Read on Twitter
The evidence that the left loses elections by not voting for centrist candidates as the lesser evil is weak. Studies show that they dutifully turn out & hold their noses in almost all cases. Some will abstain or vote for a 3rd party, but rarely in significant numbers. https://twitter.com/sjwrenlewis/status/1293451860624498688
It's true Hillary Clinton could have won Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin if everyone who voted Green (about 1%) had instead voted Dem in 2016, but in each case 3 times as many voted for the Libertarian candidate. In a 2-horse race, Trump would likely have won by more.
In contrast, we know centrists will happily deny their vote to the more progressive option, often rationalising it by a spurious red line. We had a good example of this last December in the UK. There's been much talk of the Red Wall, but less about losses such as Kensington.
Implicit in the media treatment of this is the idea that the political centre is decisive and that tacking to the centre wins elections. This clearly informs Starmer's current strategy, with its emphasis on putting distance between Labour and the left.
The problem, as Clinton found in 2016, is not that the politically-engaged but numerically marginal left will stymie your chances, but that apathy among the much more numerous politically-disengaged is fatal, & managerial competence & equivocation don't help with that.
