I have confirmation from both my son (who was there) and Eva that Patty Wetterling did address the question about whether ID ought to be taught in the schools in a recent debate. Here’s what she said:
We need to teach the truth about science. Evolution is scientifically accurate. We can’t let our science curriculum to be based on religious beliefs.
Exactly right. That’s not hard to say, you know.
There were a few comments in that prior thread that were trying to argue that, since the 6th district has a conservative population, Wetterling was a bad choice to run there—that the DFL should have tried to find a conservative Democrat for a candidate.
I think that’s insane.
-
Wetterling is running a good, hard campaign. She’s putting up a fight, and she’s made it a competitive race. Why in the world should the DFL ask good, progressive candidates who are willing to work a district to step aside? She stands for our values. We ought to be pushing that, rather than looking for some proxy Democrat with Republican values to run.
-
Just curious, but when was the last time you saw Republicans arguing that they ought to be fielding moderate candidates anywhere? Far right wingnuts seem to be happily seized upon as perfect choices to forward the Republican agenda, and the arguments always seem to be about how to get money and support to their people. (Katherine Harris seems to be the rare exception. There are limits to the insanity and incompetence Republicans will endorse, which is good to see.)
-
It seems to me that putting up strong opposition to Republican extremists is exactly what we ought to be doing. Make ’em have to struggle and bleed a little to win when they put up kooks like Bachmann; better yet, make ’em lose to liberal candidates. Let the Republicans look at these races and decide that they need to field a moderate to get a lock on the district. Make them shift a little closer to the center, rather than always ceding that the Democrats must shift a little closer to the right. That’s how we win in the long run. That strategy of always forcing the races rightward and making the Democrats chase after them is how the Republicans have been winning.
One funny thing about that strategy is that it will even make some Republicans happy to see their extremist fringe kicked in the tush a few times. The voters who would switch to a conservative/moderate Democrat would probably prefer to see the nutjobs who are leading their party marginalized and replaced with centrists—and that would be a net gain for the country.
For reasons having nothing to do with competitive strategy, I prefer the Democrats to field candidates who are ardent defenders of civil liberty, who are financially conservative and pragmatic, who believe in caring for the social fabric, who care about the environment, and who support science research. None of that is particularly “far left.” It’s just my political preference. Why in the world would I want the Democratic Party to field candidates different from that?
Off topic:
For anyone who hasn’t seen this yet: http://palebluedot.ytmnd.com/ , it’s pretty damn cool.
Center-shifting works. It’s how the Republicans have managed to get some people clamoring for Goldwater and Reagan, and it’s how gay rights activism has made the median American voter pro-gay rights on all issues but gay marriage. The attorneys who argue for single-sex marriage don’t stop to think whether it’s politically expedient; they do what they have to do, and thereby make every other gay rights cause – gay adoption, gays in the military, even civil unions – a moderate stance.
Supporting conservative Democrats is primary fuel for the perception that there is little or no functional difference between the two parties.
The centrist Republicans’s sin (like many Christians and Muslims) was that they remained silent and supportive in the face of the extremists in their Party. Without this self-serving support at the expense of duty to country, the incredible damage done by the extremists would have been checked much sooner.
I am not in a very forgiving mood right now, but let’s see how we feel after retaking the majority and cleaning house. If we are to welcome a new generation of centrist Republicans into our big tent, let’s hope they’ve learned their lesson.
No, actually the primary fuel for that perception is the fact that there is indeed little or no functional difference between the two parties.
Actually, quite a few conservatives got behind Schwarzenegger in the Cali. gubernatorial election, because of the perception that McClintock was unelectable. Which he was. Republicans also supported Specter over Toomey in the Penna. GOP primary, for the same reason. Conservatives pretty much uniformly despise Specter, but the RNC supported him against Toomey for pragmatic reasons.
I say this as someone who is very disenchanted with the GOP, but most of the time they’re far more pragmatic than the Dems, which is why they win so often.
I generally agree with Dr. Myers, but he does rather seem not to have noticed the most recent significant election, a primary last month in Rhode Island. It featured a true conservative running against Senator Lincoln Chafee, who is apparently only a Republican because his father is (I seem to recall he voted against the shameful torture-and-evisceration-of-the-bill-of-rights bill, which is more than I can say for a half-dozen Dem’s). The national R’s strongly supported Chafee in his primary, which he won with difficulty. Presumably, part of their support came from a certainty that R.I. isn’t going to move far-right in November.
