Being a 'moderate' Democrat is a losing strategy

[Proud liberal 80]

Edit - This is about swing/purple district/states, not Ruby red states like West VA.

Trying to be a moderate Democrat because they represent a swing/purple state/district is a losing strategy. This is what tends to happen:

1. The Republican constituents aren't going to vote for them because they have a 'D' in front of their name. And why go with Republican-lite when they can vote for the real deal
2. The so-called precious moderates (who really aren't moderates) that they are desperately trying to reach aren't going to vote for them because they do not see any tangible benefits of what the Democrats accomplished since they blocked everything or watered it down.
3. The Democrats (their actual base who put them in office to begin with) are going to feel alienated and only see them as someone who wants their vote during election time, they aren't going to feel excited or enthused about the Democrat.

And when the Democrat loses, they want to blame the liberal Democrats for their loss even though they didn't accomplish anything except for being obstructionist. Why even be in Congress if you aren't going to accomplish anything.

A better strategy would be for the Democrat to know going in that they only have a short time to accomplish anything and that this may be their only chance because they may lose reelection. So be aggressive for the Democratic agenda. This will:

1. Most Republican will still vote against them because of the 'D", but maybe a small percentage will flip because they see tangible benefits (and that's all you need)
2. The moderates actually see good in the Democratic agenda and vote for them overwhelmingly
3. The Democrats see that they are advancing their goals and are excited to support them

Edit - This is about swing/purple district/states, not Ruby red states like West VA.

[Turin_C3PO]

1. I agree to a point

but I have no doubt that Dems like AOC can only win in deep blue districts and is very unlikely to win in purple areas. That said, they don’t have to be “moderate” like Joe Manchin. Garden variety liberals like Nancy Pelosi is where I think the sweet spot is.

[Proud liberal 80]

3. Oh yeah, agree

There is a difference between being ultra-left like AOC who can only win in a deep blue district, but they also don't have to be Republican-lite...

[Irish_Dem]

2. I agree, my thoughts as well. The GOP lite strategy does not seem like a winning strategy.

If you are a Democratic, be a Democrat. And be proud of it.
Not ashamed and pretend to be something else.

[bullimiami]

4. democrats today. all moderates. blazingly, glaringly, stunningly moderate.

the whole spectrum is shifted. democrats occupy the entire center. from moderately left to moderately right.

aoc is not far left. she is a just left of center moderate.
as is bernie. as are the rest.

[Celerity]

67. yes

aoc is not far left. she is a just left of center moderate

Not only is it a RW talking point (and fucks our party up, as it is foolishly giving the Rethugs the benefit of self-inflicted wounds by us and easily used ammo) to call her and others 'ultra left', 'radical left', 'far left', etc, but it also is utterly ludicrous when you look at most all other advanced Western nations. The US political labelling scale is crazy off the skids artificially to the right.

There is not a single Dem in the entire Congressional Caucus who would be remotely considered a radical/far/ultra leftist in any of the core EU counties, and as for her programmes, we already have most all of those things over here. Things like ultra low-cost universal government run or mandated healthcare are supported by the centre right wing parties (or at least the majority of their members) here in most nations.

[DFW]

5. All politics is local

Tim Kaine and Mark Warner could probably win Senate Seats in New York. Gillibrand and Schumer could probably not win Senate seats in Virginia.

[Proud liberal 80]

8. "all politics is local" is an old outdated saying

Everything is nationalized now. There is no escaping your party affiliation.

[Magoo48]

43. $15 bucks an hour is a national imperative and not by 2025 but right now.

If you can’t see past the next holler and vote for the common welfare of workers nationally, then you’re in the wrong party at least and short sighted at best.

The “Democratic Left” barely leans left of center, and the moderate to right Dems are yesteryear’s Republicans. Yup!

[Thekaspervote]

25. Agree..it is very local and your examples prove it

[Dream Girl]

6. This could be a really interesting analysis using actual

Real election of Progressive/Liberal dem vs. conservative dems in swing states.

