Per Frank Schaeffer on the 2018 election:

[Dawson Leery]

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2018, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

"This is no time for Democrats to be silenced by listening to calls for "moderation." To destroy Trump's fascist con-artists like the white evangelical leader thugs/Koch brothers and the like the fire in our bellies must now be summoned."

I agree 100%. We do not need the advise of the Anti-Trump Rethugs (who are just giddy at getting a nut like Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court) about moderation. The GOP gave up "moderation" with the rise of Reagan and Gingrich.

Edit: I understand that in some districts candidates have to be on the center and somewhat on the right on local issues
(Manchin/Heitkamp/Donnelly).
In other cases, the candidates should be progressive. At the same time, it would be proper and moral to take a hawkish stand
against those who are threatening America (Russia/Jihadists, etc).

[Honeycombe8]

1. It depends on the district. In some districts, only a moderate can win.

In some districts, only an independent can win over a Republican.

Anything but a Republican.

We would be discussing moderate vs progressive for the Presidential election. It's irrelevant for the mid-terms, since that depends on the political climate and the politics of the constituents...not what each party decides to give them, for their own good. You run people who can win the votes of the locals.

They will be inclined to vote non-Republican....if we give them someone they can vote for.

[AlexSFCA]

4. is that true? Do we have examples?

I think it depens on how articulate and agressive a candidate in combating and debating rthugs. At this point, I am not sure if a dem moderate will have better chances to win than a progressive dem fighting for workers rights and who is able to energize and inspire. E.g. I never liked Bernie but Alezandria Cortez truly inspired me and she has direct appeal to middle class and below middle class working people of all races and especially younger people that we need. You’re not gonna excite young people to vote for a moderate. My thinking is that trump has fundamentally reshaped politics in America and there is now little room for any moderates anymore. Until you realize that someone like Cortez is actually very moderate when it comes to her actual proposals, there is nothing radical in it.

The question is, is Alexandria one of a kind? Smart, fearless, young, stunning with insane charisma.

[Honeycombe8]

12. LOL. You need to come down here to south Louisiana and see what "rural America" is all about.

Bigotry is out in the open in many places. Many never heard of subject-verb agreement. People getting any sort of assistance are to blame for everything that's wrong in the country..well, at least the part that illegal immigrants aren't to blame for. Why is there such a thing as gay rights, when being gay is wrong in the first place. God, God, God. Guns, guns, guns. The N word really isn't derogatory. People just say that it is. Posts urging neighbors not to use the local convenience store because it's owned by a Middle Easterner. High crime is because of blacks, criminals from Mexico, and people on welfare.

Etc., etc.

The "liberals" in such places are usually not as liberal as they are in others. And there aren't many of them. In order to win, you need to get independents and some moderate Republicans. There is no way they're going to vote for what they view as an extremist for the opposite side.

The Democratic Party leaders know this. This is well known. Plus it's common sense.

The Dem Party backs independents....not Democrats...in some parts of Alaska, because anyone with a "D" by the name can't win.

[world wide wally]

6. Our biggest problem is trying to get 100% of the vote everywhere

Professional asshole, Karl Rove, was right about one thing..... All we need is 50% plus 1

[elleng]

9. rover was right about more than one thing:

Poorly educated 'Christians' It's been winning for them ever since.

[deurbano]

8. My interpretation of that tweet is that it's not about moderate (or not) candidates...

but about not being moderate in our efforts to triumph over the depraved deplorables now in charge. We have to keep the "fire in our bellies" and not try to make nice or try to find "common ground" with fascists.

[PatrickforO]

10. Here's the thing, though. In my state, we had a Democratic US Senator.

His name was Mark Udall and he was a decent guy, from a prominent political family.

Udall began his political career in 1996 according to Wiki, but I didn't know that. I just knew he was defeated in 2014 by Cory Gardner. Now, Cory is pretty far right - too far right for Colorado really, but he is dynamic and articulate and he had a message of hope. You know the type. The smiling Republican pol who promises the works and ends up screwing us once again with Koch-brother-ALEC type policies that hurt us by routing our wealth into the pockets of billionaires. I mean, that's the deal, right?

Anyway, Udall is a decent guy. He really is. He had already served one term in the US Senate. Trouble was, he didn't seem to stand for anything. Just another empty suit - at least that's how it looked to me and many of my friends and associates.

Some examples: in 2011, he and Senator Collins from ME successfully amended an appropriations bill that removed a limit placed on potatoes in the USDA new school nutrition guidelines. So...voting with the potato farmer lobby.

