what Chuck Schumer wants (e.g. strong opinions about CIA programs), rather than what the data shows the median voter actually cares about. Still, it's good for politicians to at least think in terms of the median voter.

I can't imagine why Democrats continue to lose.

It seems to work out for Schumer personally (he won reelection by a respectable 14 points in a D+8 state). But with Schumer, the risk is not that he's going to lose his own Senate seat, but rather that he keeps his caucus on too tight of a leash so that Democrats in more competitive seats can't appeal to the Baileys in their own states.

 

[Grand Mal]

AKA: The median voter is a Reagan era conservative.

I can't imagine why Democrats continue to lose.

When the Republicans do win the Presidency it's by the barest margin of votes. Twice in this century the Republican candidate won the election with his Democratic opponent getting more votes.
7 Presidential elections this century and the Republican candidate got most of the votes once, in 2004.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I suspect Chuck Schumer's conception of what the Baileys want is more driven by what Chuck Schumer wants (e.g. strong opinions about CIA programs), rather than what the data shows the median voter actually cares about. Still, it's good for politicians to at least think in terms of the median voter.

Is liberal centrism even an ideology? Seems like preemptive capitulation to the right-wing. Which has real consequences, since it concedes the right-wing's framing on every issue. Once you concede the framing and the argument (as you yourself do), the question is then between milquetoast solutions and fascism. How has that worked out?

It seems to work out for Schumer personally (he won reelection by a respectable 14 points in a D+8 state). But with Schumer, the risk is not that he's going to lose his own Senate seat, but rather that he keeps his caucus on too tight of a leash so that Democrats in more competitive seats can't appeal to the Baileys in their own states.

Yeah, I read your point well the first time. Again, I can't imagine why Dems continue to lose.

 

[Dans La Lune]

When the Republicans do win the Presidency it's by the barest margin of votes. Twice in this century the Republican candidate won the election with his Democratic opponent getting more votes.
7 Presidential elections this century and the Republican candidate got most of the votes once, in 2004.

When Republicans win, they make massive gains -- which they maintain. Meanwhile, when Dems win... ughhh.

 

[Grand Mal]

When Republicans win, they make massive gains -- which they maintain. Meanwhile, when Dems win... ughhh.

We're talking about Presidential elections, right?
What 'massive gains'?

 

[Dans La Lune]

We're talking about Presidential elections, right?
What 'massive gains'?

I'm talking about government control across the spectrum. Gains: Tax cuts, Citizens United, Supreme Court, judicial appointments, regulatory repeal, military spending, foreign policy. Republicans absolutely obliterate and loot the government and Dems can barely rearrange the furniture before they lose power.

Any Democratic candidate who says that going back to the status quo is viable is going to lose and fully deserves to lose, along with the party apparatus that supports them.

 

[Michael Cole]

Is liberal centrism even an ideology?

No, and he mentioned the median voter, not liberalism nor centrism.

Seems like preemptive capitulation to the right-wing.

Why?

Which has real consequences, since it concedes the right-wing's framing on every issue.

How?

Once you concede the framing and the argument (as you yourself do), the question is then between milquetoast solutions and fascism. How has that worked out?

The question for me, always, at first, is who is genuine and who is framing an argument. I prefer spontaneity, honesty and bluntness. I reject demands for purity. Too authoritarian.

Yeah, I read your point well the first time. Again, I can't imagine why Dems continue to lose.

Continue? What are you talking about? Jacky Rosen won reelection. She continued to win.

 

[Gatsby]

Is liberal centrism even an ideology? Seems like preemptive capitulation to the right-wing.

Maybe in New York. I'm sure Chuck Schumer could, personally, campaign further left than he actually does and still win his seat. But that wouldn't really do his caucus any good.

Broadly speaking, Democrats running in competitive states have two options: 1) Run a candidate who can actually appeal to the median voter, or 2) Cede the election to Republicans.

Which has real consequences, since it concedes the right-wing's framing on every issue. Once you concede the framing and the argument (as you yourself do), the question is then between milquetoast solutions and fascism. How has that worked out?

I think the problem with Chuck Schumer's framing has less to do with "milquetoast solutions" vs "fascism", and more to do with the fact that he has a very insular view of what the median voter actually cares about...and it mostly happens to line up with whatever Chuck Schumer himself wants to do. As evidenced by his statement that the Baileys wouldn't want to dismantle some CIA program. As though the median voter spends even one second thinking about that.

Yeah, I read your point well the first time. Again, I can't imagine why Dems continue to lose.

If this framing can help other Democrats run 6 points ahead of the partisan lean of their states or districts, as Chuck Schumer does, then it's a valuable thought exercise. (They would gain roughly 11 more Democratic senators if they could all match that performance.) Of course, the Baileys probably don't actually like Chuck Schumer very much, so other Dems would need to take that into account.

 

[CimpleMan]

I'm all for winning more seats in Congress. If it means a small number of members holding the Party hostage on the basis it's not what their personal constituents want then I see problems.

There's work to be done if Democratic regains some power. If the margin is large enough you can afford to lose votes. In current closeness and with Republicans voting in lock step a few hold outs on Dems side means nothing gets done.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Maybe in New York. I'm sure Chuck Schumer could, personally, campaign further left than he actually does and still win his seat. But that wouldn't really do his caucus any good.

Broadly speaking, Democrats running in competitive states have two options: 1) Run a candidate who can actually appeal to the median voter, or 2) Cede the election to Republicans.