Of course, that was a challenge to a moderate R incumbent, not an open seat, and may not be representative.
The California recall is a different animal. If there had been a Republican primary, McClintock would’ve probably won, and then lost the general to whoever won the Democratic primary (maybe Bustamante). The Republicans’ support for Arnold was more similar to the liberal support for Gore and Kerry over Nader than to intra-primary votes.
Also worth noting is that in the months leading up to this election, the Democrats are probably more happy about supporting Schwartzenneger than the Republicans. I’m not sure he even qualifies as “centrism” anymore. Schwartzenneger’s been running this election by extravagantly courting Democratic votes while (with a couple noteworthy exceptions) essentially ignoring Republican ones.
Don’t you know that if you don’t blindly support anyone with the (D) after their name, you’re helping Osama bin Laden?
Coin, Schwarzenegger vetoed a universal health care bill, which passes a program that enjoys nationwide support in the high 60s or low 70s, and probably even more than that in California.
The Democrats and Republicans are both right of the median American voter on most issues.
Support for conservative democrats and the accompanying chant that Democrats ‘need to move closer to the center’ (read: be more conservative) is what acts to keep the differences small. (Even so, do you really believe Gore would have used the 9/11 attack as an opportunity to con America into supporting an invasion of Iraq? However small the differences may have seemed in the 1990s, that is a big difference.)
Yes, I know it’s what keeps the differences small. I’m not a moonbat; when I say the Democrats are (almost) as bad as the Republicans, I’m not thinking of Feingold, but of Kerry and Edwards and the Clintons.
“The California recall is a different animal.”
But not for the reasons you give. It’s different because it’s Schwarzenegger, the movie star with the 100% name recognition. You know, the Terminator. People are stupid and seem to give- consciously or unconsciously, celebrities the reverence not afforded mere mortals. Plus, in left-leaning Hollywood, the idiot stands out. Expect the candidacy of Bruce Willis, Kelsey Grammer, and Stephen Baldwin any moment.
Well, I don’t know who Grammer is, and I’ve only heard of Stephen Baldwin today (the one Baldwin I am familiar with is Adam), but I get your point. I still think what swayed conservatives to vote Arnold wasn’t his movie career, but the fact that he was already in the race.
“that the DFL should have tried to find a conservative Democrat for a candidate.”
Maybe you are unfamiliar with the district, but it already had a centrist candidate, running unopposed after Wetterling repeatedly promised she would not run. Calling the guy a Republican seem to in pretty bad faith. He was a good candidate: had won in the area already, he was pro-labor, he wasn’t going to vote to ban abortion and he spoke out against the anti-gay amendment. That’s good enough for my tent.
“Why in the world should the DFL ask good, progressive candidates who are willing to work a district to step aside?”
She wasn’t asked to “step-aside.” She was running for SENATE after declaring, after having lost once before that she herself was too liberal to win. She promised the DFL that she wouldn’t run and they planned based on that. Then it turned out that she wasn’t a very good candidate for Senate. So she dropped out of that. She was asked to run for Lt. Gov by the main Gov candidate, but she was told that she wouldn’t be able to spend federal campaign money on a non-federal race. So she had to find a non-federal race. So she jumped back into this district. And the DFL picked her.
What I’m arguing is that win or lose, that was a bad decision. You can list as many bullet points as you want: somehow you never seem to get around to explaining how to defeat Bachmann: you just fantasize about how great it would be if we could.
Well, if Wetterling wins, I’ll be as happy as anyone. But I don’t see why pointing out that creating uphill climbs and shooting oneself in the foot is dumb is such an outrageous insane thing to say. We don’t live in a perfect world.
“Just curious, but when was the last time you saw Republicans arguing that they ought to be fielding moderate candidates anywhere?”
Wait, so your argument is “Republicans are sometimes stupid: let’s act like them”???
Wait, so your argument is “Republicans are sometimes stupid: let’s act like them”???
No, the argument is that the Republicans, by running non-moderate candidates virtually everywhere, have taken over both houses of Congress, the White House, and now control the Supreme Court too as a result. That doesn’t seem stupid of them.
Also, being the opposition, doing the opposite of the Republicans, does not mean doing everything the opposite of what they do.
Don’t you know that if you don’t blindly support anyone with the (D) after their name, you’re helping Osama bin Laden?
surely you jest?
I’m going to assume that’s a pun on the exact argument I often hear from ultra right wing conservatives, just replacing the (D) with (R).
