2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMy take on Progressives vs Blue Dogs
This civil war within the Democratic party (and many posts on this forum) have sparked me to come out of retirement as a blogger.
http://outspokenliberal.blogspot.com/2013/04/from-progressive-to-blue-dog-my-own.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)However, there is no civil war in the party.
Everyone is part of the same team when a decisive vote is needed.
Dennis Kucinich(unfortunately out of office he now(according to another poster's article)
has taken his far left view to the far right with Ron Paul) but Dennis showed
that when a decisive vote was needed in the house, he stood 100% with Barack Obama
on the health initiative.
They may talk a little, but they are altogether in the end.
as for here, well, more people are needed (some would ironically say that the President Obama fans are the silent majority.
More are needed to speak up to counter the very, very small but LOUD minority.
(and some remember are Paulies, who are for some reason,well, they snared Kucinich in his private retirement,according to the post by some other poster the last day or two).
All polling shows 90% of President Obama's core voters(like myself)100% behind him.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)But to a lesser extent, I have seen it locally. I've been at local party meetings where it's been suggested that we become as purist as the tea party is on the right. I've also seen it on FB.
In a few districts I've worked in, I've had people tell me "candidate x is not progressive enough" and would not donate or volunteer. Some even stayed home.
jehop61
(1,735 posts)So many lately sound like tea party folks demanding party purity. Glad to see your voice.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)I don't want the Democrats nominating our own version of Todd Akin.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)one has two choices
Gorby tore down the walls
the people who were the instant gratificationers and the people who never liked Gorby
they tore Gorby down
The ball was directly given back to what was before Gorby.
Putin.
but Putin is Breznev without the eyebrows and alot fitter and all.
Tear it down and Jeb will easily become President.
The tea party is Jeb Bush.
(and the Ron Paul people are NOT for the people.
be careful what one wishes for.
They seem not to remember 2000.
How did that Ralph Nader thingy do for the both sides are the same crowd?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)full of it. A great number of them stayed home and we are still paying the price.
Warpy
(111,167 posts)rejecting anything a progressive has to say just because a progressive is saying it. At their best, they provide the brakes on progressivism that has become just plain silly, which it tends to do like any other "ism." At their worst, they shut out any constructive criticism and bull on through with their own silliness. This is wrong.
I am against any party purity because until the human race is perfected, it's just not going to work. That applies to closed minded Blue Dogs as it does to progressives who are so open minded their brains tend to fall out from time to time.
I'm about as far left as you can get without being completely incoherent about it. I don't expect anyone to join me. I do expect people to listen. Some of my ideas actually work in practice.
I do agree with the OP that I'd rather have a Blue Dog than a Republican in 100% of the cases when that's the only choice in blood red states. I expect better from more liberal parts of the country.
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)the meaning of progressive.
Warpy
(111,167 posts)to know what I'm talking about.
I've been a lefty for a very long time. I saw the excesses in the 60s that frightened a country into voting scum like Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes into office.
Once you read outside the rubbish known as standard history, maybe you'll start to understand a little of what I'm talking about.
Or maybe you had to be there. I was.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)no matter how readily available and easy they are to mix.
Tennessee Hillbilly
(584 posts)When the Repugs captured the House in 2010, it was mostly blue-dog seats that the democrats lost. Those were mainly blue-dogs who first got elected in 2006. Without them, the democrats would have never become the majority and Nancy Pelosi would have never become Speaker.
Those are the seats we need to win back to regain control, and the only way to win them is with blue-dog candidates.
At least the blue-dogs will vote for Nancy Pelosi, and that's the most important vote of all.
John2
(2,730 posts)to your opinion but I disagree with it. I disagree with your strategy also. I do not live in New York and never have. My native state is North Carolina and I'm African American. The Tea Party that you refer to represents the Republican party. There are no moderates in the Republican Party. A person like Colin Powell is only a lost voice in the wilderness.
