Why are people saying "conservative Democrats lost and liberals won"?

[Recursion]

The House is more my bag than the Senate, and maybe it's true in the Senate, but here were our losing incumbents in the House*:

Conservatives:

Gallego (TX-23): (Not to be confused with the other Gallego, who won.) Blue dog. Opposes marriage equality. Supported ACA. Supports DREAM (took some flack from the blue dog coalition for that, in fact). Lost to Hurd, who ran against ACA and scary immigrants swimming into Texas.

Barrow (GA-12): Blue dog. This guy got drawn out of his own district twice by the legislature, but hung on until this year. He was the only white Democrat in the deep south. Voted against ACA and to uphold DOMA. Against immigration reform. Weakly pro-choice. Lost to Allen, who ran on cutting spending, opposing gun control, increasing drilling, and cutting taxes.

Moderates:

Rahall (WV-3): Wants to end mountaintop removal mining (in WV, God bless him). Introduced a bill to ban incandescent light bulb import and manufacture. Of Arab descent, he has been point man on House outreach to a lot of figures in the Arab world. Lost (badly) to Jenkins whose campaign can be summarized as repeating the word "coal" over and over again.

Liberals:

Garcia (FL-26): pro-choice, opposes repealing ACA, pro marriage equality, opposed to offshore drilling, a chief cosponsor of immigration reform. He's rather to the right on Cuba, but then he's named "Garcia" and is in south Florida. He lost to Curbelo, who ran on tax cuts, increasing the number of for-profit colleges, and deficit reduction.

Schneider (IL-10): campaigned calling himself a progressive. Pro marriage equality. Sponsored a bill to increase the Federal minimum wage to $10.10. Supports ACA. Lost to Dold, who ran on tax cuts, supporting Israel, confronting Iran, repealing ACA, and border enforcement.

Enyart (IL-12): Supports DREAM. Supports raising taxes on the wealthy. Called the Bush tax cuts "class warfare". Sponsored bills to limit government surveillance. Voted to close Guantanamo. Voted to forbid military detention of any American citizens. Lost to Bost, who ran on cutting taxes (especially on farms), increasing biodiesel, repealing ACA, and cutting spending.

Horsford (NV-4): Only in for one term, but he was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Strongly pro-choice. Has called for the jailing of bankers in the wake of the financial crisis. Supports increased education funding. Lost to Hardy, who ran on cutting taxes, cutting spending, expanding charter schools, and introducing vouchers.

Shea-Porter (NH-1): Supports cap and trade. Opposes Keystone XL. Strongly pro-choice. Lost to Guinta, who isn't very far to her right (the two have been handing this seat back and forth for a few terms now). NH Republicans are still NH Republicans.

Bishop (NY-1): Reliably pro-choice. Pro gun control. Pro-environment. Dove. Lost to Zeldin, who ran on privatizing Social Security and "protecting business from the lies of climate change".

Maffei (NY-24): Pro-choice. Pro marriage equality. Voted to include sexual orientation as a hate crimes category. Supports CO2 limits and government investment in renewables. Against "free trade". Pro gun control. Supported DREAM act. Lost by 20 points to Katko, who ran on tax cuts, repealing Obamacare, and opposing equal pay laws (seriously, anybody from central New York know what the hell happened there?).


Meanwhile, here are the Democrats who beat Republican incumbents:

Conservatives:

Ashford (NE-2): A former Republican, he ran an ad saying "I am not Barack Obama"

Graham (FL-2): Ran ads not only saying "I am not Barack Obama" but also "I am not Nancy Pelosi"

Liberals:



Can we please at least come clean about this? Conservative Democrats gave us our only pick-offs of Republicans, and Liberals were the majority of the losses.

* I left out Faleomavaega in American Samoa because AFAICT that seems to be more an independence/statehood debate than anything else, and it's not a voting delegate anyways.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. Because people start from conclusions and then look for evidence. N.T.

[Scootaloo]

2. How far to the right are you willing to go to "win" elections?

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Probably about as far as you are...

willing to go to the left to lose them.

[Scootaloo]

5. Come on. Give me an actual answer

How far to the right are you willing to go, if you think it will win an election? Do you have lines you won't cross, or is the rightward lurch without any sense of boundary? I asked Recursion, but i'll take an answer from you too.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Do you really think i can draw a line somewhere? How many...

issues do I have to list? And do I have to rank their importance?