In fact, it’s been the whole (R) platform for mobilizing their voter base since 9/11.
all you had to do was check the polls as to which party most thought was “better” at protecting the US from terrorist threats to see the results of the (R) ad campaign.
[quote]That doesn’t seem stupid of them.
[/quote]
it depends on how you measure “success”, doesn’t it.
if it’s “win at all costs”, then whee!, the neocon strategy of mobilizing releigious conservatives with buzz words and leader issues is wonderful.
if it’s “win at all costs”, then whee!, the neocon strategy of mobilizing releigious conservatives with buzz words and leader issues is wonderful.
And what exactly is your strategy? In case you’ve just joined us, we’ve been getting clobbered over and over again by the people who use the exact strategy you speak of. Maybe we should be learning something.
And what exactly is your strategy? In case you’ve just joined us, we’ve been getting clobbered over and over again by the people who use the exact strategy you speak of. Maybe we should be learning something.
learn something and do what? lie? abandon any pretense of issue based politics?
how is that “winning” exactly?
how is it a good thing to further corrupt the political process?
It’s a slippery slope you propose. It’s better to lose, but make sure your platform is clear, than it is to win on a false one.
I just think the dems have done a piss poor job of defining exactly what that platform is, and what the value of it is in the long term to the “average joe”.
just like it’s easy to spin lies about the ToE, and it takes pages of information to refute them, the republicans get easy sells out of spinning simple lies, and forcing the dems to explain how their platform refutes them.
do you think the best way to “sell” the ToE is to spin simple lies about it and the fundamentalist opponents of it?
if not, why would you think it an appropriate strategy for anything else, let alone politics?
would you give up the good fight just to “win”? or is it a better strategy to make the same kinds of evidence based arguments we make to support the ToE?
Instead of abandoning all pretense at a legitimate platform, it rather behooves you to encourage those running to represent you to be clear about their platforms instead.
I hear you say:
“The world is thus, so we must react accordingly.”
but how did the world get that way, hmm?
there are countless examples in history of what happens when the majority abandon responsibility in favor of simplicity and power.
to put it simply, if you want gun control, the simplest way would be to shoot all those who oppose it. Effective, but is it really what you want?
I hate to be a sycophant (again), but I say Huzzah! to PZ’s observation. The only way to win an election based on actual discussion and examination of the issues is to select the candidate who is willing to work within your values framework.
I had a “discussion” with my brother, who still calls himself a Democrat despite his disdain for unions and his support for this fucking police action in Iraq. He said that if the Democrats push to the left it will scare people away. Scare people away? They haven’t been scared enough by this administation, this Congress and the new Supreme Court!
The 6th Minnesota is a great example. Patty Wetterling is a better candidate than Elwyn Tinklenburg because she presents a clearer, more direct contrast to Michelle Bachmann than he does. She is liberal, she is progressive, and she is running to protect American values. Bachmann is making up scare stories to push her agenda and then get into Congress to spread them nationwide, or join the forces that are spreading them.
I am sure that Elwyn is a great guy, but Wetterling was chosen by the delegates to the 6th because they felt like her values can win the election.
No shading, no inching to the right to make it seem like “I am not guilty of the crimes that other Democrats are guilty of.” The things that we are accused of doing are either inaccurate, or else the things we are accused of doing are GOOD things.
Reagan beat Carter where Ford couldn’t because he presented a clearer choice and didn’t shy away from being a conservative. No reason to hide in the middle just to win elections.
In Rochester, at the State Convention, some “People of Faith” caucus met on Sunday morning to show the state that DFLer’s have “values.” I stayed away cause it seems too “Me, too, I have values. See I pray in groups.” Leave the prayer at home, dudes, talk about solutions rather than religious values. Cause you will never get agreement nor concession on religious values. You can achieve concurrence on solutions, though.
I understand both parties are ugly political animals. But they are not the same. Look at legislation that affects public policy and look at voting records…who holds a majority in congress really does make a difference.
I am probably left of Nader in my political views, but I wouldn’t vote for him because I don’t think he’s politically competent. Great guy, great opinions, but he would be completely ineffective at getting anything done within the US political apparatus. Maybe that’s his fault, maybe it’s the fault of the system, which sucks and is broken, but voting for mainstream democrats and getting back a majority will lead to positive legislative changes. Democrats are forced to the center to win and pander to key interests, if they can hold congress for decades again, they’ll move left again after their power’s consolidated.
