Fielding anti-choice candidates isn't going to fool anyone

[marylandblue]

The argument seems to be that the party platform won't change, but if we run an anti-choice democrat, some conservatives might vote democratic. But I don't think they will. If abortion alone is controlling their vote, they will always vote Republican, because the whole party is anti-choice. They realize full well that a few anti-choice voices in the Democratic caucus isn't going to make a difference.

For the same reason, I wouldn't vote for a moderate pro-choice Republican. He or she won't change the Republican platform, won't change judicial appointees, and won't stop Republicans from passing their stupid restrictive laws.

If we are going to contest red districts (and I think we should), we are much better off running articulate energetic Democrats who can present the democratic message to a more conservative audience. We aren't going to get the extreme social conservatives no matter where they are. But we might be able to start a conversation with people who are concerned about issues besides abortion.

[wryter2000]

1. A voice of reason

Some of us are so eager to win overall people who won't vote Democratic no matter what we're willing to sacrifice the rights of the majority of our base.

[tonyt53]

2. By the same token, if a far left candidate runs in a red district that will get clobbered.

You want to win in conservative areas, run a moderate, as that is what most Democrats are.

[zipplewrath]

4. Kinda the smae outcome either way

Seems like everyone is claiming the same outcome regardless of strategy. Either we run progressive candidates, and lose. Or we run moderate candidates, and lose. Either way "solidly red districts" aren't gonna vote for moderate OR progressive candidates that have a D after their name.

So then the question becomes what should national democrats do in such races?

[marylandblue]

8. Most votes are a complex choice forced into a binary box

Some voters are simple on hot button issues. Abortion is one of them. If you are anti-choice, you are almost certainly voting Republican. If there are two anti-choice candidates, you will most likely vote for the one whose party is also anti-choice.

But other voters are more complex. They may be anti-choice, but economically progressive, for example. They may have other issues they care about that have more wiggle room. Look how Trump got mileage out of TPP. Does anybody actually CARE about TPP itself. No, what they really cared about was jobs, and he got them to blame TPP for the loss of their jobs. So if we present a good jobs program, then a complex voter may switch their vote without changing their position on abortion.

[Phoenix61]

3. Exactly!

And we risk losing those voters who see pro-choice as a litmus test.

[mr_liberal]

5. A moderate pro-choice Republican will vote against very conservative judges,

against overturning Roe v Wade, against anti abortion legislation....

We just saw the difference a moderate Republican can make on health care.

[marylandblue]

6. No Republican voted against Gorsuch

Including Susan Collins, who said she is pro-choice. Health Care is a different issue. There is more middle ground on health care than abortion.

[mr_liberal]

7. Because he didnt change the balance of the court.

He just replaced Scalia. She will vote against the next one if she thinks it would overturn Roe v Wade. Moderate republicans have voted against very conservative judges in the past like Bork.

[marylandblue]

9. I bet she votes party line, but we'll see

And even if she does, who else is going to stand against the party, Murkowski maybe? Not McCain on this issue. So it will turn out the same.

[mr_liberal]

11. Murkowski is probably it. There aren't many moderate republicans left.

They (Collins and Murkowski) already signalled that they want to stop Trump from stacking the court with conservatives by trying to make a deal to preserve the filibuster, but Democrats wouldn't go for it because of pressure from the left. Trump would have needed 60 votes to confirm. McCain and Graham would have went for that too.

[YCHDT]

10. Good point, the right would still vote against them