Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Winning [View all]

brooklynite

(93,847 posts)
4. My response...no
Sat May 2, 2015, 01:46 PM
May 2015

If the universe of voters were the people here, then you might be able to make a compelling argument about thinking in terms of issues rather than electability. But it isn't. There are million of voters out there who will be voting on simplified terms: Democratic/Republican; liberal/conservative; young/old; etc. They will have two practical choices: our candidate, and the Republican's candidate. And history has shown that when WE, run a candidate perceived as "too liberal" (regardless of how voters respond to "too liberal" issues), that candidate has a lesser ability to gain the middle of the road votes needed for election, WITHOUT appeal to an imagined pool of left-wing voters waiting to be inspired. Now, it is possible that if we run a far-left candidate and the Republicans run a far-right candidate, we might have a better opportunity to win, but we also have a far worse outcome if we lose, ESPECIALLY if the far-left candidate chooses to not take advantage of the full range of financial resources that the far-right candidate will take advantage of. Given the choice of a more liberal candidates who's prospects for winning are lower and a more moderate candidate, who's positions are still within the mainstream liberal principles of the Party (you may disagree; I think the average Democratic voter does not) and who has a better chance of winning, I'll go with the moderate.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Winning»Reply #4