If Moderates Overperform, How Do You Explain Sinema?

The NYT editorial board is full of shit.

The New York Times hates trans people, workers, and the left. It therefore ran a long article trying to use statistics to convince Democrats to embrace moderation (by which they mean a platform that screws over trans people, workers, and the left.)

Analyst G. Elliott Morris explains at length why the Times’ use of statistics is shoddy and duplicitous. I am not a statistician and certainly can’t make the statistic case as well as Elliott did. I can, however, make a qualitative point to perhaps buttress his argument.

That qualitative point is: if moderation is such a great strategy, why did the two most performatively moderate Senators in the Democratic caucus of the Trump era destroy their political careers?

—

Everything Is Horrible can’t exist without your support. If you find my writing valuable, please consider becoming a contributor. It’s $50/yr, $5/month.

Sinema

Kyrsten Sinema was elected to Arizona Senate in 2018. She started her career as a lefty and ran for Senate as a moderate. Once she got into office, though, she went hard right, becoming the most egregiously reactionary member of the caucus who was not Joe Manchin. One of her most iconic moments in the chamber was a dramatic vote on a minimum wage increase; she gave a thumbs down, performed a curtsey, and gutted the measure. She was a crucial vote protecting the filibuster, which made voting rights and abortion rights legislation impossible. She also regularly kneecapped progressive priorities by doing things like voting down a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board. Eventually she turned her back on Democrats altogether, leaving the caucus and declaring herself an independent.

If what the electorate really wants is aggressive moderates who refuse to listen to “groups” (ie, marginalized people) and who refuse the Democratic brand, then Sinema—in a purple state!—should have been a wildly popular shoe-in for reelection. So says the NYT editorial board, and how can they be wrong?

Well, let us count those ways, as the poet says.

Sinema was not wildly popular. She was in fact the opposite of wildly popular. By 2022, she was polling at -17 in the state; uniting Democrats (-20), Independent (-10) and Republicans (-18) in a bipartisan amity of loathing. Her numbers with Democrats were what led her to declare herself an independent and consider running as such in a three-way contest for reelection. But her numbers with everyone else were also terrible, and polls of the election showed that she had no path to victory no matter what label she chose. She ignominiously dropped out of the race in early 2024.

But maybe that was a fluke! Maybe Sinema is just uniquely loathsome! Maybe some other centrist hero can carry the banner for the left-hating New York Times!

Fetterman

Enter Pennsylvania Senator and backstabbing piece of shit John Fetterman. Fetterman, who had been a supporter of leftist Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign, ran as a progressive in 2022 and racked up a resounding win against MAGA anti-health ghoul Mehmet Oz. Fetterman promised (unlike Sinema) to vote against the filibuster, called for universal healthcare, and presented himself as a team player who would work with Biden and Democrats to pass legislation.

However, once in office, Fetterman (like Sinema) moved forcefully to the right. October 7 was a particular watershed; Fetterman had always been pro Israel, but after the brutal Hamas attack, anti-Palestinian animus became the core element of his political identity. During a ceasefire he reportedly urged a return to Israel’s mass slaughter of Gazans, declaring “Let’s get back to killing.”

It’s not just Gaza, though. Fetterman’s been by far the most pro-Trump Democratic Senator, cosponsoring the Lakan Riley act which stripped due process rights from immigrants accused of crimes. He’s also been a reliable vote for even the most controversial Trump nominees like Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He’s called Trump a “singular political talent.” Over the last weeks he’s been arguing that Republicans should break the filibuster to end the government shutdown.

Again, if bipartisan moderation and defying Democratic party orthodoxy is the path to electoral success, Fetterman should be overwhelmingly popular in Pennsylvania. But! Surprise! He is not.

