It was Tennessee

Thanks, Boo1. You did me a solid there.

But they would come up with something, MAGAt's always throw mud if even its just pulled out their ass.

until a kind DUer set me straight. Oof. That's what happens when a Californian tries to opine about red state politics.

Don't sweat it.

Still embarrassing though, since I KNEW the difference.

Are you saying progressive Democrats shouldn't run?

and of course not.

But it's up to the party members to select the most ELECTABLE candidate -- not necessarily the one they like the best.

If you don't win -- nothing else matters.
There is no such thing as a moral victory ... it's just another loss.

I watched this happen in Fla as few years back. We had a great candidate, Gwen Graham, moderate, not really exciting ... but a solid democrat.

She would have beaten DeSantis by 15 points and probably served two terms and the party could have used that time to build the state party infrastructure.

Instead she lost the primary to Andrew Gillum: Lost the GOV race, lost pretty much every other statewide race, party in shambles.

Sanders would never get elected if he talked about hating Vermont!

Ms Behn was a great primary candidate but a terrible general election candidate. Her well-publicized statements about Nashville should have been disqualifying.

He lost because he had scandal rumours right at the end. He ran a close race, one with mistakes but also one that generated more momentum than Graham would have. And I, like many Florida Democrats (I lived there) was hoping Gwen Graham would be able to channel some of her father's campaign charm. But it didn't happen.

Also, remember that in the last election we ran a former Republican governor, who also lost. In the year Gillum lost, the one statewide office winner was a somewhat progressive Nikki Fried, not the moderate incumbent Bill Nelson, who also lost.

We need fighters over conciliationists.

People who live here understood the context. She actually ran one hell of a general election campaign.

We just had a woman, an old fashioned liberal Democrat, lose to a Magat in gerrymandered, bright red Tennessee.

The 1st time in 50 years that a Magat didn't win by double digits in that district.

How about we run the best candidates, ones who fight, and stop putting labels on them?

You don't know how hard it is for me to not say what I really want to say.

But I think we all know that the same candidates do not work in all states or localities. It could be that no one else could have done any better. I'm willing to admit that, but I would like to hear from local people about what they think.

we should have run a progressive candidate instead of a moderate. I'm guessing there are very few examples.

zero examples. Zero.

though.

tammy duckworth’s 1 race was a disaster. her 1st position was about reforming the minimum tax rate. took her til almost the end of the cycle to come out as prochoice. it was the #1 issue of her challenger.

took several more cycles til we took that district. the progressive wd def have won, imho.
i’m sure they never admitted that to themselves, tho.

I posted my thought below through clenched teeth

In fact, I think that what we need to do to win is focus even more on the economy. That means more progressive candidates.

I think that everybody is tired of moderates. Jmo.

the more able and willing they are to break the rules as far as not using focus group approved talking points, etc. They can cut right to chase and meet people where they are.

Moderate candidates can and do win in certain places, but to make real inroads in deep red places I think we need candidates who can catch the attention of voters.

Trump's actions aren't helping most people. We have the opportunity to present an alternative.

We need to run the most liberal candidate that we know can beat them. They might be less liberal than we want but if they'll work with us we should back them. Of course we need to spend the money to do it. Winning this time is not optional!

And fuck Steve Kornacki, he's good at stats and should stick to that.

in a very red district, and overperformed all expectations, would have won if she been another centrist. Is that what you got out of that election? seriously LOL

to start a discussion. I did not claim to have gotten anything out of the election at all. But thanks for the ridicule anyway.

You shouldn’t be surprised that your ‘conversation starter’ resulted in a reply that hurt your feelings. You may need to grow a thicker skin. Because after all, a pretty good conversation did develop.

Sounds kind of PA to me. And yes, a good conversation did develop. That was my intention, and thank you for saying so.

All house elections are local. It was true 50 years ago and it s true today. Bernie is not a candidate who could win every house district. In deep red districts, you need a clinton or a beshir. They still vote with the caucus, and support the party. But they may also have moderate positions that reflect their districts.

Sorry if that is against purity and passion, but you can't run the same candidate profile in every district and expect universal success.

So maybe, just maybe a more centrist candidate would have won. Or a more attack proof progressive. Or a veteran. Or a teacher. Or a firebrand preacher.

