Doesn't "Moderate" have two meanings, which are being conflated here?

[Recursion]

There's "moderate" in the sense of "somewhere between liberal and conservative" and "moderate" in the sense of "incremental rather than radical". Means vs. ends.

Sanders, for instance, would be a "moderate" in the second sense, in that he was willing to support the ACA in the Senate and use it as a vehicle to increase FQHC funding, because the result was incrementally better than where we started.

FQHC funding itself is a "moderate" goal in the second sense, since it leaves the underlying financing and operator mechanism in place but makes it more attractive for both insurers and providers to make health care affordable to poor people.

The 2012 sequestration was "moderate" in the first sense, because it was pretty much the number literally between the two parties' stated goals. Ditto the stimulus.

Clinton is definitely "moderate" in the second sense (anyone who's been in government for as long as either of them has will have to be), so what DU seems to be arguing about is whether she's also "moderate" in the first sense (and whether that's what she was talking about when she called herself "moderate&quot . Looking at her voting and legislation sponsoring record convinces me that she's not; she is somewhat to the left of the Democratic Senate caucus. But others may disagree.

[immoderate]

1. I may be the last person to ask about 'moderate...'

But most arguments are about what words mean, and arguing about words with such ambiguous labels is likely to add no light to the issue.

Edit to add- you seem right in that there is some equivocating going on here.

--imm