Look, I didn't write the book on harsh reality. You can only go so far trying for the squishy middle. That barely worked in 2000. In '04, W got reelected because of the war and because he actually gave in a bit to conservatives. Ignore conservatives again and it will be a Lefty back in the WH.
I never suggested doing so. (To see my preferred candidates, you could try reading this thread you are on: Post #41) I suggested to you that a candidate from a battleground state (FL, Great Lakes, Upper Midwest, Southwest) is preferable to one from "the Sun Belt" generally. Unless you think everyone from a battleground state -- including those in the Sun Belt -- are moderates and everyone from the Sun Belt is a conservative?
A candidate from a battleground state is more likely to be able to both motivate the base and appeal to swing voters, ie indies and conservative Dems, since they would have had to do so out of necessity to be elected.