All elections are local. We need to stop the litmus testing.

here are centrists.

Just curious because I don't follow your argument at all.

Be careful about belittling and driving out moderate progressive dems; they are probably the majority of the party that turns out in the general elections.

We are all progressives. Some of us are just more moderate.

Is that a bad thing?

In general, I'm so far to the left it can turn most people off if I am honest. But it isnt an absolute position.

And I can see other people's viewpoints.

Some can't. If you aren't exactly in line with their beliefs, you are nothing. It applies to the left as much as the right.

When someone says we can't win in a red district unless the candidate is centrist. That is a purity test, and an insult to the other wings in our party.

The question was whether another candidate could have done better.

In that district, there is a good likelihood. Even a better far left candidate might have done better.

But all politics are local. To ignore that is to continue to win primaries and lose elections.

What is a purity test is saying all candidates MUST be ultra progressive.

It’s just a desperate strategy to smear “centrists” who are just normal people that make up the majority of our party. It’s gotten more obvious since Newsom has gained a larger and well-earned profile, so he’s being labeled.

The locals wanted her. I we think we did the best we could do.

It doesn't mean the primary winner can't win a general election of course. But the voters who turn out are among the most progressive and active voters in the party. It can skew the choice into an unwinnable race. We see this all the time with gop candidates in progressive districts; they put up the redist candidate on the block.

The general election candidate faces a much different population than they did in the primary. And that candidate needs to resonate with the general election voters.

But given this district, there is probably no candidate thhat could have beat a solid republican. But that isn't the case everywhere.

than November elections.

I'm glad we cut 11 points or so off the difference compared to trump, but not sure that means a lot. If we managed to reverse 11 points in the midterms we'll win big enough to remove trump. On other hand, if we only cut difference by half, we'll still lose a bunch of races.

It may have been closer, but the GOP would have had to nominate a ridiculous terrible candidate for this race to be competitive.

if she had a bigger share of Nashville proper.
Also, if she had not said several unfortunate things
in the past.. ("I hate Country Music" ect..)

I wonder if that really hurt her, but who knows. It is Nashvilee, after all.

I hate southern pop, which is what they’re calling “country” these days.

AI Generated for quite a while now! Maybe that was what she
was referring to.

and Kris Kristofferson and Merle and I know I'm leaving someone out. But not only was their music authentic, they were liberals one and all.

…Carter family, Jimmie Rogers, Bluegrass, and all sorts of old timey string bands, blues, and Texas swing. That’s country music to me.

Okie from Muskogee? Liberal?

It’s almost impossible to win in that bright red district. Plus, a progressive message based on affordability should do well - especially now.

This progressive candidate gave TN voters a distinct choice, and narrowed the gap significantly.

"If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time."

Democratic President Harry S. Truman.

And who cares what Kornacki thinks? I'm happy he was kept by NBC and is no longer a part of MSNOWs election coverage.

As Just_Vote_Dem pointed out upthread, there was a Democratic primary with four candidates (Vincent Dixie, Aftyn Behn, Bo Mitchell, and Darden Copeland), and Behn won it. The Democrats in TN-7 decided upon the Democratic candidate, so outsider commentary on whether she should have been more moderate or not seems a bit beside the point.

But honestly, I feel like the old labels of "moderate," "conservative," "liberal," and even "left," and "right," are starting to seem a bit quaint these days. It feels like a change election cycle is brewing, and what we really have in America right now is "MAGA" (who are in power) and "not-MAGA" (who are not). It breaks down along pretty bright lines: If you are MAGA, then you are in the Trump cult. If you are not-MAGA, then in the eyes of MAGA you are a raging far-left communist, and that encompasses everyone from Zohran Mamdani and Aftyn Behn all the way through to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

The wingnuts and pundits who are crowing that Behn could have won if she'd been less "radical" are kinda missing the point. If you win a district in 2024 by 22 percentage points and then come back one year later and win the same district by 9 percentage points, the trend is clearly heading in the wrong direction for your party. The fact that Democrats managed this with a "radical" candidate should be even more of a wake-up call to Republicans, frankly.