[Proud liberal 80]

11. Well

I can point out the I have seen A LOT of moderate Dems lose elections for trying to be Republican-Lite. I don't have much evidence for the other, but might as well try something different because the other way doesn't seem to work....I don't know how progressive Lucy McBeth is, but she held on to her seat in a competitive district and seems to be liberal....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_McBath
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_6th_congressional_district

And it seems like Warnock and Ossoff are so far going with the strategy that it's better to be liberal than moderate.

[TwilightZone]

7. That would be false.

In 2018, nearly all of our pickups in the House were moderate Dems in swing districts.

"Moderate Democratic candidates were the big winners of swing congressional districts in the 2018 midterm elections, flipping most of the 28 key House districts from Republicans’ control and winning key gubernatorial races, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Illinois. Democrats’ net gain in the House was 26 seats."

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18071700/progressive-democrats-house-midterm-elections-2018

"The House Will Have Just As Many Moderate Democrats As Progressives Next Year"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-house-will-have-just-as-many-moderate-democrats-as-progressives-next-year/

[Peacetrain]

10. Thank you.. I was just going to say that .. so +1000

We do not need to go the way of the republicans and their internal civil war that has driven them further to the edge..

[redstatebluegirl]

21. Thank you I was going to say just this.

I am growing weary of the litmus test to be a Democrat.

[grantcart]

60. Of course you are correct. The OP would have us turn both AZ Senate seats

From blue to red.

Fortunately party leaders are wiser and experienced in real elections.

[Cha]

71. You're so right! & why do so many IGNORE

That?!

[Big Blue Marble]

9. There are many more moderate Dems than you are assuming,

especially in purple areas. Our coalition has to include them and moderate suburban formerly Republican
voters, especially women

This coalition is essential if we want to have any significant change of holding the House next year.
The foundation of this coalition is to focus on improving the economy and significantly reducing
the impact of Covid19.

No matter your personal commitment to issues, we have to find common ground to
save our republic and the best way to do this is broaden our coalition.

The way to win is broaden your coalition, not self-righteously shrink it.

[Proud liberal 80]

13. people want to see results

You even say in your reply that we have to improve the economy and reduce the impact of Covid...Well, when bills are not passed or watered down for 'moderates' then people aren't going to see any improvements...And not seeing any is a losing strategy and actually shrinks the coalition.

[OnDoutside]

37. And yet the Democratic Party hold the WH, House and Senate. Indeed

But for the left scaring the crap out of people with their Defund the Police, it could easily have been a bigger win.

[Big Blue Marble]

28. The source of your frustration maybe is

that you believe your ideas and solutions are superior to those held by the others
you mention. The problem is we share this country with all these others and
to deny their opinions gets us only frustration.

It is very hard to live in a reality where you are waiting for everyone to "see the
light" of our "wisdom."

We need to recognize we are not going to get our way and find a way to
solve our common problems that considers all reasonable even moderate
citizens.

[NRaleighLiberal]

31. more complex than that. will return later with my thoughts

but it is related to change and catalysis.

[Demsrule86]

85. +1000

[Thekaspervote]

26. ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️

[Bettie]

29. If those left of center get even some of what they want

the moderates get EVERYTHING they want.

Unless you think that "broaden our coalition" means jettisoning anyone to the Left of Joe Manchin.

[GulfCoast66]

32. If you jettison moderates you get minority status. This nothing.

Compromise has made this country work. Good law generally makes no one totally happy.

[Bettie]

36. I said nothing about jettisoning Moderates unless

the only possible way a moderate will vote for Democrats is if they never, ever reach for anything beyond the middle of the Republican pack.

If we try for farther left, we'll end up both making progress AND moderates will be happy with that, because it is all they wanted. I'm simply tired of only trying for the bare minimum and then ending with far less.

Luckily, Biden is willing to shoot for actual progress.

[GulfCoast66]

41. I get you. But moderates in a tight Senate can call the shots.

I guess those on the left could do the same.

[Big Blue Marble]

46. Whether we like it or not,

It is the moderates in the Senate that hold the power. And whether we like it or not it is
the moderate voters that hold the power as to whom is elected. The only way that a Manchin
Sinama are sitting in the Senate is because moderates put them there. And it is
moderates who will decide if they stay.

