Democrats: Would you vote for a "mildly conservative" Democratic nominee if...?

[RINO Tom]

Let's say they were a little pro-life, a little pro-gun, a little folksy, a little redneck... looked like they were more comfortable at a small town bar than in the Starbucks outside Harvard Yard, and they reframed issues to appeal to a lot of rural Americans, but they were very strong on economics - and had a Bernie Sanders like message, expressing outrage over the extreme concentration of wealth by the billionaire class, and proposing a very ambitious reform agenda which included:

- overturn Citizens United and taking Big Money out of politics
- ban gerrymandering
- elect President by popular vote
- voting rights in the Constitution and voting reforms
- direct democracy
- allow voters to choose from field of mainstream Supreme Court candidates

and such.  Would you as a Democrat vote for someone like this in your state primary - a Steve Bullock-style Democrat - for 2020?

It's my belief that rank-and-file Democrats are much more moderate than the party elite is - and that even over the strenuous objections of the party's establishment and particularly its ultraliberals that the Democrats could have a nominee.  In fact, if Tim McGraw ran - someone like that - and he had a moderate position on abortion - expressing some pro-life statements, but believing it was best up to a woman and her God - that he could win huge landslides in much of the country.

That sounds like me.  Although, truthfully, I'm pro-life down the line.

That I'm a registered Republican says a lot about the Democratic Party.  

You can use all the hyperbole you want to voice your discontent with a less socially conservative America than you grew up with, but that's all it is: hyperbole.  A Republican with economic views that are "very strong" in the eyes of Democrats is MUCH more out of place in his party than a culturally conservative Democrat is in his.  Period.

If you like the candidate described so much, there's one way to make his nomination more likely: become a Democrat.

Oh, give it a rest already.

Care to articulate what, exactly, you'd like me to refrain from saying?

[RINO Tom]

Let's say they were a little pro-life, a little pro-gun, a little folksy, a little redneck... looked like they were more comfortable at a small town bar than in the Starbucks outside Harvard Yard, and they reframed issues to appeal to a lot of rural Americans, but they were very strong on economics - and had a Bernie Sanders like message, expressing outrage over the extreme concentration of wealth by the billionaire class, and proposing a very ambitious reform agenda which included:

- overturn Citizens United and taking Big Money out of politics
- ban gerrymandering
- elect President by popular vote
- voting rights in the Constitution and voting reforms
- direct democracy
- allow voters to choose from field of mainstream Supreme Court candidates

and such.  Would you as a Democrat vote for someone like this in your state primary - a Steve Bullock-style Democrat - for 2020?

It's my belief that rank-and-file Democrats are much more moderate than the party elite is - and that even over the strenuous objections of the party's establishment and particularly its ultraliberals that the Democrats could have a nominee.  In fact, if Tim McGraw ran - someone like that - and he had a moderate position on abortion - expressing some pro-life statements, but believing it was best up to a woman and her God - that he could win huge landslides in much of the country.

That sounds like me.  Although, truthfully, I'm pro-life down the line.

That I'm a registered Republican says a lot about the Democratic Party. 

You can use all the hyperbole you want to voice your discontent with a less socially conservative America than you grew up with, but that's all it is: hyperbole.  A Republican with economic views that are "very strong" in the eyes of Democrats is MUCH more out of place in his party than a culturally conservative Democrat is in his.  Period.

If you like the candidate described so much, there's one way to make his nomination more likely: become a Democrat.

You in real life:

LOL, nah dude.  I'm very gracious at parties.

[RINO Tom]

Care to articulate what, exactly, you'd like me to refrain from saying?

Insisting that Fuzzy Bear should become a Democrat and that economic conservatism (whatever that means in this context) is the only thing that makes you a Republican. I mean, we all know that's what you think, but you're not going to change Fuzzy's mind or so, lol.

I didn't say any of that.  Fuzzy insinuated that this hypothetical Democrat would be his ideal candidate, and I said a simple fact: Democrats are never going to elect someone like that without voters like Fuzzy voting in their primaries.

And I have never said economic conservatism (I don't know what it means in this context, either, as I didn't even use the phrase in this thread) is the only thing that can make one a Republican.  It is, however, probably the most unifying (not that that's saying THAT much) ideology across the party's factions.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes, of course, but that's the complete opposite of the type of Democrat I'd prefer.

You'd prefer a mildly economically conservative Democrat?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes, of course, but that's the complete opposite of the type of Democrat I'd prefer.

You'd prefer a mildly economically conservative Democrat?

That's the problem with "moderate Democrats"; the different combinations by which one can be considered a Democrat.

Once upon a time, a socially conservative Democrat who was a staunch union supporter, and a supporter of "New Deal" economics was a standard feature of the Democrats.  Nowadays, the social conservatism is a litmus test issue.  A Democrat who's a pro-Wall Street Free Trader is OK so long as they're pro-choice, pro-SSM, pro-LGBT on the "bathroom" issue, etc.  You've got a moderate either way; it's just that one "moderate" would have, at one time, been a "liberal Republican".