Of course, the US is fucked no matter what. Uneducated, uncompetitive, religious, fat, coddled, regressive, and 100% certain it’s the Best Country in the World. It’s like a nation raised by maids.
“No, the argument is that the Republicans, by running non-moderate candidates virtually everywhere, have taken over both houses of Congress, the White House, and now control the Supreme Court too as a result. That doesn’t seem stupid of them.”
But that’s not what they’ve done. They have lots of non-moderate candidates, but guess what: like it or not, they are in non-moderate areas to begin with.
Ichthyic,
So, to ask once again, what exactly is your strategy?
I think the Democrats have been far more “clear” than the Republicans on what they “stand for”, it’s just that the Republicans have been able to drown them out with focus-group tested buzz-words and slogans.
Whether we like it or not, the systematic character assasination effort aimed at the Democratic Party and liberals in general probably ranks as among the most effective electoral strategies ever enacted. The Republicans, despite having a platform that almost across the board anti-middle class have been able to take and maintain control of all three houses of congress. They’re doing something right, whether or not we’d like to admit it.
Sorry, “all three houses of congress” should be “all three branches of government”.
It’s getting late….
“I am sure that Elwyn is a great guy, but Wetterling was chosen by the delegates to the 6th because they felt like her values can win the election.”
I don’t think so. I think perfect was the enemy of the good.
Given that she’d already lost this same election in an easy environment, her track record was not stellar to begin with. The fact that she began her campaign by breaking a promise and essentially lying to the faces of many of the unions about her intentions is, granted, one reason I don’t have a lot of good will towards her. But right now, she’s running behind Bachmann in the polls at a time when she should be winning.
If Wetterling wins, we’ll all be happy. I’ll be saying “phew!”
If she loses though, what will the true believers say? I’m sure there will be all sorts of excuses about the dirty tricks of the Republicans blah blah blah. But will anyone say “oops maybe plunge was right”? Nope. True believers can’t let results impact their beliefs. But you know what. Bachmann, freaking author of the anti-gay amendment, the crazy bitch who thinks that we should teach kids that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes ice impossible, will be a Congresswoman. That’s brass tacks. And all the grand theories in the world and excuses about the perfidy of the Republicans won’t change that.
Michele Bachmann doesn’t believe in global warming:
This comment can only be understood if its author has been in a cave for the past five years. Have you noticed no difference between Clinton and Bush?
Quick list of major differences:
– respect for science
– respect for the First Amendment division between Church and State
– respect for evidence as a matter of conducting foreign policy
– abhorrence of torture as a policy of the US
– respect for rule of law
– respect for the right of privacy
People who claim they cannot tell the difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party really are not trying very hard.
RickD, allow me to add “respect for the environment” to your list, that was one of my favorite parts of those fabled years…
Plunge wrote, “Given that she’d already lost this same election in an easy environment,….”
Just an observation, at one point in time it was accepted political wisdom that a first-time candidate would lose their first election. The lack of name recognition alone would be enough to defeat them.
The test was that the candidate ran again at the next election cycle for the same office. At that point the voters would have a lot better chance of remembering the candidates name, and the candidate would have shown the party they are serious about getting into that position.
Wetterling sounds like an opportunist, a person looking for election rather than trying to attain a specific position. So the above observation may not apply to her. But, I suggest not holding a previous defeat against a candidate. There are so many factors which determine an election, the candidate should not be blamed for losing unless there is good evidence that it was the candidates actions or opinions which lost the election.
Cheers,
-Flex
The old DLC centrist strategy was utter folly from the get-go. There is no reason for voters to choose a fake republican over a real republican. Pentacostalists aren’t going to take a fake pentacostalist over a real pentacostalist. Primaries produce candidates somewhat reflective of local situations anyway, so you don’t need to artificially game the system by grooming centrists. All that does is frustrate and depress local dem enthusiasm and involvement, and perpetuate the establishment’s shift to the right.
Good politicians don’t need to look like their constituents. Roosevelt could connect with poor people tho’ he had never been poor a day in his life. Good politicians only need to demonstrate that they respect their constituents–even when they disagree with them–and are worthy of respect themselves, as proven by their ability to think on their feet (or in their wheelchair in Roosevelt’s case), defend themselves from attack, and speak with clarity and conviction.
“No, actually the primary fuel for that perception is the fact that there is indeed little or no functional difference between the two parties.”