[GulfCoast66]

48. Right. And every time it comes up here it becomes a moderate vs leftist democrats fight.

That’s not the deal. It all about the 1/3 of the voters that are independent.

I take moderate positions on Democratic forums because that is how we win. Personally I’m by no means a moderate. I just play one on DU (-;

[Big Blue Marble]

51. I am not a moderate, either,

but I am pragmatic. I like having the Presidency, the House, and the Senate in
Democratic control. Given the structure of our electoral process and the makeup
of the country, I am happy to work with those who only partial share my ideas
and solutions.

[GulfCoast66]

53. Yep. I just responded to the OP saying the same.

It’s not 1960. We have to win the independents.

[Bettie]

50. So, abandon all hope of

the country ever improving...yeah, I hear that a lot.

[Big Blue Marble]

55. Do you think that Biden is abandoning hope?

These issues are never black and white. Compromise will have to happen.
We may not like it. If I can choose between getting half of what I, want and none of what I want.
I will always chose half.

As I recall for the last four years and even the last eight, I have gotten no legislation
that I wanted. Now we have a chance to get some legislation we like.
Sounds good to me.

[Demsrule86]

78. We won't make progress. We never do...we move left and we lose more policy

Last edited Fri Feb 12, 2021, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)

we lose the majority. We can get somethings if not everything, and we stop the GOP cold. And lets remember judges...would you enjoy more right wing judges? Also, now our Republic is at risk. If we need moderates in our party to save it...then by God we must do so.

[OnDoutside]

40. Which is what is happening to the GOP.

[Vivienne235729]

12. I absolutely disagree that republican constituents wouldn't vote for a democrat.

I worked with moderate republicans for Biden in the general election. They are not game to this madness. There is plenty of conservatives out there that are horrified at what they are seeing transpire in the GOP. In fact, one gentleman came to my house to pick up yard signs. We were chatting and he told me that he was a lifelong republican and he never would have thought he would be voting for a democrat much less putting up signs and phone banking for Biden. Biden would not have won AZ without the AZ republicans that actively worked to get him into office. So I can completely see why Sinema and Kelly are treading carefully. AZ may have turned purple but it is a reddish purple. We turned blue by razor margins. We have the whackjob faction like Kelli Ward that is problematic. We have much work to still do yet in AZ. GA has mobilized its AA population to vote. They are ahead of AZ. I think we need to do a better job here of mobilizing the Latinx vote to get to GA's level. Once we do, I think we can very much expect to push further left in a state like AZ.

[Proud liberal 80]

15. Not disagreeing that some republicans voted for a democrat, but

The risk of trying to keep that select few is alienating much more Democrats who feel as if their votes are taken for granted.

[Vivienne235729]

22. I don't see that at all. Democrats here are pretty savvy. I think that's bc we have to deal

with the likes of Kelli Ward and all the other delusional fascist whackjobs. This is not politics as usual. We STILL see ridiculous trucks with flags driving around. It is a reminder that the threat is still there. NO democrat I know or even in large social media groups I am in have expressed this sort of sentiment. We don't have that luxury in a state like AZ at this time. And everyone knows it. It was a hard fought battle that is not over.

[Proud liberal 80]

24. Well

I can’t argue with you at all...you know your state better than I do...thanks for your perspective and hopefully Arizona can stay blue!

[Vivienne235729]

34. I sure hope so too. I plan on being on the front lines to help make that happen.

But what I am seeing is that they are taking it to the state level and pushing ridiculous things. Just this week here in AZ they passed some nonsense legislation essentially wiping out the existence of nonbinary folks. It was a big blow to the LGBTQ community. With all the uncertainty and issues we have going on, it is exasperating to say the least. We are fighting this virus on a state level now. Like I said, it is far from over.

[Caliman73]

14. A good starting point for this conversation would be to define "moderate".

If we cannot agree with what we are talking about, then you are going to have 100 different ideas of what moderate is. Case in point, one poster was talking about how AOC and Bernie would be considered "moderate" or just to the left of moderate, where as others would see the two as the furthest to the left of any mainstream politician, who could only win in deep blue districts or states.

