![\"WaPo:](\"https:\/\/fair.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/WaPo-What-Worked-for-Democrats.png\")
<\/p>\nWhat worked for Democrats? Moderation, says Jennifer Rubin (Washington Post<\/strong>, 11\/7\/18<\/a>)\u2014ignoring the instances where moderation failed bigly.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Washington Post<\/b> columnist Jennifer Rubin (11\/7\/18<\/a>) had some familiar-sounding advice<\/a> for Democrats based on the results of the midterm elections:<\/p>\n In case you didn\u2019t get the message, Rubin had another column (11\/8\/18<\/a>) the next day: \u201cThree Cheers for the Moderates.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMove to the right\u201d is always<\/a> corporate media\u2019s advice for Democrats\u2014win<\/a> or lose<\/a>. But did the 2018 midterms really demonstrate the virtues of moderation?<\/p>\n Well, the worst news for Democrats on Tuesday was the loss of three Senate seats held by incumbent Dems: North Dakota\u2019s Heidi Heitkamp, Indiana\u2019s Joe Donnelly and Missouri\u2019s Claire McCaskill. As it happens, these are the Democrats who vote second-, third- and fifth-most often in line with Donald Trump\u2019s preferences<\/a>.<\/p>\n Heitkamp ran an ad<\/a> bragging that she \u201cvoted over half the time with President Trump.\u201d A Donnelly spot<\/a> featured Trump saying, \u201cSen. Donnelly, thank you very much.\u201d \u00a0A McCaskill ad<\/a> declared that she was \u201cnot one of those crazy Democrats.\u201d<\/p>\n They sound pretty \u201cmoderate,\u201d right? Yet they not only lost, they lost big\u2014by 11-, 7- and 6-point margins, respectively.<\/p>\n Rubin ignored the Democratic Senate candidates in North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana and Ohio–presumably because they didn’t fit her cookie-cutter approach. (map: New York Times<\/a><\/strong>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Rubin didn\u2019t mention any of these three senators, presumably because they greatly undercut the point she wants to make. Instead, she called attention to the defeat of Ohio Democratic \u00a0gubernatorial candidate Richard Cordray, whom she described as \u201ca progressive darling\u201d and \u201ca \u2018tax and spend\u2019 progressive\u201d that \u201cmoderates in the suburbs might shy away\u201d from. (When Rubin warned Democrats against the \u201cSanders type,\u201d Cordray was the example she offered.)<\/p>\n In fact, Cordray campaigned in 1992 for Ohio\u2019s 15th congressional district on a platform<\/a> of fiscal conservatism. As Ohio attorney general, Cordray was a fierce proponent of the death penalty, complaining that \u201cOhio\u2019s appeal process for inmates sentenced to death is still too long and sometimes defeats the possibility of justice being served\u201d (AP, <\/b>4\/1\/09)<\/a>. <\/b>In this governor\u2019s race, the headline of his economic platform<\/a> was \u201cSupport for Small Businesses to Grow and Spread Economic Opportunity\u201d\u2014not exactly a line stolen from Eugene V. Debs.<\/p>\n There was another Democrat on Ohio ballots this election\u2014Sen. Sherrod Brown\u2014who’s more aptly described as a “progressive darling<\/a>.” Brown\u2019s reputation as a progressive maverick may be overstated\u2014during the current administration, he\u2019s voted on Trump\u2019s side<\/a> 28 percent of the time, which is about half as often as Heitkamp, but three times as often as New York Sen. Kristen Gillibrand\u2014but it\u2019s unclear why Rubin saddled progressives with Cordray\u2019s 4-point loss but didn\u2019t give them credit for Brown\u2019s 6-point victory.<\/p>\n Aside, that is, from the standard media assumption that moderation wins elections and any losses are to be blamed on being too far to the left.<\/p>\n Research assistance: John McCullough<\/i><\/p>\n Messages can be sent to the Washington Post <\/strong>at letters@washpost.com<\/a>, or via Twitter<\/strong> @washingtonpost<\/a>. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
![\"New](\"https:\/\/fair.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/NYT-Midwest-Senate.png\")
<\/p>\n
\n