54 of 55 Republicans in the Senate voted to legalise torture. 12 of 44 Democrats in the Senate voted to legalise torture. There’s your goddamned difference between the parties.
Great. Two and a half years after the entire world knew that the US was committing torture and the administration either was responsible or turned a blind eye to it, Senate Democrats made a resolution that in practice would be non-binding to ban torture.
As for the rest of the Bill of Rights, remember that the Patriot Act passed 99-1, the Homeland Security Bill passed 90-9, the condemnation of Newdow passed 99-0, and even the Democratic counter-proposals on torture and habeas corpus would leave the 95.4% of the world that’s not American subject to the administration’s whims and require nothing more than a rubber stamp to spy on the other 4.6%.
Make them shift a little closer to the center, rather than always ceding that the Democrats must shift a little closer to the right. That’s how we win in the long run.
Word. Bravo, sir.
They have lots of non-moderate candidates, but guess what: like it or not, they are in non-moderate areas to begin with.
The GOP and their candidates are now overwhelmingly radical. The claim that this is because the USA is overwhelmingly radical rightwing is nonsense, but if it were so the only recourse would be to be perpetually a minority. But in fact polls on issues show that the USA is not radically rightwing; in fact on most issues they lean to what we call leftwing, which means that the radical rightwing has managed to capture both houses of Congress, the Whitehouse, the Supreme Court, and the most of the most-heard voices of the media through PR and shifting the “center” to the extreme right.
The Democratic Party needs to do the same sort of selling job, which is how this center-shifting works. It does not mean we have to lie like the rightwing does, it does mean we have to do an effective sales job like they did. It also means we have to do the same sort of effective managing of GOTV efforts. This does not mean we have to lie and throw people off the voter roles illegally, jam phones illegally, or do any of the unethical and illegal things the rightwing has done. That’s the advantage that the left has — people, once you dig past the PR, mostly hold “leftwing” views in the USA, including the most basic difference between the wings — fairness. This advantage is why the rightwing has had to do all those unethical and illegal things to gain power, things which the “leftwing” does not have to do — we just need to use their PR, GOTV technology and organization, and run candidates who are demonstrably different from theirs.
Your claim is that basically its all about framing and fooling people and so on. Well, frankly, that’s always a very convienient excuse, because you can make it regardless of the evidence. I’m sure Ralph Nader sincerely believes that voters would agree with him if only they REALLY got to hear his views fairly, but then, Jerry Falwell believes the same thing. Who’s correct? The proof is in the pudding.
“But in fact polls on issues show that the USA is not radically rightwing; in fact on most issues they lean to what we call leftwing,”
Sure: when we get to frame the polls in ways that make our policies sound the most reasonable and avoid issues on which people care about, yes. So what?
Part of why people claim there is very little difference between the Rs and the Ds is because from the perspective of world politics (particularly European and Canadian) they occupy such a narrow spectrum of views. This spectrum is also considerably out of wack with what Americans tend to say when polled, too – as was noted in the remark about Ahnie vetoing that healthcare bill.
We (well, I) live in a country where 10% of the population cannot find that country on a map. And it’s a really big country with a distinctive shape.
The vast majority of people here don’t want intelligent, sane things, and if I found that they agreed with me on an important topic, I would re-examine my position on that topic.
Face it: democracy is not only dead, its animated husk has failed to provide even moderately good governance. Time for something new.
Like this?
Not what you were thinking, was it? But that is the direction the US is bravely marching in. If you’re advocating alternatives to democracy, you’d best be clear about what they are, lest people assume that.
Not necessarily. Asking Americans if the minimum wage should be increased to $7.25 polls overwhelmingly positively (at 83%, if I recall correctly). Asking Americans point-blank which health care system they think is better, the American one or the Canadian one, shows that more people think the Canadian one is better. And 62% of Americans would like to have universal health care, as long as it didn’t limit their choice of doctors (which single-payer health care won’t) or result in long waits for non-emergency procedures (which it won’t if it’s done right).
Democracy is the worst form of government… except for all the others. History clearly shows that as bad as democracy can sometimes be, everything else that has ever been tried was worse. Really. Monarchy can sometimes work for one generation if you get a really good monarch (where do you suggest finding one, let alone getting him/her into power? Anyone willing to take the job George Washington refused probably couldn’t be trusted with it.) Then you have either an incompetent or corrupt successor, or a war of succession, or both.
