This comment has sparked an interesting debate, and it largely boils down to the definition of "democrat."
Some have responded that MFR is no liberal, but he's still a democrat b/c he supports elections, the Constitution, and democracy more broadly.
Not sure I agree. [THREAD] https://twitter.com/MichaelKugelman/status/1312466185636573184

When I said he's no democrat, I had in mind the nasty views he's espoused over the years and especially his bigoted views toward religious minorities, which is hate speech. Yes, he's no liberal, and one can indeed be a conservative democrat. But not a bigoted or racist democrat.

He may be more of a non-liberal than a non-democrat. But if one uses the MFR-is-still-a-democrat-because-he-supports-the-democratic-system reasoning, extremist political actors eg TLP/MML that contest elections, or authoritarians who gain power through polls, are also democrats.

If MFR disavowed the nasty things (which don't reflect democratic ideals) he's said over the years, maybe I'd change my view. I doubt he's done that. @chiltan put it nicely re MFR: "Those who don't believe in equal rights of all citizens can never claim to be truly democratic."

Finally, I wasn't suggesting that MFR is more or less of a democrat than any one else, whether in terms of someone in government or in the opposition. It wasn't meant to be a comparison. It was merely about him.
Thanks for the useful feedback. FIN