This is the ideology of Surrendercrats. Concede, concede, concede. Literally the opposite of leadership.

I think the problem with Chuck Schumer's framing has less to do with "milquetoast solutions" vs "fascism", and more to do with the fact that he has a very insular view of what the median voter actually cares about...and it mostly happens to line up with whatever Chuck Schumer himself wants to do. As evidenced by his statement that the Baileys wouldn't want to dismantle some CIA program. As though the median voter spends even one second thinking about that.


If this framing can help other Democrats run 6 points ahead of the partisan lean of their states or districts, as Chuck Schumer does, then it's a valuable thought exercise. (They would gain roughly 11 more Democratic senators if they could all match that performance.) Of course, the Baileys probably don't actually like Chuck Schumer very much, so other Dems would need to take that into account.

Meanwhile Democrats are less popular than Trump, under this exact strategy.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I'm all for winning more seats in Congress. If it means a small number of members holding the Party hostage on the basis it's not what their personal constituents want then I see problems.

There's work to be done if Democratic regains some power. If the margin is large enough you can afford to lose votes. In current closeness and with Republicans voting in lock step a few hold outs on Dems side means nothing gets done.

Democrats can only win when Republicans **** up the country for a generation. Democrats are like a bad smell that you have to endure after the previous person makes a mess in the bathroom.

 

[CimpleMan]

Democrats can only win when Republicans **** up the country for a generation. Democrats are like a bad smell that you have to endure after the previous person makes a mess in the bathroom.

They've become fearful and more influenced by wealthy donors.

 

[Deuce]

This is the ideology of Surrendercrats. Concede, concede, concede. Literally the opposite of leadership.



Meanwhile Democrats are less popular than Trump, under this exact strategy.

If Democrats want to raise their popularity, they need to do things to materially make life better for Americans. Universal healthcare, so people aren't shackled to their current job out of fear of going bankrupt because they had the audacity to get sick (or going bankrupt even when they do everything right because the health insurance company denies their claims). Not just living, but thriving minimum wage so people aren't working 60 hours a week to just barely keep a roof over their heads. Parental leave so people can actually spend time with their newborn children. Taxpayer funded college tuition, which used to be the norm in America, so anyone can get a shot at higher education and potentially a better life. (yes, trade schools too, nobody ever suggested this would exempt trade schools and I have no idea why people bring that up all the time)

But these aren't the Democrats we have in office. What we have now are just corporate stooges.

 

[Gatsby]

This is the ideology of Surrendercrats. Concede, concede, concede. Literally the opposite of leadership.

No, I'm advocating they do *not* concede red Senate seats to the Republicans and actually field real candidates, instead of continually ****ing around with sacrificial nominees who they know perfectly well can't win in red states.

It's all well and good for Chuck Schumer to think of the Baileys in New York, but it would be better if Democrats running in, say, Florida adopted this strategy.

Meanwhile Democrats are less popular than Trump, under this exact strategy.

Democrats aren't using this strategy, broadly speaking. If every Democrat thought about the Baileys of their state/district, and was able to replicate Chuck Schumer's personal overperformance in their own states/districts (beating the partisan lean by 6 points), they would have 11 more Senate seats and 43 more House seats if my math is correct.

 

[Dans La Lune]

No, I'm advocating they do *not* concede red Senate seats to the Republicans and actually field real candidates, instead of continually ****ing around with sacrificial nominees who they know perfectly well can't win in red states.

It's all well and good for Chuck Schumer to think of the Baileys in New York, but it would be better if Democrats running in, say, Florida adopted this strategy.

No, it's definitely conceding by adopting a right-wing strategy to appeal to right-wing voters, rather than actually provide an alternative that makes their lives better. People are not born right-wing. They become right-wing under certain conditions, namely via systemic failures of government BY the right-wing (for which they blame Democrats).

Putting a right-leaning centrist up against a right-winger is STUPID. The best case scenario is that you win and that person enacts a right-wing agenda from within the Democratic party. How does that help anyone? ****ing Surrendercrats.

 

[Gatsby]

No, it's definitely conceding by adopting a right-wing strategy to appeal to right-wing voters, rather than actually provide an alternative that makes their lives better.

But you aren't providing an alternative that makes their lives better. Every time a Bernie Bro runs in some red state and loses by 20+ points, that's not offering an alternative, it's just screwing around. It's the equivalent of putting a JV high school football team up against the New England Patriots, then claiming that a football game took place. No, that was a bunch of dipshits ****ing around and wasting time.

People are not born right-wing. They become right-wing under certain conditions, namely via systemic failures of government BY the right-wing (for which they blame Democrats).

I'd prefer to meet voters where they are, instead of screeching at them about socialism before losing the election by 20+ points. Elections should be about getting a better candidate into office, not having a larger self-expression platform for one's BlueSky account.

Putting a right-leaning centrist up against a right-winger is STUPID.

Not if it's a conservative state.

The best case scenario is that you win and that person enacts a right-wing agenda from within the Democratic party. How does that help anyone? ****ing Surrendercrats.

The best case scenario is that a centrist Democrat gets elected instead of a right-wing Republican, and a red state now has a senator who can vote against some of Trump's nominees, vote against abuses of power, vote against the worst excesses of his policies (e.g. the deficit-busting bill and his attempted ACA repeal), etc. Or if there's a Democratic president, maybe someone who can occasionally vote for nominees and popular Democratic legislation. I don't see how it's a preferable outcome to have a right-wing Republican who will do none of those things, which is the outcome of not fielding a real candidate.