It's not that complicated.

>>It's the voters who determine who they think is moderate
>and
>>who they think is radical. The voters in 2016 considered
>Trump
>>a moderate and Hillary a radical progressive.
>
>Yes, I think these are things Republican voters thought.

According to the data, this is what the ACTUAL, OVERALL electorate thought.

>Why
>are we so worried about who they'll vote for?

We're worried who the overall electorate will vote for because that's who elects the fucking president.

>Do you genuinely
>think trying to appeal to these types is the best way to build
>a lasting coalition that can consistently win elections?

To win even a single election, you need to win over a majority of the people who cast votes (weighted by the electoral college). Do that over and over again, and you have a lasting coalition. That is the ONLY way it has ever worked.


>>Yes, the specific positions that are considered moderate vs
>>radical changes over time (though A LOT slower than people
>>tend to think). But the point is, right now, many positions
>>being taken by our candidates are currently popular ONLY
>with
>>a fraction of the base, and hugely unpopular with the
>general
>>electorate. That's a recipe for disaster.
>
>It's a primary, OF COURSE they're playing to the base.

Part of the reason primaries are counterproductive. But it's the system we have.

But no, as Reeq pointed out, M4A in the form currently being advocated by Bernie, Warren, AND (sometimes) Harris (involving full nationalization of the insurance system) is unpopular EVEN among the base. Note how doofus Biden is STILL in the lead even with his weekly fuckups.


>And
>criticize M4A all you want, there's more popular support for
>that

If you make it a public insurance option, yes. If you make it a nationalization of the system, no. The candidates need to run on the former.


>(and raising the minimum wage)

Definitely! I'm not saying Democrats can't be Democrats, only that they shouldn't give up elections to please their Twitter followers.


>than there is for cutting
>entitlements and "reining in big government spending" or
>whatever else we're too dumb to realize we're supposed to
>want.

When did I ever call for any of that bullshit.

Again, Trump won by running AGAINST that bullshit.


>I love how the "we'll cure cancer" candidate is the only
>candidate willing to be real with voters, while it's everyone
>else who is focused on impossible pipe dreams.

Uh, at this point, curing cancer is VASTLY more likely than nationalizing health care. We wouldn't even need to pass a law to cure cancer.


I'm old enough
>to remember when the ACA was doomed and the pragmatic and
>intelligent thing to do was to scrap it and just try and pass
>some sort of SCHIP expansion.

Two differences: what you're talking about here was AFTER the election, when they were actually strategizing to PASS a bill.

Also, the ACA was *popular* with the general electorate during the campaign. It was only once the sausage was being made that opinion started to turn.


>Then it passed, but the
>pragmatic and intelligent thing to do was to run away from it,
>as it was unpopular at the time. Now the pragmatic and
>intelligent thing to do is to run on protecting it. Which, if
>I weren't so incredibly stupid,

I didn't think you were, but now you're playing dumb so effectively that you've got me wondering.


>I *might* think is evidence
>that public opinion can shift on things,

That's right. The ACA was popular during Obama's campaign, and it became a MASSIVE boondoggle for the party once they tried to implement it.

Now imagine how a fucking nationalization of health care, already unpopular, and specifically designed to end an entire industry and put millions of people out of work, would turn out for us.


>particularly when one
>of the two parties in our mostly polarized country actually
>fights for something instead of ceding all ground to their
>opponents because they mistakenly believe it's what people
>want them to do.
>
>>Now maybe you think positions that are unpopular now will be
>>more popular a year from now. That's wishful thinking driven
>>by life in a partisan bubble. It's just as likely that
>they'll
>>become LESS popular by election day.
>
>I live in nothing resembling "a partisan bubble." The CD I
>currently live in just elected it's first Democrat last year
>despite being in a (not all that solid, despite it's
>reputation) blue state and it's a lucky day when I can pull
>into the parking lot at work without having to drive past a
>Trump bumper sticker. Trust me, I'd LOVE to live in a bubble
>where everyone thinks like me, but it's not even close to a
>reality.

Then maybe I gave you too much credit. Maybe you're just naive.


>I really wish we'd decide on "it doesn't matter that this
>candidate's policy position is very popular, voters don't vote
>on policy anyway" and "supporting this policy will doom us
>all, because voters will hate it." It's like you all watched
>the Obama 2008 campaign and came away with the conclusion that
>what really got people excited to vote for him in record
>numbers was when he said that pull up your pants thing or
>promised to appoint Republicans to his cabinet.

Well, his interest in bipartisanship was an essential element of his appeal.


>Nothing inspires people to vote for your opponent like telling
>them all the things you won't do.

Actually, here's one thing: telling voters you'll take away their health insurance.



>And if you don't get into
>office, it doesn't matter how excited you were to propose
>something that the GOP will grandstand about and ultimately
>not vote for despite the private assurances they gave you that
>they totally would.
>
>No, I don't actually expect everything President Warren wants
>would actually be passed into law. But that's also true of
>President Biden, and it's dangerously naive to think that
>isn't going to be the case.

Absolutely! So if none of this is gonna be law, let's run on shit that the voters actually want!