Dems try to enlist military vets in fight for House majority

[TexasTowelie]

ATLANTA — Democrats hope to enlist military veterans in another type of fight — for majority control of the House. Looking ahead to next year’s elections, Democrats are trying to recruit at least two dozen military veterans to challenge Republican incumbents, arguing that candidates with military experience appeal to independent voters and can help the party break the GOP grip on Washington.

‘‘Veterans have had the experience of putting the country first, before personal politics’’ and party dictates, said Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat from Massachusetts, who did four tours of duty in Iraq, left the Marines as a captain and was elected to Congress in 2014.

That tends ‘‘to attract the kind of independent voters who are looking for a good leader,’’ Moulton added.

Several veterans already have announced their bids in some of the 79 Republican-held House districts that national Democratic Party leaders have identified as top targets.

Read more: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/05/28/dems-try-enlist-military-vets-fight-for-house-majority/oT3AqSXc0AVoBQ3PT1UpZO/story.html

[mhw]

1. Good. I've always believed when it comes to our US Military ,

It is always Country before all else.
That includes a sitting President .

Country & Constitution First.

I believe if our own Pres, congress or any outside force became a threat to National sovernity there is a point where, as a last resort, the Military assumes leadership. But I believe it is used in the event of an all out attack from a foreign nation.
The US becomes under military rule and it would be an atrocious event.

I may not have the details correct but it goes something like this.

[vi5]

2. The more the merrier....

I saw we enlist all good leaders to run. But I would hope that we learned from 2004 Presidential election and other high profile examples that having a vet, even a war hero as our candidate doesn't necessarily insure any additional votes. And it definitely doesn't bring about ANY republican votes if that is what the thinking is. It has to be backed up with ideas and charisma and everything else.

[Blue_true]

3. The idea is more independent votes to go with votes from true Democrats.

It should be clear that we can't trust the Susan Serandon, Cornell West, Tavis Smiley types when they are trully needed, so we need left leaning and moderate Indies to give us winning margins.

[vi5]

5. Yeah, good luck with that.

They sure turned out in droves for Kerry didn't they.
And Max Cleland.
And Tammy Duckworth the first time around.

But yeah, maybe if we just keep trying we'll get different results.

[Blue_true]

6. Well, we know for sure that we can't count on the Alt-Left. nt

[vi5]

7. "Alt-left"

Hope you don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back for such cleverness.

Clearly falling all over ourselves to try and please those mythical "independents", "centrists" and "Reagan Democrats" or whoever else it is we've been attempting to please has been yielding such electoral dividends, hasn't it?

What is it they say about repeating the same things over and over again and expecting different results?

[Blue_true]

9. Reagan democrats, center-right voters, the Alt-left can fuck themselves.

If they were trapped in a burning house, I would keep walking. But, there are plenty of center-left and regular left people that did not vote in the last election, we can reach those people and should try to reach them. A lot of Blacks did not vote in 2016, for some reason.

I have too busy of a life to get into self congratulation. I do believe there is an alt-left and that they are horribly destructive to sustained liberal progress.

[Cha]

4. Mahalo, TexasTowelie!

[former9thward]

8. Where is the evidence that people care about military service?

The last president with any real military experience was Bush 41. In '92, '96, '00, '04, and '08, vets ran against non vets. Non vets won every election. In 2012 and 2016 there was no candidate with military service.