You do though. You're just not going to say it quite this overtly. You explicitly want a pervasive surveillance state to keep those pesky Trump supporters in line.

Pretty sure trump supporters tell on themselves without the use of a surveillance state. Look at the Jan 6 riot and all the HD footage their dumbasses uploaded.

You are just wrong. Democrats are to the right of the public lol.

This is just another thing ive already shown, and you've acknowledged, but you've refused to synthesize.

A genuine question: if you truly believe that Democrats are to the right of the public on key policies which are important to voters, then why don't Democrats move at least somewhat to the left - say to where the purported median voter is - to win more elections and gain more power? I mean, that's the goal of political parties and career politicians, right? Why would Democrats intentionally kneecap themselves? The usual "donor class prevents it from happening" argument could perhaps explain why corporate Dems keep winning intraparty-fights against progressives*, but it doesn't sufficiently explain why the Democratic party as a whole isn't seizing an opportunity to gain more power. With power of course come perks and pork, so a more electorally successful and politically powerful party should still attract plenty of donor money. And Dems are flush with small donor cash anyway, at least in recent cycles.


NB: I never acknowledged that, as you claim, Democrats are to the right of the public on the issues-at-large. I might have accepted it on specific policy items, perhaps healthcare or so.
NB2: That I don't agree with things you think you have demonstrated doesn't necessarily have to mean that I'm incapable or unwilling to "synthesize" info - it mostly means that your arguments were not as persuasive as you thought.





*even this argument doesn't explain why Bernie got absolutely crushed in the 2020 primaries as soon as he was running against an opponent who unifed the establishment liberals and moderates in the party.