My short answer to that question is, that depends on the circumstances. One case in point is the Michigan senatorial Democratic primary featuring progressive Abdul El-Sayed and moderate candidate Haley Stevens.

I want to state upfront that while I am a moderate liberal I have no problem with those of you are far more progressive in your political views. I am even willing to concede that many of your progressive proposals, if they could be enacted, might well be very good for the country.  However I am also a pragmatist and my viewers are predicated on what I believe is political feasible. 

Now I do draw the line in some cases. When far, far left lunatics advocate for completely open borders, abolishing prisons, nationalizing businesses, etc., I cringe. Their views upset middle of the road voters and provide Republicans with ammunition to depict those views as typical of all Democrats.

However, I have absolutely no problem with progressive leaders such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and several others.  They are very outspoken about the current extreme excesses of the Trump led Republican party which I greatly admire. On the other had what separates them from progressives with similar views who I don’t support is that they represent very blue states and districts that are willing to elect them time and time again.

You see, being a pragmatist, in primary elections for national office I support Democratic candidates, centralist or progressives, who can feasibly win their general elections over those that I believe cannot.  This is based on the political fact that in order enact the Democratic agenda, or constrain Republican excesses, Democrats first have to win to control the levers of power.

Consequently I will unreservedly support congressional candidates in very blue states where they can win seats in the US Senate or House of Representatives.  However, I will support their more centralist opponents in purple or red states or districts simply because those candidates have a better chance of winning their general elections.

Back to the Michigan senatorial Democratic primary between progressive Abdul El-Sayed and the more centralist candidate Haley Stevens.  Two term incumbent Garry Peterson is not running for reelection.  Polling shows that the race between El-Sayed and Stevens is essentially a dead heat.  The winner of the Democratic primary will face Republican Mike Rogers in the general election.  While Republicans have not elected a US senator in Michigan since 1996, Michigan is a purple state where the either El-Sayed or Stevens will have to win the general election for the Democrats to have any hope of taking control of the US Senate.

I have little or no problems with El-Sayed stated views and political aspirations, but my support hinges on more practical considerations. A recent poll by they Michigan Education Association and Business Leaders for Michigan shows Rogers beating El-Sayed in the general election by 10 points with 11% of the voters still undecided while according to the same poll Stevens will barely edge out Rogers with 46% of the vote to Rogers’ 45%.

For a pragmatist like me, this is a no brainer.  I am behind Stevens 100% in the primary because she has a better chance to win the general election.  (If their prospects were reversed I would support El-Sayed.). However, if at the end of the day if El-Sayed wins the primary I will be disappointed, but I will support him with the equal enthusiasm in the general election because, again, it is all about winning.  

I only wish that all Democrats and Democratic leaning independents would likewise concentrate on wining, regardless of their political convictions.

Cajun (Rick Guilbeau)