I would disagree with the conclusion of this article.



The candidate that appeals the most to Democrats will get better turnout, and that is the key to beating Trump. Obama (the best Dem candidate in at least a generation) got *Democratic* votes that Hillary Clinton didn't.



In my opinion, trying to win over the stereotypical white-working-class swing voter with social-conservative appeal is a false hope. The older voters for whom this might actually work are already highly likely to vote (there is less to gain in turnout), and they are also more set in their ways. That means if they vote Democrat, they will vote Democrat regardless of whether a progressive or a "moderate" is nominated. If they vote Republican, they will vote for Trump no matter how asinine his next tweet may be.



It is the "younger" (i.e. middle aged) voters who are have a tendency to stay home unless something gets their attention.



Lastly... repeating a comment on another article... Trump's rhetoric has focused consistently on immigrants and foreign trade partners. To most Democrats this sounds ignorant and hateful, but to "moderates" (i.e. conservatives), these issues are coupled with economic security. If Democrats go to a candidate who focuses on wealth and income inequality, they have something strong to answer this with. On the other hand, if Democrats go to a restore-the-status-quo candidate, they are at best answering Trump's "strong" claims with weaker versions of the same thing, and it won't be persuasive to the semi-tuned-out segment of the audience which is the one that is up for grabs.