Win with LA-GOV Edwards (expanded Medicaid, min. wage, etc) or lose with a pro-choice, anti-gun dem?

[Casprings]

Reading this article got me thinking: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/02/john-bel-edwards-southern-democrats-215570

There is a lot of talk about litmus tests. To quote the article:

But it’s quite possible that some national Democrats won’t rally to his defense because Edwards, a devout Catholic, opposes abortion at a time when powerful voices in the party, such as the California megadonor Tom Steyer, are pushing to make the issue a litmus test of progressive values. The governor, an avid hunter, is also strongly pro-Second Amendment, which puts him out of step with the anti-gun mood of Democrats nationally but fits a state whose official nickname is “the Sportsman’s Paradise.” (On a helicopter ride to the Youngsville event, Edwards pointed to a lodge surrounded by forest that served as the base for a recent turkey hunt. The one-time Army Ranger now has a middle-age paunch and has lost most of his hair.)

But he has done progressive reforms.

Edwards has also championed causes that wouldn’t be out of place in Elizabeth Warren’s Massachusetts. He has expanded Medicaid to the working poor, threatened to sue oil and gas companies for destroying coastal wetlands, pushed for a higher minimum wage and reformed his state’s criminal justice system.

So I guess the question is, should the dems support anti-choice, pro-gun candidates and win some of these states? Someone like John Bel Edwards is culturally aligned with these voters and offers a path to victory. Or should there be a hard red line at choice and guns?

[MineralMan]

1. Oh, Hell...just let the Republican win...

That'll help a lot.

[dsc]

2. did he win because he was pro life?

or because Vitter was liquid sludge. I could see candidates like him winning governor's races against flawed opponents but I can't see them winning legislative races pretty much no matter what.

[Casprings]

3. I don't think it hurt him in Louisiana and likely helped him.

Louisiana is likely to be far more anti-choice then the rest of the country. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/04/louisiana_abortion.html

The reality is that his view is far more aligned with the voters there.

Moreover, I am sure his pro-gun stance helped him. We have to deal with reality and those two issues are ones where the population, at least in Louisiana is more aligned with positions that are outside the mainstream of the Democratic party.

[dsc]

7. I am not disputing that

but I am wondering if being pro life and pro gun was sufficient if Vitter wasn't so utterly awful.

[Casprings]

13. He was aweful and the previous governor was unpopular

That said, isn't the right question rather or not a pro-choice, anti-gun candidates loses? Edwards killed him: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_gubernatorial_election,_2015 . I would think it would have at least been closer.

[dsc]

14. It does speak to any ability to replicate his success

we can't count on the GOP nominating utterly and ostentatiously reprehensible candidates with regularity.

[dsc]

9. No but he was the candidate that Edwards beat

and he was awful.

[Lurks Often]

10. Yup, my bad

[DBoon]

4. I want a candidate who gets the votes of the most progressive 51% of voters

We achieve nothing by leaving these seats to Republicans

[wryter2000]

5. There's a hard red line at civil rights

And choice is a civil rights issue.

[Bradshaw3]

6. Does getting more repubs elected help civil rights?

Including abortion rights?

[wryter2000]

11. If the Dem is anti choice

He'll work with the Republicans to curtail the civil rights of women.

I'm not talking about someone who is against choice but will uphold Roe.

[Bradshaw3]

15. You don't know that

That's the problem with blanket statements and purity tests. Politicians say things during an election all the time that they have no intention of working on, so your statement that he will work with repubs to curtail women's rights is silly. You can't know that. And to not vote for someone who supports other goals we as Democrats have would only hurt working and poor people. And for what? Because somehow he is going to overturn Roe? Of course he can't. This type of "strategy" is the kind that will keep repubs in power.

[dsc]

16. just how many times do you think our candidates can get away with lying to the voters?

[Bradshaw3]

17. I'm just amazed that people who follow politics don't understand how it works

It's not a matter of lying but you probably know that; guess it just sounds like a good point for you. It's not. Politicians (again can't believe I have to explain this) choose which priorities to focus on and which battles to fight in order to win elections. If a Dem ran on a platform of banning abortion as their main focus they would certainly not be someone to vote for. I can't think of one who has that as their main focus or one who runs on a platform of overturning Roe. Does Edwards? If not, not voting for him because of that one issue is the kind of thinking that keeps electing repubs.

[wryter2000]

18. Yes, I do

Please don't insult my intelligence

[Bradshaw3]

19. It's not insulting your intelligence to point that out

You made a claim that he would work with rerubs to curtail womens rights. If you have proof of that claim, say Edwards telling a reporter that was his plan, then please post a link. It's silly to use that insult claim.

[dawg]

12. Most of y'all will hate my opinion on this, but ...

I do live in the deep South, so it's probably at least worth considering.

I don't think we need to run anti-choice candidates in order to win elections statewide in the South. But I do think we would be more successful with candidates who appear to fit in, culturally, with that type of voter.

Family man/woman is a plus. Churchgoer is a plus. Military experience is a plus. A neat, traditional look is a plus.

The more of those boxes we can tick, the more likely we are to win in statewide contests or contests in Republican leaning districts.

Should such superficial things matter when choosing our leaders and representatives? Of course they shouldn't! But we're idiots if we pretend that they don't make a difference with the voting public in general elections.