I suggest detailing policy positions that would define a Democratic politician as "moderate" and ask for agreement on that definition, then proceeding to the argument.

[Proud liberal 80]

20. Point taken

I guess I was just trying to point out certain Democrats may not support an issue like for example $15 minimum wage or $1400 stimulus checks because they think that helps them with moderates and/or Republican in their home districts, but things like that gets them nowhere but beat

[safeinOhio]

16. Nothing wrong with that. My dad was a moderate Democrat

from Arkansas. Use to tell me "I'm a Democrat and have been all of my life, I vote for em or against em". He love Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson.
I think the only Re-Publican I can ever remember talking nice about was Ike.

[cry baby]

18. Someone should tell Biden that. nt

[Kaleva]

19. A liberal candidate running for Senate in Mi last year would most likely have lost

The Democrat base varies from state to state and region to region.

[empedocles]

27. Reading this thread for the 1st time - seemed like a number here never really

comprehended how Dems won the House, so crucially, in 2018.

[And how we lost needed Dem House seats in 2020]

[GulfCoast66]

33. Is situational in my experience.

Many of the people railing against moderates also tout the 50 state strategy which by it very definition means a much more moderate congress. Oh, and also a majority, which should be our first goal!

I call myself a moderate on DU. Not so much that my positions define me that way because it is how we win. With my friends I call myself a Social Democrat. Not to be confused with Democratic Socialist! Definitely not one of them.

[Bettie]

38. In 2020 every right winger crawled out from under their rocks

to swear fealty to their orange overlord. That is why in mostly red districts, we lost seats in the House. They all came out. That's why he had more support this time around.

Around here, a whole bunch of MAGATs voted for the first time ever, because of Agent Orange.

He was the disruption and I am betting a lot of them will go back to not voting if he isn't in the race.

[DeminPennswoods]

23. Agree completely

Candidates have to stand for something, not be wishy washy. Too often Dems in swingy districts do the latter, not the former.

[Demsrule86]

45. OK and they lose if they don't vote to protect their seats.

[Proud liberal 80]

75. They lose by trying to protect their seats

What I mean by that is that they are so fearful of losing voters by being seen as liberal that nothing gets accomplished and Democrats get blamed anyway, and they are the first to lose because they are in a swing district and people are mad at Democrats. So maybe give the voter something and your seat is protected that way.

[mcar]

73. Just because a Democrat is moderate*

doesn't mean they are wishy washy.

*I object to the OP's labeling.

[colsohlibgal]

30. Totally

If you are a Democrat be one, not a Republican lite.Give me AOC not Joe Manchin.

IMHO the whole spectrum has moved rightward since Reagan.....who did egregious damage in his 8 years.

[GulfCoast66]

35. Yeah, try running AOC in WV. You know what you get? Majority Leader McConnell.

[Proud liberal 80]

84. BTW, my OP wasn't about states or districts like WV

I understand why Democrats do what they do there. I am talking more about R+5 to D+5 districts/states.

[Demsrule86]

42. Not in a red or purple district...too bad the more populous states don't get more Senators but

short of an amendment that won't change. And that won't happen. Try running AOC in Arizona(Sinema's seat)and see what happens

[Demsrule86]

44. We tried that in 10 and 14 and what did we get? We lost the Senate. I heard agreement

among some here that getting rid of 'dinos' would be great...it wasn't; the progressive candidates we ran all lost...and we lost the Senate. Consider how Claire McCaskill was attacked when she voted in ways that might have saved her seat...nope. She ws attacked by Democrats in her state too. I wonder how they like their new GOP Senator who never votes with us. Accept the fact that until we win the ideological battle we need a big tent.

[empedocles]

47. Huge repeating point.

[treestar]

62. That's because there are more conservatives

now than there used to be.

The radical right has taken over.

That moves things rightward, not moderate Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

39. Democrats in red and purple states are moderate themselves in most cases which is why

you can't run a person towards the left statewide...and in the coming elections we may peel of Republicans but not if we run people towards the left....consider our most successful congressional 'get' was in 08 when Howard Dean tailored the candidates to the district. We had a 60 vote majority in the Senate and a strong majority in the House.