[Kleine Scheiße]

This is exactly what I look for in a candidate. Far left economics and moderate social views. This would be my ideal candidate and I would probably donate and volunteer for them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No, not at all.  This is the exact opposite of my political views.

I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  I'm just more socially liberal than I am fiscally conservative.  In this scenario I'd probably vote Republican because then at least I'd get a tax cut.

Producing this kind of Democratic Party is the by-product of the Bill Clinton strategy of triangulation.  It's a strategy that unites people on social lines and cedes key economic issues to economic conservatism.

Trump offered me something.  Some relief from NAFTA, some recognition of the need for infrastructure.  Hillary offered me Planned Parenthood meets Wall Street.  With a condescending-as-all-getout manner to boot.  Talk about the gift that keeps on giving!

[Mr. Smith]

My only reservations on this would be if they lacked backbone on climate change [being pro-gun would be a minus, but not a dealbreaker], environmentalism is a must.

[Fuzzy Bear]

My only reservations on this would be if they lacked backbone on climate change [being pro-gun would be a minus, but not a dealbreaker], environmentalism is a must.

Perhaps out of such a shift, a more rational environmentalism could emerge.  One in the Teddy Roosevelt mold, and not in the PETA/Greenpeace Pagan Religious mold.

I agree that climate change is real, and that human activity is making it worse than it is.  But I also believe that while there are ALTERNATIVES for fossil fuels at this time, there is no SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels at this time, and this second fact seems to be blown off by liberals, just as the warming itself is blown off by conservatives.

[President Johnson]

Yes, I would. I would like a fiscally conservative Democrat in the manner of Jerry Brown.

[The_Doctor]

Can't speak to the Democrats' nominating such a person but I'd vote for a ham sandwich over Donald Trump so I would vote for that person a little more happily than I would vote for a leftist.

[Santander]

I love how RINO Tom thinks that the fact that Susan Collins votes with her party most of the time on largely procedural votes validates his presence in a party where he doesn't even fit into any of the prevailing factions.

American political parties are just containers for the fluid population to fill, move between, and balance over the arc of history. That is the only way you can even justify state-funded primary elections or partisan voter registration. They are legal entities which happen to have members, but they are not membership organizations, and treating them as such is illogical.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yes, in fact I would prefer that.

[Dr. MB]

Let's say they were a little pro-life, a little pro-gun, a little folksy, a little redneck... looked like they were more comfortable at a small town bar than in the Starbucks outside Harvard Yard, and they reframed issues to appeal to a lot of rural Americans, but they were very strong on economics - and had a Bernie Sanders like message, expressing outrage over the extreme concentration of wealth by the billionaire class, and proposing a very ambitious reform agenda which included:

- overturn Citizens United and taking Big Money out of politics
- ban gerrymandering
- elect President by popular vote
- voting rights in the Constitution and voting reforms
- direct democracy
- allow voters to choose from field of mainstream Supreme Court candidates

and such.  Would you as a Democrat vote for someone like this in your state primary - a Steve Bullock-style Democrat - for 2020?

It's my belief that rank-and-file Democrats are much more moderate than the party elite is - and that even over the strenuous objections of the party's establishment and particularly its ultraliberals that the Democrats could have a nominee.  In fact, if Tim McGraw ran - someone like that - and he had a moderate position on abortion - expressing some pro-life statements, but believing it was best up to a woman and her God - that he could win huge landslides in much of the country.

Exactly my type of candidate. I think Bernie Sanders, while still my favorite politician, is slightly too socially liberal. I generally support gun rights and am personally pro-life (while politically pro-choice).

I'd easily vote for John Bel Edwards over someone like Cory Booker, HRC, or Kamala Harris.

[Person Man]

What does "a little" pro-gun and pro-life mean?

[VPH]

Sounds like my kinda candidate

[pbrower2a]

Roe v. Wade is settled. The right way to reduce abortion is to create a workable economy and a pro-child culture. Obergfell is settled. Overturning it is as likely as overturning Loving.

I interpret "mildly conservative" as standing for traditional content in schools, law and order (if without brutality), stern treatment of drugs other than marijuana, and the Reagan-Obama foreign policy.

[Bojack Horseman]

If they are against Trump... Yes. Without a doubt I'd be voting for them.

[Skill and Chance]

This is Option A for the Democrats in 2020/24: A half Bernie Sanders/half Joe Manchin candidate and go for the Midwest and rural states in general.

Option B is a half Kamala Harris/half Mark Cuban candidate and go for the Sunbelt.

Option A might be good for one last hurrah in 2020 (and particularly in the 2018 senate elections), but it's hard for me not to conclude that Option B is the party's future and the best long term strategy (although it could really hurt in the senate and lead to an even bigger EV/PV split in the short term).  So I guess the optimal strategy is to run Option A candidates in 2018/20 and then switch to Option B candidates in 2022/24 if Trump gets reelected. 

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What does "a little" pro-gun and pro-life mean?

My guess for "a little" pro-life would be someone who is pro-Hyde/Helms, pro-parental consent, pro-24 hour waiting period, and perhaps against partial birth procedures, but otherwise supports abortion, at least politically. Basically Tim Kaine's position.