Moderates did better than the DSA last night

Jeff Maurer just raised a really important point from last night's data, and that is that every Senate candidate US Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) endorsed did worse than the winning governor in the same state:

I assumed that Democrats would do well in the midterms, and that left-populists would try to spin that success as proof that Americans are pining for full communism. And, here we are...

Not every Senate candidate had a gubernatorial candidate to be compared to, and in some cases, I’m dealing with incomplete data: Substantial vote is still out in Oregon, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Nebraska. [H]ere’s that same data set with the Sanders-endorsed candidates shown in red:

There is no question that moderate Democrats did better than leftist Democrats. The Bernie-endorsed Senate candidates were the worst performers in the whole country in competitive races. Not a single Bernie-endorsed candidate did as well as a normie Democratic gubernatorial candidate in their state.

Anyone still making the “secret leftist majority” argument is either a propagandist or a Flat Earther and should be ignored.

We have to be disciplined over the next two years or it's 1976 all over again. Now, I love Jimmy Carter, and he did win against Gerald Ford, but almost any Democrat with a pulse would have beaten Ford. What Carter could not do was (a) work with Congress or (b) defeat Ronald Reagan, which is why we all talk about him as the best ex-president in history.

If the far left convinces enough people that voters are interested in their platform, we will not do well in 2028. And we must. Because the next Republican president will be able to dismantle democracy more effectively than the incompetent boob we've got now.