[NurseJackie]

49. Lord.

[mcar]

74. Right on time, it seems

[GulfCoast66]

52. Every time DU gets into this Moderate vs Leftist squabble we ignore the 30% of independent voters!

That’s who Moderate Senators in swingy states are chasing and being moderate is the only way to get them. Because the fact they are independent indicates that unlike we on DU, they don’t have strong opinions one way or the other. Otherwise they would join a party.

Most Americans don’t pay much attention and are just middle of the road.

I take moderate positions on DU because it is how we win. 2008 and 2018 proved that to me. We cleaned up in both years. In both years moderates dominated.

[Gothmog]

61. How Biden Eked Out His 2020 Win

I totally agree with your analysis Lets look at how Joe won https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/12/this-is-how-biden-eked-out-his-2020-victory/

Why, then, did Joe Biden win and Hillary Clinton lose? Our exploration of YouGov/CBS polling provides an answer to that question. We find that in the decisive states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), Biden exceeded his national performance among pure independents (the small fraction of voters that eschew all partisan leanings) and substantially bested Clinton’s 2016 showing among that group. He also managed to convert more former Trump voters than Trump did ex-Clinton voters. Ultimately, however, Biden’s improvement on Clinton’s effort was small, reflecting the extraordinary difficulty of winning a contemporary presidential election by a dominant margin in the Electoral College. Moreover, Biden’s win was in large part a repudiation of Trump, which did not carry over to House and Senate races, where Democrats did not meet expectations......

However, it was in the decisive states that Biden’s true advantage over Clinton became apparent. He did better among Republicans and slightly worse among Democrats than he did nationally; among independents, though, he managed to outperform his national vote share by nearly 3 percent. While that difference may appear small, remember that nearly 24 million votes were cast in the five states Biden flipped, and that his combined margin was only 279,000 (a 3 percent difference translates to 720,000 votes). Biden’s performance among Democrats — about 96 percent nationally and in the flipped states — also substantially improved on Clinton, who received slightly less than 90 percent of Democratic votes. The updated national exit poll supports our analysis — Biden benefited more from partisan loyalty than Trump, won the independents, and captured a higher percentage of Republicans than Trump did Democrats.

Biden’s coalition in the battleground states also included significant numbers of 2016 nonvoters and Trump voters. In the five states he flipped, as well as Florida, Iowa, North Carolina and Ohio, Biden received about 20 percent of his votes from 2016 nonvoters and about 6 percent from 2016 Trump voters. By contrast, Trump received only 13 percent of his vote from the former group and about 3 percent from 2016 Clinton voters. Indeed, our analysis of the battleground state polls shows that Biden won vote-switchers by a decisive 2-to-1 margin. These Trump-to-Biden voters were overwhelmingly concerned about covid-19, with about 82 percent rating it as a “major factor” in their presidential pick. By contrast, Clinton-to-Trump voters were considerably more worried about the economy (about 85 percent rated it a major factor).

Biden would have lost is he tried the flaw strategy set forth in the OP

[Proud liberal 80]

64. Biden won because the people who voted for Obama (mostly black people)

Didn't vote for Clinton, but came back and voted for Biden (specifically in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Atlanta)....bottom line...all that other analysis is crappy noise.

[Gothmog]

68. Read the article

You are wrong.

[Proud liberal 80]

65. You win by bringing out your base

Even in swing states....And the Republicans have caught on to that, That is why you have people like Ron Johnson and Rick Scott in the Senate...They barely win their elections in moderate states and govern like right-wingers, because they have figured out if they solidify their base, they win...they say screw the moderates, independents and Democrats and it has paid off for them.

[Bettie]

77. Most independents are not actually independent

there are very few true swing voters.

Google it, becasue no matter which source I choose, someone will have a huge problem with it being too right or too left wing.

[GulfCoast66]

79. Mr. Google gets you what you want to read. The algorithm insures it.

All I know is the only 2 times in the past 2 decades democrats tried running lots of candidates fitted to their districts we cleaned up.

But that takes understanding the district and being willing to support a candidate that is too conservative for big cities.

