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

[progressive85]

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.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, easily. But that goodwill would erode if they were "mildly conservative" on the environment.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Yes, easily. But that goodwill would erode if they were "mildly conservative" on the environment.

[progressive85]

Let's say they were very green on the environment - "Public hands on public lands", and believed in passing a climate change act.

[Hoosier_Nick]

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

[7,052,770]

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

[coloradocowboi]

I'd vote for this person. But I think that choice and marriage equality at litmus tests along with climate change, and that this person wouldn't get nominated unless they were unequivocal about supporting Roe v. Wade and Obergefell.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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. 

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Let's say they were a little pro-life, a little pro-gun, a little folksy, a little redneck...

The first one is a very big issue I would have some trouble with, the latter two are pluses.

[Person Man]

Let's say they were a little pro-life, a little pro-gun, a little folksy, a little redneck...

The first one is a very big issue I would have some trouble with, the latter two are pluses.

[Sir Mohamed]

I would vote for almost any Democrat over the faker-in-chief. Drumpf is an embarrassment for this country very single day he’s in office.

[Rjjr77]

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.

Banning gerrymandering would mean changing the voter rights act and minority majority districts.

[Figueira]

Against Trump, yeah. But depending on how conservative they are I might try to stop that person from getting the nomination.

[JA]

Let's say they were a little pro-life, a little pro-gun, a little folksy, a little redneck...

The first one is a very big minor issue I would have some trouble with, the latter two are pluses.

[TomC]

Let's say they were a little pro-life, a little pro-gun, a little folksy, a little redneck...

The first one is a very big issue I would have some trouble with, the latter two are pluses.

This

[America Needs R'hllor]

Not in a primary, no. But in an election vs Trump or most other Republicans, sure.

[LLR]

That's not that different from me, so probably

[Blackacre]

In the primary? Eeeehhh. I would start off intrigued, but not supportive. I would give the candidate the chance to win me over, though. If their pro-life status doesn't extend to judges, if they supported background checks for gun purchases, and weren't a climate change denier, and did well at debates, I'd get on the hype train. If their economic platform had detailed policy prescriptions (close to HRC's level of policy depth) then I would ABSOLUTELY get on that hype train.

Of those three issues, the first and third are absolute deal-breakers for me. I'm okay with moderates on those issues, but not climate change deniers and certainly not hardcore pro-lifers. If their policies lacked strong detail, I'd withhold my support for the same reason that I didn't back Bernie Sanders. If they bombed the debates, I'll look elsewhere.

For the general, though? Damn, I would vote for an actual cheeto over Donald Trump. So I'd be a bit salty after the primaries but I'd come home either after the conventions or in october

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

No, that style of economic "liberalism" based on symbols and attacking of teh evil billionaires doesn't make me comfortable. Also, the idea of popular vote elections for supreme court justices is horrifying, and a deal breaker in of itself. The anti-abortion plank would also be a deal breaker, even without the likely transphobia, etc.

Also, the poll is stupid. Just give "yes", "maybe", or "no". Don't add bs to the no that makes it look bad.

[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.

[Kringla Heimsins]

- 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

Wow, a President like this would go down in History as the greatest since FDR.
He or she would get some flak if they were conservative on the environment, LGBT rights and Unions. I would be voting for a person like that without doubt if their running-mate was reassuring on these matters.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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 are getting really overly obsessed with republicans being about muh economic conservatism.

[Tintrlvr]

A true socialist on economic policy? Of course not. But I probably wouldn't vote for a liberal true socialist either, depending on what the alternatives were. Of course, none of the policy positions set forth in the OP have anything to do with socialism anyway (and elected Supreme Court justices have to be the biggest horrific miscarriage of ideology I could possibly imagine).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think the Democrats should be able to o accept compromised on abortion (like restrictions on second trimester abortions/bans for non-medical third), so as long as "pro-life" doesn't mean "wants to ban abortion" I'd be fine with it. And yes, the gun issue is a bit millstone. Probably best if there is a sort of noncommittal statement about signing laws with a broad consensus.

Basically, I think the Dems don't need to outrageouslu change their policies, but they certainly need to change their messaging.

[Jeppe]

I would find it hard to support a pro-gun candidate, and would probably write in Gabby Giffords instead if one were to be nominated by my party.