Elections are far more emotional than intellectual and a candidate might get, or lose, votes on an issue or stand, but all voters tend to go for the one they "trust", whatever that means.

Of course I'll never vote for some Bible-belting anti-gay, anti-environment righteous asshole, but I'm not even imagining something like that being a Democrat around here. It's much more subtle with, say, environmental concerns having to take into account the farm and fishing industries.

FWIW, I did not vote for our prick of a Governor-- he crossed the lines in too many ways too many times, but will probably have to vote for our senior Senator who's at least as bad but keeps another Republican out of the Senate. It we ever get the Senate back, he'll help to keep it. I think it was Recursion who already mentioned that it's simply a numbers game to hold committee chairs. And the Speaker of the house-- remember we used to have a decent Speaker? Even with all those blue dogs we got a good Speaker.

Our other Senator, Gillibrand, was picked on a lot around here for her former corporate law career and what got her elected upstate in a conservative district. Now that she's a Senator, she has a lot more freedom to do what she thinks is right and is incredibly popular. Funny how that sometimes works.

[Scootaloo]

14. No, I'm honestly more interested in what lines you WILL cross

How far into the teabag zone will you go, just to "win"?

[TreasonousBastard]

15. The "teabag zone" is out of bounds, but...

there's a whole range before you get to it.

And it's not easy to answer until an actual candidate shows up for a particular office.

[Scootaloo]

17. Well the prevailing idea that there is no limit.

That Democrats should abandon liberals, since "Liberalism doesn't win" and instead fight with Republicans over the right wing voters. There is no "too conservative" so long as there's a D next to the name. There is no "out of bounds," there are no lines that cannot be crossed.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Whose "prevailing idea"?

This is a huge country with beliefs and practices all over the map.

You might be able to successfully campaign against handguns in NYC, but don't try it in Montana. Let's see you win going big time for gay marriage in Utah or Alabama. Or against coal mining in West Virginia.

OK, we've finally gotten to the point where it's against the grain to openly preach racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry or to claim destroying the air and water is good for all of us. But, leading the charge for the good guys still pretty much guarantees a loss in a lot of places.

We can't win everywhere, and shouldn't try to win in Klan country, but we do have to be flexible where we can have an effect.

[Katashi_itto]

29. +10000!

[AgingAmerican]

27. Which Republican policies are you willing to implement?

And which Democratic policies are you willing to give up in your rightward quest to glory?

Elections are more, 'emotional than intellectual'? Do you have evidence of this? Voters 'trust' right wing policies? Which ones? List a few.

[Recursion]

24. If Adolf Koch Cheney would vote for Pelosi as Speaker, and his R opponent was to his right

then I would support Adolf Koch Cheney.

Now, if a Republican were to the left of the Democratic candidate (this used to happen sometimes) it gets more complicated. But if the Democratic nominee is to the left of the Republican, then that's what it takes to get that district. You may not care about caucuses and committee chairs, but that is what really matters.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. Because they WERE focusing on the Senate.

Because at this point in time, the Senate more accurately reflects the will of the people, while the House is simply a reflection of extreme gerrymandering. Losses in the House don't really say much about what people want, given how Republicans can hold control cycle after cycle, even when more total votes are cast for Dems.

[RiverLover]

7. +1000! The house is rigged, and will be for the next 40 years I heard.

I really don't know how gerrymandering is legal.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. I'm in Bishop's district and have my own ideas on what happened...

Some of it was people were just pissed in general and looking for change. I caught a lot of this while knocking on doors.

Liberals, Democrats, and anyone associated with us have been mercilessly attacked for years and it's sinking in. The propaganda worked and we haven't been fighting back.

In Bishop's case, commercials every 20 minutes on every channel about a "crime" involving campaign funds that he was vindicated of years ago sunk in. It was a flat out lie, but a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

There were also some intra-party problems, only a few of which even I knew the details of. Our Governor was, and still is, a miserable prick, but a few local personal issues hung about under some tables.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Did Bishop put out his own commercials

flat out saying the other commercials were lies? Or did he passively let the lies stand?

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Yes, he did, but...

he didn't have the money to put out enough of them.

Then, there's the problem of bad news always meaning more than good news-- he was accused of criminal activity. He can protest innocence all he wants, but the accusation is still out there like a cancer working it's way through the minds of the electorate.

