You mean exactly as they did in 2016 because the candidate didn’t energize the base and so many fled to a more progressive candidate or just sat out? Like that? How many of the “de-energized” Dems either sat out or wrote in a protest vote for Bernie? Enough to change the outcome, I bet.

Yeah, not a convincing argument, I think.

Exactly that. I think Bernie would have lost by a lot more than Hillary. He would have gotten a lot more of the progressive vote...and a lot less of the "everyone else" vote. The path to winning the 2016 election was by running a more centrist candidate and then not punishing her for being centrist. If the "de-energized" Democrats had decided that they weren't going to flee to a more progressive candidate or sat out the election, then Clinton could have beaten Trump - and the world would have been a lot better for progressives.

That's Yglesias' point, and I agree with it. It's completely self-defeating for progressive groups to insist that candidates show their fealty to the base (like, say, an issues questionnaire showing support for taxpayer funded transition surgeries) and punish moderate leaders who don't toe the line. I can understand why progressives do it - it makes them more powerful within the party if they can force more and more of them to publicly align with the progressive wing. But it then makes it nearly impossible for the national brand of the party to be something other than "progressive," and most voters aren't progressive.

So while I 100% wanted the CR to fail in the House, I 100% agree with Schumer's decision to pass it in the Senate. Don't be the one holding the bag on a government shut down, even if that 'de-energizes' your base.