The Progressives that you refer to represent the Democratic Party. Most organizations supporting the Democratic Party support Progressive ideas. There was enough Democrats in Congress, when Obama was first elected to pass single payer. If he would have shown the same aggressive efforts that he is trying to pass CPI, single payer would have passed.
He did not need to push the base of his party, but the Blue Dogs needed that push. Even though these so called Blue Dogs, just like the gun issue, don't have the guts to vote for what is right, they should have. Their calculations were wrong, because most of them fell on the knife anyway. Obama needs to respect the actual voters that placed him in office period.
The middle that you claim exist is only a mirage. This country is divided period whether people want to admit it or not along racial and ideological line. A red district and blue district, unlike Mr Obama claims, can be easily identified on those terms. He is not coming to grips with that reality like everything else. Examples are issues of race, compromising with the Republican party, and Foreign Policy. He is the purist and living in a Dream World. Just as much as he got ambushed in his first debate listening to certain advisers. He needs to take the gloves off and keep them off. The voters gave him another chance and he needs to not mess it up. I sincerely doubt the Hispanic community wants to hear about compromising on immigration. There are reasons they accuse him of caving.
I do not care if a Politician lives in a swing district or red district. Their jobs are to educate the voters what they stand for, and if they don't agree, you don't need to be representing them period. If someone accuses you of cutting back on Social Security or Medicare, than call it what it is, a lie! Voters are adults! They like honesty. They like politicians that are fighters. Todd Ackman loss, because the Democratic candidate stood up to him. All Ackman did was tell the truth. He said exactly, what the Republican platform calls for. Go into those swing Districts and tell the voters, the republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare. Tie it around their necks like an albatross. Stop being afraid of the voters! They don't need Blue Dog candidates. They need better candidates, that are not afraid of what they truly believe in. Don't tell me most Americans want what Mr Obama is selling on Social Security. Even the Republicans are running away from their own cuts, because they got Obama and the Blue Dogs to do the dirty work for them!
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)I don't live in NY anymore, but I grew up there. I now live in central NJ in districts gerrymandered for Republicans. The only person who has a chance at taking out my Republican congressman is Bruce Springsteen.
I've worked on campaigns in KY, WI, NJ, and VA. I'm very involved in politics at the local level, and I have attended committee meetings in all of the above mentioned states. In 2010, the Blue Dog I was working for won by 648 votes (out of 200K cast). If that is not a swing district, then I don't know what is.
NC is actually a state that I want to work in. With all the shit that the GOP is doing at the state level (which I pay more attention to than the federal level since I prefer to work on downticket races). I worked on a congressional last year in a district that Obama lost by 29 points, so I had my guys distance themselves and us from him.
As for SS and Medicare-- I haven't been following it that closely to be honest with you. I'm of the generation that has been paying into SS but have been told forever that I'll be lucky to get anything out of.
I have also talked to many a Republican that does not identify with the tea party.
John2
(2,730 posts)and do pay attention to what goes on here. The Democratic Party supposedly registered 7 to 800,000 more voters than the republicans but those numbers never show up on election returns, even when President Obama narrowly won the state in 2008. He came to the state in 2008, but in 2012, he only sent his surrogates. That was a mistake. With the exception of Virginia and Florida, how many Southern States did Obama campaign in on the ground, even his surrogates?
What goes on, the Democratic Party makes the mistake if not campaigning in the South. They make the same mistakes the Republicans make. Republicans hardly go into minority communities and talk directly to voters. You see them mostly going into white communities. When you are scared to directly communicate or stereotype voters, you let your opponent shape the debate and describe you. These politicians, specifically republicans just go back to their Districts and lie to people. Good examples are Paul Ryan and John McCain. A lotta of voters don't pay attention to who is doing what in Congress, they just worry about their next pay check and surviving.