In 2012, he was silent on Amendment 64 (marijuana legalization). After it passed, though, to his credit, he did co-author a letter begging the feds to 'let the experiment unfold.' Whatever that means. Because of federal stupidity, the banks still can't do business with the marijuana wholesalers and retailers. Strictly a cash business, which makes it very, very dangerous for people trying to make it work as well as potential harm to innocent bystanders. Though there haven't been many attempts because of the heavy armed security the industry has to use. Basically bullshit.

But then things turned around, or at least Udall did. He stopped being an 'empty suit.' He voted against the Patriot Act when in the House, and against reauthorization in 2011. He voted against the CISPA bill. According to Wiki, "Udall introduced an amendment to end the practice of military detention of American citizens indefinitely and without trial. In response to the amendment's introduction, the Obama administration threatened to veto the bill.[47] The amendment was rejected by a vote of 60–38 (with 2 abstaining).[48] Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of Congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible"".

Basically, the guy had a good record. But he was a bit wishy-washy, always seeing which way the wind would blow, and then going in that direction when the direction was obvious.

So back to 2014 - Udall ran such a LAME and LACKLUSTER middle of the road campaign against Gardner that it left many people saying, "Meh." Seriously, the guy's ads were like tepid water. And, sure enough, Colorado voters spit Udall out because he didn't seem to stand for anything. He didn't ever really have the courage to campaign on his real convictions.

Big long reply, I know. Sorry for that. But my state in 2014 was a prime instance of a middle-of-the-road guy who got pasted because he ran a wishy-washy middle-of-the-road campaign. I mean think about what Stacey Abrams is doing in GA. She is in there slugging, fighting the good fight, and being very vocal about her positions - which, of course, makes some Dems cringe. But she could win. God knows, no Dem has been elected there in decades and they've all tried to run to the right and it did not work.

You are right, though, about state US House districts, and of course local governments, though. Statewide races are a bit different because the urban populations tend blue and tend to outnumber the rural populations. And Trump is causing massive defections of Independent voters in the suburbs.

So we'll see. I sincerely hope you are wrong.

[Honeycombe8]

13. Lame and lackluster does not apply to moderates.

Being moderate simply means not on the far left or far right.

Moderate Dems are what we know as the regular Democrat from the Democratic Party. They support the Democratic Party Platform. They stand for everything the Party stands for. They simply don't go as far as those on the far left, for some issues, and may diverge in views on some issues (which aren't part of the platform). One example might be war. Some on the far left are anti-war at all costs. Moderates are much less likely to support war than Republicans, but are not anti-war. FDR...Obama.

Jack Kennedy was a moderate. Bill Clinton was a moderate. Jimmy Carter was a moderate. FDR was a moderate. Obama was a moderate.

I don't know what state you are talking about, but whatever state it is, or whatever district, you imply that a far left candidate could win. There ARE districts where a far left candidate, or even a moderate left candidate, simply won't win. Period.

You run the candidate that can win in that district. That's a no-brainer. And you run a candidate that is LIKE the constituency and OF the constituency.

A New York progressive is never going to win in south Louisiana, or in Alabama, or in Alaska, and so on. And a moderately left candidate, whether a Democrat or independent, won't win in some very liberal districts.

You find your candidate among the people of the district.

[griloco]

2. BEWARE the Civil Serpent!!!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Moderation in all things, including moderation.

Run moderates to win tough conned districts.

Run fired-up candidates, moderate or socialist, where seats are safe and the candidate is the best to get out the vote for down ticket and for Senate, etc.

The name of the game in 2018 is electing Democrats.

[green917]

7. I agree that we need to elect Democrats in 2018

However I disagree that only moderates can win in some districts. It's all about messaging and populist ideas ("Socialist" without the negative connotation) are hugely popular when they are explained in a way that people can digest them. To quote one of my favorite political writers:

"The only thing you find in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos!" -Jim Hightower

Although I believe you are correct that we absolutely must retake at least one house of Congress this fall, I think that progressives can carry the day if they present their ideals in a coherent, cohesive, and approachable fashion. We absolutely need more Democrats but we need to go back to electing better Democrats also that will fight for the ideals that made our party great in the 1st place!

[RandomAccess]

11. Exactly

and more --

[Duppers]

5. +100

[yodermon]

14. I dunno, fox News might say mean things about us

and *gasp* red state democrats are vulnerable so we have to pander to the whitemale base arflengalrgle