An electorate that's already looking for a reason to change things.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. That's a pretty lethal 1-2 punch.

Not enough money, and being 'on the defensive'.

[BeyondGeography]

6. We also lost 5 of 6 presidential elections until Clinton moved the party to the right

Since then, counting Gore's win, we've won 5 of 6 presidential elections. Given the alternatives, and the way the country was run under Clinton and Obama compared to GWB, I think those elections were well worth winning.

That doesn't mean we couldn't put Warren out there and win in 2016. But one reason why she could win is she was a Republican for much of her adult life and that would be an asset, not a liability. She could explain that she was a Republican because they stood for less government interference in the marketplace (i.e. freedom) and whatever other bits of Americana she would selectively like to invoke and that make most people here cringe.

[JI7]

10. plus she seems to have similar views on foreign policy

As Hillary Clinton.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. She could explain that she was a Republican while her Party refused to act on AIDS while thousands

died and that after years of inaction and over 5,000 funerals, she voted for Reagan again to extend that policy. And why? According to you it is because she thought Reagan's economic policies were good policies, but those policies gutted the middle class, shoved the poor down the ladder and busted the Unions.
These are explanations I long to hear from her and anyone else who voted for that deadly bullshit. Thus far Warren is not even respectful enough to address the worst of the homophobia and racism. She refuses to speak about it, as if it does not matter.
Of course those policies made her extremely wealthy. So of course she defends them.

[BeyondGeography]

21. Her background would cost her in the primaries, not in the general, imo

Hillary would thump her pretty good as matter of fact, and the Republican thing would be part of it with the black vote in particular. Not so much that Warren has ill intent, but that Hillary has been a lifetime supporter. I think Warren understands this and the only way we'll see her as the nominee is if Hillary doesn't run for whatever reason.

Warren is presently very strong on LGBT rights and that would be enough for the vast majority of voters, very few of whom would hold her personally responsible for Ronald Reagan's social policies.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. She can't make it to a general because she has not been honest about her past at all.

She speaks only about money, even when asked about her past loyal, decades long membership in a racist, homophobic and anti choice party she just chuckles and says 'I like Reagan's economic ideas' as if those ideas were not horrific in and of themselves. She says she was a right wing Republican voter due to her support of policies that destroyed the middle class. 'I was not really a bigot, I was just extremely wrong about the one subject I claim to be expert on'.
I do not see the indications of wisdom, discernment nor empathy that I seek in leadership roles. I see bad judgement, shitty economic choices and a willingness to trade the health and rights of others for a few extra dollars in her own coffers.
She's worth about 15 million dollars. She has been rewarded for her service to the right wing. She counted her money while we attended funerals and lost jobs.

[Recursion]

26. ^^^ This

We have to win, first, before anything else can happen.

[Phlem]

33. yep.

Thank god we had Clinton and Obama, else the stellar situation the middle class is in right now could be worse.

Oh Noes, if Republicans gain complete control of the white house we could be in worse situation right now. Vote 3rd way!

Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear!!!!!!!!

[joshcryer]

41. Those 8 years under Bush sure were fun!

Let's try it again! No need to be afraid!

[Phlem]

43. Yep and when I lost my job to NAFTA, that was super fun.

Why Oh why did I put myself through school to make a better life for me and my wife. My daughter's a few years from being able to work, maybe we can both work at McDonalds soon! So much fun!!!!

[Stellar]

16. Liberals should be Liberals and stop pretending to be anything else.

Why should liberals pretend to hate their own liberal members in order to win an election.
Fox News made being liberal a joke and the butt of all jokes so why are they playing to the audience of Fox News' proving how much they hate their own party and members. That's just stupid and dumb.

The President has done a lot to get this country back together and we have come a long way from where Bush left us...that's what they all should have been saying.

Be Liberals and stand up for what we believe in.

[Phlem]

31. nooooo!

We must continue supporting the third way. We need nominees like Antonio Weiss to serve as Under Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Treasury Department and other foxes to watch the hen house.

yeay 3rd way!

Man I can't stand conservatives in a liberal party. WTF

[baldguy]

39. Right. And painting anyone who wants the Dems to win as a "3rd way con" isn't fearmongering.

That brand of hyperbolic shittyness is unwelcome when it comes out of a Tea Bagger. Equally so when it comes from a supposed "liberal".