Bernie Sanders gave the President good advice and the Republicans know it for the next Election. The President and Democrats need to stay engaged with the public on the issues. There is this assumption that North Carolina is this crazy gun state and Senator Hagan would be in trouble if she went along with gun control in North Carolina. That is not what the local Polls say but National Media has given that impression. Hagan is very silent on it. I wonder why? She is trying to play both sides.
And to go back to North Carolina, voters usually have a choice between a conservative candidate or a far rightwing candidate. You hardly see a Liberal candidate running. When Obama says he wants chained CPI, the conservative candidates in North Carolina wants him to do that. They know there are many voters in North Carolina depend on Social Security and Medicare but there is no candidate in North Carolina to tell them who really wants the cuts. It frees them up to go back to their Districts and tell the voters Obama wants to cut Social Security and Medicare.
On the jobs issue. Many North Carolinians believe Obama is responsible for high unemployment in North Carolina. They believe he is responsible for high taxes. They also race bait in North Carolina. Democratic candidates need to go into those districts and educate people. You may think the Republican misinformation campaign is being done just by national outlets like FOX or Rush Limbaugh, but it is also being done at the local levels by Republican politicians. They are very good at lying and disciplined. That Party is very dangerous and have a lot of rightwing extremists associated with it. To compare the Left or progressives to them as some fringe is a serious mistake. They are trying to disenfranchised Americans and limit the rights of some people in this country. They are very clever in trying to say that is what Obama is trying to do. What is more important is the history of this country and the long time agenda of these groups on the Right also. Those progressive ideas are more in the main stream and what most Americans want. Obama is falling into the trap of demonizing people that elected him, just like everything else the Republicans want him to do. And the Blue Dogs aren't helping the situation either. This is a War for this country's soul. You need to look at the entire picture. Our Foreign and Domestic Policies are becoming victims to right wing racist agendas.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I kept saying that these Dems were blue dogs precisely because they came from fairly conservative districts. People here were cheering when they were defeated. Who defeated them? Mostly, Tea Party candidates. Great going, guys!!! There was no chance in hell that in most of these districts a true liberal would have won.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)A Blue Dog held the seat from 1982-2010. It was next to impossible to take the seat back, even though we put up one hell of a fight. Obama lost the district by 29 points.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:48 PM - Edit history (1)
Sometimes, people have to compromise. If a Democrat managed to get elected in a conservative district, they should be happy that at least it wasn't a Republican. In 2010, I remember post after post wishing for the defeat of the Blue Dogs. Well, they got their wish. Now we have a whole bunch of Tea Party kooks in the House who are 1,000 times worse than the Democrats who occupied those seats previously. These new T.P. Reps. act like they are on a religious crusade. They don't know the meaning of compromise.
TM99
(8,352 posts)However, it just seems that those here who constantly rail against the 'purist' and push the compromise meme really only mean that others should follow their lead. We should head right. We should accept the more conservative or moderate position.
Why doesn't compromise work both ways? Why should Blue Dog Dems never compromise with the progressive wing of the party? Why shouldn't the conservadems rally to support of progressive causes. You know those kind of things like protecting Social Security, opposing excessive free-trade agreements, making ludicrous deals with the GOP, strong stances against illegal wars, etc..
Beacool
(30,247 posts)For example, it's easy for a NYC Congress critter to be liberal, but not for one in AR.
It's rare to see a politician who strictly votes on principle, even when it goes against the wishes of his constituents. Most of them want to be able to get reelected and they know that if they tick off voters they will lose their job. That's why a Congress person's main goal seems to be to send pork home and to raise oodles of money for his reelection campaign. If along the way they manage to do some good for all people, then that's just gravy.
TM99
(8,352 posts)never enough liberals in AR to ever vote for a real one.
This sad state of affairs is why we need campaign finance reform and absolute term limits. It is about their constituents. But if a Blue Dog is the only Dem who can be elected in AR then it isn't a Democrat. It is Republican lite. Truman understood this well. Why can't modern Democrats?
