Dems would rather save money than lose election

In the huge national buzz over a special election in southwestern Pennsylvania, we learn that, in the last two elections, the district was so red that the Democrats didn’t field a candidate.

This shows how extraordinary it is that a Democrat might win there now.

Sure. But I think it shows something else about the culture of the Democratic party.

If a party is organized around fiercely held core beliefs that party members are passionate about, it will always field a candidate.

Obviously you get your message out by having a candidate to articulate it, not by ceding the election to the opposition.

A party with that approach will value the service of candidates who run against steep odds. The party will reward that service and make that known. At that rate, there will always be someone willing to carry the flag.

Not so with our Democrats. They would rather stay home and save their money than lose an election while getting the message out. Which begs the question: What is the message, anyway?

Here’s a hint: In Texas, the national Dems tried to derail the candidacy of one of their own: Laura Moser was too progressive they decided.

Throughout the campaign, Hillary was too busy being anti-Trump and courting big money to really stand up for much. It wasn’t enough. It still isn’t.

— Eric Kuhn, Middletown