[Phlem]

42. It's only fear mongering when you have been following the right ward march for 40 + years

and don't see an end. Otherwise it's just another day for those who can't see that.

[baldguy]

44. "It's only fear mongering when someone else does it." There, FTFY.

Because you really have no clue what your own end game is, or how to dismantle the permanent Republican majority you're created.

[Phlem]

45. Oh I didn't know you did.

So what is it?

this "how to dismantle the permanent Republican majority you're created". So when I vote Democrat I create a Republican majority. That's some fancy math but your more spot on than you realize.

So we need to be like them to dismantle them? We've done that since Clinton and now we're here. And we'll be buried when Obama or Hillary pass the TPP, unless a Republican gets to it 1st.

By all means let's not jail any bankers, that might disrupt their thievery for a second.

So what's that wonderful plan?

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Because my State had large turnout, elected a Senator, 4 Reps, a governor, and the next morning on

DU this is what I read from the Conservative side of the Party:

""The openness and brazenness of the LBGT agenda and the media flaunting of gay marriages all across the country cost Dems dearly and threatens to do so in the future."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764803#post45


And because the 'moderate conservatives' do nothing to police the bigots among them, from Ronald Reagan to the present moment. Because of the half dozen or so openly bigoted anti gay DUers all of them are 'moderates'.
Because I remember who is who.

[Recursion]

23. Gay marriage seems to help the national party more than hurt us now

Or, "for once we have a wedge issue on our side".

I think that poster's playbook was about a decade or so old...

[Rex]

25. I hadn't heard the part about liberals winning.

I didn't even know any were running. I mostly paid attention to the uphill battle in Texas that we lost. I'm still trying to get over the fact that *urp* Dan Patrick is now our Lt. governor. He is literally a Rush clone.

[joshcryer]

28. It's 2010 all over again.

While people call for more liberal candidates, they also call for a 50 state strategy, but we know the 50 state strategy utilizes the blue dogs. So, which is it? Inclusive party or part of the far left?

[Phlem]

32. So standing for liberal policies is far left?

[joshcryer]

35. Um, no?

The far left requires everyone to stand for practically all liberal policies.

[Phlem]

37. I see how that can be an issue for the liberal Democratic Party.

[joshcryer]

38. Not at all.

You see, some Democrats can be for guns (see: Vermont Dems) while others will want to regulate them (see: NYC Dems).

But both Vermont Dems and NYC Dems would likely be for raising the minimum wage.

See how that works?

[Phlem]

40. Sure it works exactly that way.

Alison Grimes loving on her guns in Kentucky didn't seem to do the trick.

[sabrina 1]

30. Bishop was in my former district. He wasn't very responsive to voters, often called his office

about upcoming bills to ask how he was going to vote. Got responses like 'when is that bill coming up?' 'Today, do you know if he will be voting for or against'? 'No'!

Never got much of a response from him so didn't bother calling him again. He is in a fairly rural district that can go either way. It isn't particularly partisan airc, they've voted for both Dems and Repubs, mostly moderate Repubs. And they kicked out a Repub over the Clinton debacle. So a good Progressive Dem could win there if they wanted to.

[sadoldgirl]

34. I am trying to get this straight here.

The Dems have to become moderate Republicans to win?

Then a) why call themselves Dems anymore?

b)they can win then without the left?

Well, I suppose in an oligarchy the term democratic is wasted anyway.

This may however be the best way to start a 3rd party.

Is this what I see here?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Which speaks to the need for a moderate (aka centrist) party, a Liberal (aka progresse or leftist)

party and a Conservative Party (aka Fascist) party.

As it is, I vote policies and principles. Not politicians or party.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. That would be a catastrophe, because the first and third would alternate in power. N.T.

[Zorra]

46. Who is saying that progressives won? We're saying that if we're going to lose anyway,

we might as well run left leaning candidates.

Progressive issues won, the progressive candidates didn't, and conservative candidates didn't either.

If people keep trying to convince people to move to the right, you will convince the stupid among us that the right wing is where the good ideas are, and then, obviously, they'll simply vote republican.

Clearly, all y'alls persistent campaign to move the country the right has been an unprecedented success, and you've convinced many swing voters that the right is better, resulting in very major losses for the Democratic party over the past 6 years.

[AgingAmerican]

47. If you are so right wing

...why do you come here?