Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The mistake here is believing that whoever has the loudest voice on the Internet best represents the party. The opposite is true, and, of course, the logic doesn't work anyways: it's always easier to be louder than it is to be persuasive. It's a strange thing to admit that you're willing to concede your personal understanding of some issue to whoever says the loudest, dumbest things about it. It's not unreasonable…
What "needle"? On Rayiner's side of the argument, there are loud people on the Internet and in leftist think tanks. On my side of the argument, there is the almost unbroken record of moderate/liberal Democrats defeating progressives in primaries, and the recall of leftist politicians in (of all places) San Francisco. The party rejects this stuff, because ordinary voters reject it, and, contrary to Rayiner's belief, t…
Honestly, anything a voter has to work to find out.
> On my side of the argument, there is the almost unbroken record of moderate/liberal Democrats defeating progressives in primaries, and the recall of leftist politicians in (of all places) San Francisco.
Then they should attack those ideas in their ads, in their stump speeches, and write lots of strident op-eds about them.
> ...and the recall of leftist politicians in (of all places) San Francisco.
> The party rejects this stuff, because ordinary voters reject it...
IIRC, that recall was led by people from outside the normal party structure.