In 2026 voter choice will pretty much come down to whether you pull the lever for MAGA or not-MAGA, and while there are a ton of MAGA still out there (obviously there are plenty of them in TN-7), going by this week's election their numbers seem to be on the decline.

can be frustrating and non-constructive sometimes, but I still kind of wonder if local voters have any opinions on the matter. I agree with your statement about MAGA vs non MAGA, but I don't know if this election was actually run that way. If that's the plan for the future, the party should embrace it everywhere and make it their central message. Just think of how it could be used. I'd start with something I started a thread about a couple of days ago quoting Hakeem Jeffries. Basically answer every question with a version of they're MAGA, they're lying. That's what they do for a living.

labels of "moderate," "conservative," "liberal," and even "left," and "right," are starting to seem a bit quaint these days."

In a country where the right is fed heavily on a diet of actual propaganda fed through an Overton Window shifting constantly rightward, where one third of the country is so apathetic towards politics that they can't be bothered to vote, and where civics education has been suppressed for decades, I think that it is inevitable that political labels would become almost useless.

I think that Bernie is correct when he eschews labels and personalities and focuses laser-like on specific policies.

Red areas will always be an uphill battle for us. Liberal policy positions are not the problem.

nt"

If not, it would be the first time ever.
Democracy doesn't function without proper participation?

Moderate, liberal, it doesn’t matter.

Aftyn pulled off a massive shift in that gerrymandered district. She performed better than expected across every county in that district with every single county shifting to the left. That district is largely made up of rural and conservative bastions designed surgically to be a forever red district. Her ground game forced the GOP to pour massive resources into a district that was on no one's radar before the election.
I know you're not meaning ill intent in your post but to hear "maybe someone more moderate would have won" is infuriating and shows very little understanding of the situation on the ground here in Tennessee.

Also, the statement you were referring to essentially had zero impact. Her opposition pulled a quote from a radio interview where she made a statement about the current state of Nashville where she said she disliked the "woo girl" bachelorette scene and the pedal bars that litter downtown. Nashvillians heard that, shrugged, and said "yeah us too". She carried the sliver of Davidson Co in the district by something like 89% of the vote. You know who does actually HATE Nashville though? The GOP leadership in this state that carved up a solid blue district into pieces leaving the state capital without real representation.

There's no "moderate candidate" that would have been able to shift this district in the way Aftyn was able to perform. Steve Kornaki doesn't have a clue what he's talking about with regards to this race.

What is this business about a more moderate candidate? Could you at least identify the items that she was advocating that you think were too Progressive for Tennessee to appreciate?

Please, let's move beyond the empty meaningless labels.

I still believe Aftyn was the right candidate for the right moment. I'm not sure why you're posting those questions to me, instead of the OP

Sometimes these threads get disorienting. I think we agree.

Terms like "center" , "left" and "right" really do not serve us well. It is not like any candidate is advocating for forced sex changes, the banning of all firearms, the elimination of all drug laws, the dismantling of police departments or anything like that. This rhetorical war came up in the recent elections where some Dems (and virtually all Republlicans triesd to imply that Mamdani was way outside mainstream thinking whereas Sherill was very "conservative:" in her views. There really wasn't a big difference.

Mamdani was SPECIFIC. He proposed REAL ideas, tangible proposals for rent, for taxation, for transportation affordability. Other Dems avoid taking solid positions.

Here is a summary of Behn's principles from her website:

But Beshear is not a flame-throwing, screamer, or name caller, so maybe that has something to do with it too.

Even my hubby, a good progressive but not a news junkie by any means, said he thought that's why she lost.

Gerrymandering has become a surgical procedure with all of the data available now.
Cracking Nashville into 3 highly Republican suburban and rural areas was extremely effective and it's why they're trying so hard to do that everywhere.
Progressive vs. moderate has become a pointless argument. What we need is authenticity, grit, and fight. She had those things and she did as well as I think anyone could've done in that district.

was carved up a few years ago by the GOP supermajority legislature, with each section apportioned to a solidly red outlying district with such precision that it makes a Democratic victory impossible in any of the three. Aftyn Behn won 77.8 percent of the vote in Davidson County on Tuesday. A moderate could not have done any better. The GOP stole a congressional seat and disenfranchised Nashville. This article explains it in more detail.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2022/jan/25/nashville-tennessee-gerrymandering-congress-republicans

Very good info.

