comment: >
  
  The point is that Democrats consistently concede ground when they nominate moderate Republicans, since Republicans would rather be shot than return the favor and nominate a moderate Democrat when the tables are turned. The inverse virtually never happens so how would anyone sing the same tune.
context: Better than a loyalist, I guess. Still, Dems in power should really prioritize nominating other Dems over "good" Republicans. Hopefully the House drama emboldens Democrats to stop empowering their opponents. >
  
  Schmidt is from Philadelphia and a good man who believes in the democracy and expanding voting rights. >
  
  If that's true, why is he a Republican? That'd anathema to their whole agenda. >
  
  Not all Republicans are the ones you see on TV. I've sit and chatted with a few Republicans who hated everything about Trumps 4 years in office but still want to live by the fiscal conservative, small government ways of what the party once touted. Anyone that thinks there are absolutely no good Republicans to me in my opinion know even less about human beings than they do about politics. >
  
  Did they still vote Republican? Then they're republicans.
  The person that you described is either dishonest, or disconnected from reality.
  Republicans have never been fiscally conservative, when did their policies not lead to massive booms in the deficit? 
  They want government to be small enough to fit in a women's panties and have been very vocal about that since roe was handed down in the 70s. There are about a dozen other examples I could pull to hammer in the point further but I think I've made it.
  If you think someone who is at best indifferent in their continued support to what the republican party does can be considered good you have a warped sense of what good is. >
  
  Perfectly said. >
  
  I hate it when Democrats do stuff like this. It's counterproductive for a couple of reasons:
  1) No Republican is going to appreciate the gesture when it comes time to collect on something that really matters, and "independents" say they love stuff like this but never vote accordingly.
  2) It perpetuates the myth that Democrats are somehow disqualified from these jobs. I felt this way after Robert Gates was held on as SecDef under Obama. >
  
  Schmidt is more than qualified for the job and believes in protecting the right to vote and expanding it,
  It does not perpetuate any such myth. If someone is qualified and the president or governor feels they would do a good job then so be it. >
  
  "Nuh-uh" isn't much of a retort here. If a Democrat is capable of handling the job, nominate a Democrat.
  Schmidt's qualifications are 1000% irrelevant. >
  
  And if a Republican nominated a Democrat would you sing the same tune?