Many on DU tout the 50 state strategy and when we end up with a more moderate majority lament the fact. Almost like they would prefer a more liberal minority getting absolutely nothing we want.

America is a center left to true center country. Wishing it were not true will not change that fact.

[Bettie]

81. Fine. I'm done

Progressives are no longer welcome.

"Moderates" make sure we know this at every turn.

Y'all want us to vote, but then, it's "sit down and shut up" while the goal is asking for the very minimum and then accepting a whole lot less.

That's why things get worse and worse. Every. Freaking. Year.

[GulfCoast66]

82. I'm no moderate. I'm a social democrat. I look to France and Germany for models

But I’m also a pragmatist. When younger I did not understand, but change takes time.

I take a moderate position on DU because experience has taught me that getting a little bit of what I want is better than getting nothing. And actually losing ground.

Look to today’s republicans to see what having a party of ideologist gets you. Because trump really accomplished none of their immediate goals they in war with themselves. Well, he got their judges.

Don’t confuse arguments about what is effective to what we really want. The days of FDR and LBJ are not coming back. We have to take what we can and insure we always have one of the houses of Congress.

I’m not a total pessimist. As the generation above me continues to die it will get better. Georgia proved that. But it won’t be quick.

[Proud liberal 80]

83. We cleaned up and then most of them lost reelection either the next election or the one after

Because the people didn't see any tangible benefits and the reason that they didn't see any is that either nothing got passed or it was watered down to the point that it didn't matter....and why was that, because they were trying to show their moderate bravado...Now I am not saying that they need to go full AOC or Bernie Sanders, but they have to give their constituents a reason to reelect them and constantly blocking the Democratic agenda isn't it

[brooklynite]

54. How do you imagine we won the House in 2018?

[LanternWaste]

56. You certainly fail to support any of your conclusions with objective data or evidence.

It reads merely as a list of t-shirt slogans.

[Gothmog]

59. I noticed that also

[Gothmog]

57. You are wrong

I strongly disagree with this position. We saw what happened with Defund The Police line that cost us several seats. Your plan would cost the Democrats a ton of seats in the upcoming midterms

I keep getting amusing but ignorant emails from the Just Us Democrats asking for money so that they can force Joe Biden to adopt his policies. These emails are really sad and are wrong is so many aspects that it is not funny.

We need to run candidates who can win and not be killed by dumb policies such as Defund the Police I personally support reforms to the police. I worked hard and we got a good Democrat elected as District Attorney in my county two years ago and this cycle we got a good man elected as sheriff of my county. Our new DA has made a tremendous amount of difference in my county and I believe that the new Sheriff will also help. However, it is clear that we lost races that we should not have lost Defund the police was used very effectively by the GOP in down ballot races. A good number of races that Democrats should have won were lost due to this issue.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

The GOP ran a ton of ads using this issue

Sure enough, Republicans saw an opportunity. Painting Democrats as supporters of “defunding” the police became the focus of campaign literature, TV and digital ads, and live televised debates. That forced Democratic candidates to divert resources that might otherwise be used discussing COVID-19 relief, health care or education to be used disavowing themselves from the slogan and otherwise defending themselves.

Out of 31 broadcast TV ads that Trump and other allied campaign groups used to attack Biden and other Democrats for being soft on law and order, 11 spots ― that aired a total of 77,647 times ― explicitly mentioned “defund the police,” according to an analysis Kantar Media/CMAG conducted for HuffPost. And out of 216 Republican broadcast TV ads in congressional races blasting Democrats, 157 spots that aired 103,000 times used the phrase.

I was disappointed to seen Susan Collins re-elected. It seems that Collins was able to use the "defund the police" issue very effectively

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and the GOP’s Senate campaign arm hit her Democratic opponent, Sara Gideon, in a TV ad for links to a “defund the police” billionaire. The basis for the ad was Gideon’s attendance at a fundraiser hosted by an environmental coalition that includes NextGen America. NextGen, funded by liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, supports defunding the police.

[Proud liberal 80]

63. you kind of contradict yourself

You said

We need to run candidates who can win and not be killed by dumb policies such as Defund the Police

And then said

A good number of races that Democrats should have won were lost due to this issue.