I think we did "win," perhaps not quite as dramatically as we did in Virginia and here in New Jersey, but we did win all the same.

The trends are clear.

I don’t see why it would start working now any more than 45 years would make Reaganomics work.

I can't think any one that is ultra progressive like AOC, winning in any red district, or slightly red district in the south....EVER.

The point is, this Tennessee election proved we need to be running progressives in red districts if we want to win back these areas of the country.

and your purity test, I don't want any of that.

than blue districts. The game now is to smear “centrists” which are the majority of our party.

People want healthcare. People want to be able to retire. They want to keep their family farms and businesses. Deep down people want fairness.

I think the most important lesson of 2008 was the 50-state strategy. We push our ideals and ran people. Despite landslides in 2006 and 2008, the whole thing was ended so we could run to the middle again.

This is a cautionary tale. You can be liberal and win but liberal and a woman won't work. You can't win with both in these southern areas.

anti-christian trans pedophile extremist Democrat"---


We still lost that election by eight points--- so I can't see that being perceived by some
as 'more moderate' would have won that district as it is layed out--
especially since the GQP would still spend all that money trying to label
the Democratic candidate as I have described.

Frankly, Democrats need to start labeling Republicans as pro-pedophile,
over and over and over and over and over and over!
and refer voters to any websites which list all of the sex crimes by Republican politicians and activists!

Some might call that *dirty politics* but we would have the TRUTH on our side!

Back to the Tennessee seat, all the media until the very end of the campaign
that I had read stressed how the candidate talked MOSTLY about 'affordability'!

Kinda thought she WAS a 'moderate'---
in the same way that anyone to the left of Adolf Hitler or Genghis Khan
can be described as a 'moderate' ! (and maybe a progressive)

The thing is, a very milquetoast, centrist candidate using very consultant-written language might have moved the numbers a little more, but it's important to note that even if only 10%-20% of voters in the district are leftists, any Democrat will need every single one of them to show up and vote. A squishy centrist candidate might appeal to a few more non-MAGA Trump voters, but would then have the problem of a leaky boat, as some leftists would stay home.

A spirited denunciation of Billionaires, Health Insurance Companies 'snooty elites', with a strong advocacy of higher wages, paving roads and building bridges, would be Old Time Old Left or Progressive.

OTOH, in the media, "progressive' tends to mean 'latest trendy issue among celebrities and IVY League undergraduates'. These issues often have merit, but the voters of rural Tennessee (a) don't understand them and (b) at best don't care.

Kamela Harris was right that trans inmates should get necessary medical care. But the ad that ran continuously was very effective--because she seemed more concerned about a celebrity issue than about the price of eggs.

It is never really possible to know where the path not taken would have led. The question is not generic progressive vs generic moderate. The question is would any person who could have run done better.

What seems clear is than TN Democrats ran a candidate who ran an excellent race. At least from what was seen from a distance, she was smart and personable and was able to reach many people on a one to one basis. Given the results, she won over many people who usually would have voted Republican.

This was against a Republican who, while supporting Trump's agenda, had a background that included West Point, the military, and public service jobs. He, as an outsider himself, said he made affordability as an issue.

The Democratic nominee was the winner in a crowded field. Rather than Kornackie's observation that her shift was smaller and IMPLICITLY postulating that, all things being equal, there is some underlying shift that is constant across the country, I would be more impressed by some local analysis that argued that some specific candidate would have gotten all the votes she did and would have moved a percentage of some specific group who voted Republican.

A local analysis is very unlikely to happen. There are no exit polls on something like this and there will be no polls now that ask people who they would have voted for between a specific Democratic alternative and Van Epps as well as who they had preferred in the election.

One thing I hate about Kornacki's simplistic analysis is that it hits a candidate who ran a good race and gave her all and the local party that supported her. It ignores the real complexity of an election that depends on everything from who BOTH candidates are, the resources behind each, the strength of the local outreach GOTV, the media which almost everywhere leans right, and the voters in the district. Here, the district was gerrymandered to be very Republican as they split up Nashville.