Progressives. Targeting moderates is often viewed as the "mathematically correct" tactic by abstract idiots but doing moderate stuff doesn't yield political wins and leads to apathy.

Democrats have a lot of deactivated voters because of how deeply frustratingly moderate they are that outweigh the centrists they're fighting for - additionally if you start making big policy wins you'll win over all sorts of voters... Just as a fucking reminder Republican voters were more favorable of Sanders than Clinton because he had policy ideas that actually would improve their lives.

American politics is a morass of bullshit - when you offer to cut through that (Obama, Sanders, (bleh) Trump) and deliver real improvements to people's daily lives you win.

How'd trying to go after moderates work for Hillary. Secure your base first or they'll stay home on election day.

Progressive voters, moderate donors.

At least, that's the plan.

What happens is you can't appeal to both well.

Let's get oligarchs money out of politics please.

It seems to me that most moderates aren’t moderate because they’re passionately committed to a particular set of moderate policies—they’re moderate because they prioritize other qualities (like charisma, enthusiasm, and competence) over ideology. So the most effective way to win them isn’t by adopting a moderate ideology, but by demonstrating you have the non-ideological qualities they actually care about.

Should prioritize progressives, but won't.

I think progressives tend to overestimate their numbers. Maybe Millennials and Gen z are moving the needle a little further to the left, but I don't think it's as much as many progressives want to believe. There are many millions of Americans under 40 who are moderate, center right, or right wing. The US in general is further right than most other democracies, I would say. In fact, I think the US overall is center to center right. For this reason, I think it is generally a losing strategy for the Democrats to prioritize progressive policies, especially in the presidential election.

Most progressives live in deep blue states; states that are going to go for the Democrats regardless. Whereas, the states that matter, the swing states/purple states are much more moderate. Those are the states the Democrats have to focus on, because of how our election system works. For this reason alone, it makes more sense for Democrats to try and court moderates, at least in the presidential election. But, it's probably true of Congress as well. I think moderate candidates do better in most states and congressional districts than progressive candidates.

It brings me no joy saying this. I'm politically left, I would estimate further left than the majority of Americans. I have been advocating for radical changes for years, but it's mostly fallen on deaf ears, and some of my fellow Americans have been aggressively hostile to the ideas I've been advocating for. Americans, generally, like capitalism, they like class hierarchies, and hierarchies in general, because they believe that some people are just inherently superior to others, and that doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon.

Right now, progressives are the ones saying "Democrats have failed and I cannot vote for them" and moderates are the ones saying "I've never voted for Democrats before, but this year I will." This was true even before the Gaza invasion.

When someone tells you their voting intentions, believe them. Unfortunately, Democrats have no choice but to prioritize moderates.

We cannot continue to rely on fear to propel turnout. Fear and anxiety lead to paralysis and electoral withdrawal. Arguing “We’re not going to hurt you like they are” is no longer sufficient.

This has been such a massive failure on the Dems part, especially after seeing the excitement that Tim Waltz was able to generate after joining the race. I can't stand to watch a Kamala rally or speech nowadays because it's nothing but Trump fearmongering, and I don't even know which parts are real worries considering the guy couldn't even build a fucking wall.

It even backfires a bit too, because now I think more about how her office is going to come after our civil liberties. Obama created mass surveillance programs and went after whistleblowers, so what is her office inevitably going to do?