So essentially you are saying that those moderate Democrats lost their races even though they took the moderate view on defund the police. So basically even with their moderate view they still lost. Which goes to show being moderate didn't help them....But anyway I don't want to focus on defund the police because I agree with you, that is a losing issue and it wasn't what my OP was about.

My OP was more about when these so-called moderates take a view where they don't want to support a piece of legislation in fear that it may turn off Republicans (who aren't going to vote for them anyway) and independents...The legislation either dies or is watered down so much that it has no impact. But guess what, that weak legislation is tied to them and the Democratic party anyway. I say that gets them more in trouble than being labeled a 'liberal'...So what's the point of proving that you are moderate when you don't accomplish anything meaningful. I give you two examples of what I am talking about. The 2009 Stimulus Bill and Obamacare....That stimulus bill was watered down so much to appease moderates that Americans really didn't see any tangible benefits, and they still held Democrats responsible...So basically a moderate bill failed and didn't do anything (and the bill gets labeled as leftwing legislation which it was not). Same thing with Obamacare, that bill was nowhere near liberal legislation...again, it was watered down to appease moderate Democrats and some Republicans, and again the American people did not see significant impact...and its funny that those two weak 'moderate' pieces of legislation cost moderates big time on 2010....maybe if they were more ambitious and passed something meaningful instead of trying to appease what they thought was their voters they would have won in 2010....Fast forward to the present day and it looks like moderates haven't learned their lessons. 2022 is going to be a hard year anyway, might as well actually fight for something and hope Americans reward you when they see tangible benefits, than to kill or water down something and still lose.

[Gothmog]

66. your attempt at analysis is amusing

Your have zero support for your amusing but wrong theory. Read the material posted. The GOP used an ignorant policy pushed by the progressive wing to win a number of races the Democrat should had won. If you read the material posted you would had noticed that these real Democrats did not support the ignorant Defund the Police policy but the GOP was able to use this policy against them. There are real examples that show why your theory is totally wrong in the real world

We need to win seats and running extreme liberal candidates is a good way to lose races in the real world. Again you have zero support for your amusing but wrong theory. Look at how Joe won in 2020. Joe out performed Hillary with independents by running as a moderate.

You may want to find some support in the real world for your theory. I note that the Just Us Democrats had a poor track record last cycle except in very blue districts.

[Proud liberal 80]

69. lol

you are still talking about defund the police when I said you were right on that position and didn't even counter me on the 2009 Stimulus Bill and Obamacare....You are now on full ignore.

[mcar]

70. How many progressive Democrats have won in swing states/purple districts?

[SlogginThroughIt]

72. It completely depends on the territory.

[MineralMan]

76. You are incorrect.

[Gore1FL]

80. To add another point, primarying a sitting elected official isn't poison.

Some people feel it diminishes our chances to hear other voices. In many ways it strengthens our chances because it stirs more people to participate.

[betsuni]

86. I can't make sense of this.

[TheFarseer]

87. I agree that people want to see results

They want the $1400 and vaccine rollout improved. They want affordable healthcare and college. They want jobs to come back, infrastructure repaired and they want to see the Green jobs (assuming pipeline and fracking jobs are lost) Not saying they need to do all of this but if we come back to the voters in two years with the message "Trump would have done worse" or "we couldn't do anything. The Republicans wouldnt let us" it's going to be a blood bath like 1994 and 2010.

[Willto]

88. Disagree with the OP

Sorry but you cannot take a one size fits all approach. Far left candidates who can win in certain districts in New York or California would get crushed in places like Arizona or Georgia. You have to run people who have a chance in a given area.

And I'm tired of the notion that a moderate Democrat is no better than a Republican. That is just insulting. Look at the senate candidates who just won in the two places I mentioned above. Did you get a good look at the Republicans that would be in the senate from those states if our candidates had lost? And lost they would have if we had run far left candidates. You think Democrats Ossoff and Warnock are no better for our side than Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler? Really?

There is just no evidence to support the claim that if the Democratic party would move hard left there is this ground swell of voters out there just waiting to pop up and suddenly start voting for them for the first time. There is historical evidence however that moving too far left costs you center left voters and elections.