[lukeschlather]

They're looking at national politics, and on that score, yes, the ST is liberal. When it comes to local politics the Seattle Times is conservative. Your objection is a bit like people who object that the Democrats are conservatives, from a European perspective, except this is about the city itself. The current mayor is liberal, the previous mayor was conservative. They're both Democrats and would be defined as liberals by your factcheck, but that's a different rubric than the one we're talking about.

[siren2026]

As a European, Democrats are absolutely not conservative from a European perspective. There are multiple dimensions but at least socially they push everything further to the left than in Europe. (Which is also in my opinion why they are losing elections)

Almost every social topic is pushed to the extreme left by the Democrats. Simply look at how many weeks abortion is allowed in blue state and compare with most European countries. Most European countries are way more conservative.

Economically yes, they are more conservative but even that is now changing as well (see: New York and AOC).

[sterlind]

and migrants? I think liberal parties in European countries seem to be much more supportive of refugees than Democrats, current Republican rhetoric aside. also, police, and guns. meanwhile, even with the issue you singled out, most red states in the US have enacted near-total abortion bans. do any countries in Europe ban abortion outright? are the conservative parties pushing for it?

[inigyou]

Is this accounting for the fact that European countries with strict abortion laws don't really enforce them any more?

[brookst]

How do Democrats’ policies on health care, paid leave from work, unions, public funding of political campaigns, and public transit compare to European conservatives?

If you’re a single-issue abortion voter, yes the US democrats tend to propose fetal viability (22 weeks or so) as the limit, while most of Europe is 12 weeks. UK and Netherlands are 24.

But if you genuinely believe US democrats are wildly liberal, you must be that rare European Fox News watcher.

[philwelch]

> If you’re a single-issue abortion voter, yes the US democrats tend to propose fetal viability (22 weeks or so) as the limit

No, the standard Democrat policy is to allow abortion on demand at any point prior to birth—40 weeks or so.

[0x1d7]

It’s fortunate we’re on HN to easily identify this comment as sarcasm, but can you imagine being so ignorant as to believe this? What kind of brainwashing is required to think one could get an “abortion on demand” up to birth?

Truly such a belief could only come from the lowest IQ amongst humanity.

[philwelch]

That's the law in Colorado, DC, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont, all of which are blue states.

[aardvarkr]

Prove it

[philwelch]

Democrats opposed the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, and multiple blue states allow abortion at any point prior to birth.

[brookst]

This is false. Not sure if propaganda or ignorance of infowar, or lying for the fun of it, but 100% false.

[bragr]

I think you have a particularly poor read on American politics.

>they push everything further to the left than in Europe. (Which is also in my opinion why they are losing elections)

No, the democratic electoral base is consistently and loudly complaining that after the primaries, most democrat candidates become moderates in the general election (even actively courting Republicans) and do not follow through on the primary election promises when elected. This has resulted in major democratic voter apathy and low turnout.

>Simply look at how many weeks abortion is allowed in blue state and compare with most European countries.

This is true, but you have to contextualize it to America, where people have poor or no sex ed, no access to socialized medicine, no time off from work for medical appointments, likely no public transport to the appointments, and very possibly now needing to travel out of state.

>Economically yes, they are more conservative but even that is now changing as well (see: New York and AOC).

That's very much TBD. First, NYC is not very representative of America as a whole. Second, while there has been a small wave of recent democratic socialist victories that has been well covered in the news, it is too soon to say that's a long term trend or just a Trump induced aberration. Mandani is making a splash currently, but he's just a mayor. I like AOC's politics, but she's too much of an outsider to have any real influence in Congress. She probably has more influence on social media than she does in Congress. I'm not aware of any legislation introduced by her actually becoming law. Maybe if this trend continues, there will be enough to form an influential caucus in Congress. However, as of now, no one is really listening to the extreme left in Congress and we've never had an extremely liberal president during my lifetime.

If you disagree, I'd be happy to have you point out some counter examples from party members with actual power (presidents, governors, state legislature leadership, senators, house leadership, committee chair persons or ranking members), but they all tend to be moderate.

[will4274]

> No, the democratic electoral base is consistently and loudly complaining that after the primaries, most democrat candidates become moderates in the general election

Actually, about the same number of Democrats say their candidates are too liberal as not liberal enough. E.g. for Harris, both numbers hover between 10 and 15 percent.

The not liberal enough cohort is especially loud, particularly online, but the data shows candidates end up about at the primary voter average, as you might expect.

[hitekker]

Using local labels to communicate to an (inter)national audience is a bit foolish, I think.

In SF, we have a wealthy clique who are locally labeled as “progressives” and who are also contradictorily against new housing. They even veto’d building a new apartment complex on a parking lot!

I’d personally call that clique “NIMBY” since their “progressive” label is essentially designed for propagating denialism among the credulous.

[solid_fuel]

> In SF, we have a wealthy clique who are locally labeled as “progressives” and who are also contradictorily against new housing.

Right, but a lot of those folks are probably supportive of gay marriage and women's bodily autonomy, which does make them progressive compared to huge swaths of America even if they have regressive politics on housing. I don't know if the national labels would really be any more useful in this case.

The Seattle Times is the relatively conservative paper in Seattle, but it's still "liberal" in the sense that it happily criticizes Trump and isn't calling for a "straight pride" month.

Realistically the local labels probably paint the clearest picture of the dynamics at play. Seattle Times was pretty strongly opposed to Katie Wilson in the run-up to the mayoral election, and I think that still affects their coverage.

[dualvariable]

If you just focus on capitalism, the apparent paradoxes dissolve.

The wealthy clique in SF aren't really left-wing.

Neither is the Seattle Times.

[twoWhlsGud]

If you are bad enough at building coalitions you can lose almost any election regardless of how evil or corrupt the opposition, is too : )

"FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

REG: He's over there.

P.F.J.: Splitter!"

[lukeschlather]

Using (inter)national labels when discussing local politics is incoherent.

[philwelch]

In Seattle you’re considered conservative if you’re not a Marxist.