Fetterman is not (yet!) doing as poorly in PA as Sinema did in AZ. But he still has serious problems. A recent poll found him with 46% approval and 38% disapproval. Those aren’t bad numbers—but under the hood his future looks pretty dire. His own party hates him; only 33% of Democrats approved of him while 54% disapproved. He’s making up the difference among Republicans; 62% approve of him vs. 21% who disapprove. His number are evenly split with Independents, 43% approve and 43% disapprove.

The problem for Fetterman is that he is not going to be able to win a Democratic primary with 54% disapproval. It’s hard to imagine him winning a Republican MAGA primary either given his past outspoken support for LGBT rights, Medicare for All, and a range of other left positions. His numbers with independents don’t really look strong enough to put him over the top if he makes a third party bid either.

Worse, his fundraising has cratered. Republicans might like him in general, but they’re not going to give a Democrat money. He raised just $330,000 between July and September, marking the third quarter where he spent more than he raised. One of Fetterman’s strengths in his first Senate campaign was his massive fundraising prowess. Thanks to his turn to the center, that no longer exists.

Sinema and Fetterman, both politicians in purple states, both embraced the New York Times strategy of aggressive moderation and fucking over the Democratic party base. And the result has been that Sinema gutted her political career and Fetterman seems well on his way to gutting his. What went wrong?

People don’t want moderation

I’m hesitant to offer any one rationale here, but there are a few points worth noting. First of all, a lot of moderate policy positions poll very badly. For example, increasing the minimum wage is popular with Democrats, with Independent, and even with Republicans—in branding herself as a moderate by elaborately opposing a minimum wage hike, Sinema actually embraced an incredibly unpopular position.

Similarly, the American public has soured on Israel’s genocide; as of September 2025, 39% of the public felt that Israel’s military operation had gone too far, and only 26% thought Israel was doing the right thing. Only 10% said Israel had not gone far enough—which seems to be where Fetterman is. By defying the Democratic party to do mavericky centrism, Fetterman has taken a position which is quite unpopular with the electorate as a whole.

Perhaps even more importantly, while anti partisan branding is very popular with the media and savvy political commentators, most voters find it incredibly alienating. Voters have strong partisan commitments; any political scientist will tell you that partisan affiliation is by far the strongest predictor of voting habits (only race comes anywhere near it.) Partisan identity is how the vast majority of people who don’t pay close attention to politics—and the vast majority of people who do!—think about and interact with politics.

When people vote for a candidate, they are voting for the party as much as the person. If the person then turns around and thwarts the party at every turn, people feel betrayed. Even people on the opposing side often are mistrustful of politicians who won’t support their party. You may think that partisanship is good or you may think that partisanship is bad (I think it depends!) But there’s little question that the bipartisan moderation that a lot of elite commentors find irresistible repels the bulk of the electorate.

This isn’t to say that moderate politicians always lose or that tacking to the middle in purple states is always a disastrous strategy. Ruben Gallego, Sinema’s replacement, is not a progressive; he supported the Laken Riley act, and has supported a number of Trump nominees. He doesn’t boast about his independence the way Sinema did, though, and he is a reliable vote on most party priorities. He is not my favorite Senator, but he’s not a radical centrist wrecker either.

G. Elliott Morris emphasizes that different candidate may have different strengths in different places. Manchin’s longstanding family connections and name recognition in West Virginia probably boosted him as much as his moderate voting record, for example. Andy Beshear in Kentucky also benefits from the fact that his father was a governor before him. Doug Jones and Raphael Warnock both have been strong candidates in the South because of strong connections to the Black community in their states. Mary Peltola in Alaska won a statewide race through relentless focus on local issues like fishing. There’s no one formula and moderating on some issues can be helpful in certain situations. But so can embracing progressive positions which fire up the base and bring in fundraising dollars.

Sinema and Fetterman make one thing very clear though; the NYT editorial board’s ideal radical centrists are an electoral washout. It’s not a coincidence that people become radical centrists in office, rather than branding themselves as such on the campaign trail. Because, if you brand yourself as such on the campaign trail, you turn yourself into a losing loser who will lose.