And in case you haven’t noticed, the reason the Republicans are more successful at framing everything and controlling the agenda is that they literally own the entire mass media of this country. That’s why the only stories that make it onto the news are ones that are either favorable to Republicans, or such sensational ratings-grabbers that reporters can’t stay away (like Foley). In a few more years they’ll probably be trained to bury those too. How long did the NYT – one of the *least* conservative media outlets we have left – sit on Bush’s blatantly illegal spying on Americans?
Sure, everyone but a few nuts knows that Fox is biased – but the “mainstream” networks are slanted too. It’s just more subtle, which combined with Fox’s *obvious* bias, gives a false impression of fairness because they’re not as bad as Fox. Look at international news reporting sometime and the difference is quite clear. I’ve been using the BBC website as my main source of international news for a while now because you just can’t find some of those stories in US media. It’s really shocking to anyone who believes we still have a free press here.
That’s just dumb. Compare the worst to the worst, and the best to the best.
I strongly suspect no one has yet seen the depths to which a democracy can sink – although we may be seeing it soon.
A good absolute monarchy requires having an intelligent, wise, and enlightened ruler, which is indeed difficult to find. A good democracy requires having an inteligent, wise, and enlightened general population. Where do you imagine you’ll find one of those?
Constitutional monarchy seems to be working out pretty well for the British. Arguably better than democracy is for us right now. ;)
I’m afraid, even that would be not enough – have you ever heard the phrase “absolute power corrupts absolutely” ?
In british “constitutional monarchy” the king is there for decoration purposes only, she has no real power, and thus the workings of british … ehm… monarchy are no different from any other democracy.
Well, before Blair’s “modernising”, you had an unlelected house which had power of veto over any legislation. Originally, the House of Commons would make sure that any laws passed were in the best interests of the commoners, and the House of Lords would make sure that any laws passed were in the best interests of the nobility; but since about the mid 19th Century, the Commons has been more concerned with ensuring that legislation is in the best interests of the politicians, leaving the Lords to make unpopular decisions that are in the long-term best interest of the country.
Having an non-elected (and thus politically disinterested) house is good thing, in my book.
This is basically what I mean: not only do ya’ll not want to hear what I’m saying and call me names for saying it, but you have about a billion different excuses for why the big bad Republicans have everything rigged and the Democrats and all boobs and democracy is no good.
Well, the thing about democracy is that it’s not, like, an oligarchy. You council of wise expert commenters don’t get to pick for the good of the nation. You have to win elections instead, and you have to win them against people that may not think exactly like you do. You can call all the other voters idiots for not thinking like you or (you think) being as informed and wise as you… but I doubt they’ll respond by voting for you.
You can’t both want to think you’re better than everyone else and constantly insult them AND expect to win them over on anything.
“Just an observation, at one point in time it was accepted political wisdom that a first-time candidate would lose their first election. The lack of name recognition alone would be enough to defeat them.”
The Wetterling didn’t have low name ID. In fact, she had very high, very positive nameID because she was a well known figure from her son’s abduction and her subsequent work as an activist. Her opponent went easy on her in large because of that, and she still lost basically because she underpolled on the partisan crossover needed to take the area.
Are you really that naive ?
Sure, some people on Pharyngula try their best to toss out insults, but really, their remarks are very, very small tubers compared to what comes out of right-wing propaganda efforts such as Rush and O’Reilly.
In 2000, 2002, 2004, and again this year, most Republican campaigns are spending higher proportions of their budget on negative ads than their opponents.
The Democrats have proved over and over again that one can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Trouble is, flies don’t vote, and being surrounded by flies will not boost your public image.
Sure: when we get to frame the polls in ways that make our policies sound the most reasonable and avoid issues on which people care about, yes. So what?
The “so what?” is that you can’t do the framing when you’re running toward the right’s views; it either doesn’t happen at all or if people do get it they look at the rightwingish Democrat and conclude that Democrats are hypocrites and little different from Republicans (except that Republicans look less like the hypocrites they are). So the choice is between two people who seem much the same, only one is obviously hypocritical (saying they’re not Republican when they’re just Republican-lite). This has been disasterous, whereas the Republican method of running non-moderates, indeed arch radicals, has forced the move to the right and ended up with them controlling both houses of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. You don’t reverse direction by going the same way.
PZ, being a Minnesota resident, knows that you steer the way you want to go when you skid on ice; if you steer the way your car is turning you spinout. Let’s turn this car around and head on down the road to recovery.