Former FBI Director James Comey offered some political advice to the Democratic Party in a Sunday tweet — only to learn that Democrats definitely do not want to hear what the former Republican thinks their party ought to do to win elections.
"Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left," Comey wrote in his tweet. "This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."
The former FBI director may have been referring to a rally last week in Kansas where New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, now the nationwide symbol of democratic socialism, campaigned with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on behalf of Kansas congressional candidates Brent Welder and James Thompson. Ocasio-Cortez's June primary victory over 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley, a member of the House leadership, has spurned much concern-trolling from politicians in both parties.
Democrats immediately jumped on Comey's tweet as a step too far, especially considering his controversial decision to go public with the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton during the final days before the 2016 election campaign while neglecting to mention its investigation into Donald Trump's campaign. Hence this tweet by Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama.
Ronald Klain, who served as chief of staff to Vice Presidents Al Gore and Joe Biden, neither exactly a left-wing hero, also expressed contempt for Comey's unasked-for advice.
Klain also retweeted a disdainful tweet posted by political consultant Paul Begala.
Pfeiffer, Klain and Begala have good reason to blame Comey for Clinton's loss in the 2016 presidential election. Statistical guru Nate Silver drew the same conclusion after analyzing the polls, explaining as much in an editorial from May 2017:
Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College.
The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020.
But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.
To be fair to Comey, he is hardly alone in expressing concern that the Democratic Party could move too far to the left in its fervent anti-Trump resistance.
The centrist Democratic think tank Third Way held a convention in Columbus, Ohio, last week that was at least partly devoted to trying to find a moderate Democrat who can win the 2020 presidential nomination. As NBC News' Alex Seitz-Wald reported, the event was "an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump."
The same concerns were voiced by former Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000 who lost the Democratic Senate primary in 2006 when running for re-election. (He was re-elected anyway as an independent.)
"As much as anybody is able to predict anything in our politics these days, I believe that a strong leftward movement in the Democratic Party is a movement in the direction of defeat and minority status," Lieberman told Salon. "This is an old story that played out over the decades. The inspirational figure of my early life was John F. Kennedy. That was true of a lot of people of my generation. To state a complicated matter simplistically, Kennedy represented what the Democratic Party was, which was progressive on domestic policy and principled and muscular on foreign and defense policy. He believed in regulatory government, but he was pro-business, he was pro-growth. I think that combination still makes a lot of sense to me."
His views were echoed by Will Marshall, the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute.
"I think the imperative for Democrats is to nominate a candidate who can broaden the party's base, not just energize it," Marshall told Salon. "Obviously when you're in the minority in Washington and most states, and only hold 16 governorships, you aren't winning enough elections in enough places. Your most urgent challenge is to build new majorities and win more elections. Instead of fighting over ideology, you've got to choose a presidential nominee who can bring new voters into the fold and make Democrats more competitive in the places we've been losing across the country."
So at least some Democrats may believe Comey's advice makes political sense. Whether he has the strategic or moral standing to offer it, considering his 2016 track record, is quite another matter.
Shares