Beacool
(30,247 posts)That's the reality. We can't deal in ideals, we have to deal with what we got. Therefore, I still think that a Blue Dog is better than a Republican. The Republican in all likelihood will not be a moderate and may even be a Tea Partier (which is what happened in several districts in 2010).
TM99
(8,352 posts)Everything changes. I was raised by old school Southern Republican parents. While they were supporting and fighting for civil rights, the Dixiecrats were pushing for Jim Crow laws to continue. Now much of the South is so far to the right of that I could not remain a Republican.
Eventually a risk must be taken. The Democratic party can not remain status quo with Blue Dogs, who really are just old school Republicans, and retain the practical policy platform that they represent. A constant fear of the Tea Party will not provide the balance necessary to preserve crucial social policies that the Democratic Party once stood for. Blue Dogs will accept changes to the social safety net. They will vote against labor union protections. They will water down gun control legislation. They will seek compromise over reality. And like President Obama, they will get blinded by bi-partisanship when it is a horrible choice or strategy in negotiations.
illegaloperation
(260 posts)Politics just doesn't work like that. We will end up with nothing.
In order to carry out our progressive agenda, we need Harry Reid as majority leader and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.
If that means having a bunch of Blue Dog Democrats from conservative districts/ conservative states that we have to deal with from time to time, I am all for it.
TM99
(8,352 posts)just not for Democrats.
The Religious Right and the Tea Party are perfect examples of movements that dramatically shaped and turned the Republican Party in new directions from within.
Harry Reid has been a horrible majority leader and Nancy Pelosi no better as speaker.
I know we will not agree on that.
illegaloperation
(260 posts)The Tea Party is destroying the Republican Party.
We don't need an equivalent on our side to destroy our party.
TM99
(8,352 posts)The Democratic Party of today is not even the same one of 60 years ago. The Republican Party isn't the same as it was in the 1800's. Some parties like the Whigs no longer even exist.
The Tea Party sadly represents a very large amount of the current conservative mindset in this country. Perhaps the current Democratic Party does need destroyed from within so that it might reflect the liberal mindset. Because I sure as shit don't know too many self-described liberals who favor Patriot Acts, Drone Wars, destroying the social safety net, and the corporate buy out of our government.
Revolutions are inevitable. Perhaps the violence of a true one can be avoided by accepting the need for a complete change and death of an old way of thinking or being.
I am no longer fearful of that level of change as I simply know that everything changes and everything dies. Everything.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They keep insisting people are progressive and that a very progressive liberal can be elected in a place like Missouri. But it's easy to say that with no proof.
And apparently these very liberal voters are so mad at Obama, they stay home. If they voted for Greens or Socialists, it could make some sense and give an idea of how many there are. But they conveniently stay home and let Republicans win.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)book-marked for future viewing.
ChangeUp106
(549 posts)I agree with a lot of what you wrote, especially the last paragraph. As someone on the progressive side of the party and this board, I would love to see more liberal candidates, but we do need to be careful. We don't want to become the Tea Party. On the other hand, we aren't anti-science, anti-government, anti-minority, anti-gay nuts like they are so there's a lesser chance of a wackjob ruining an election for us.
illegaloperation
(260 posts)I have been hearing dumb things like Mark Pryor (AR) needs a primary.
There's no way a progressive can win that seat.
John2
(2,730 posts)supporters, consist of minorities? So he ignores the base, and is led more by the concerns of rightwing extremists? And to go even further in racial terms, how many white people in Arkansas are truly rightwing extremists? I bet he is more stronger in urban areas that have more diversity. He is a Senator and represents all of Arkansas. He needs to go into those rural areas and educate those voters. Every last one of them can not be rightwing extremists. I do not have the belief a progressive cannot win in a rural area of Arkansas, if they go into the homes of those voters and tell them what they stand for. Prove to me old white people in rural Arkansas wants to see cuts to their Social Security or Medicare? And if they get any assistance from the Government, prove to me they want that assistance stopped. Just how many of them have salaries over 200, 000 dollars? Apparently many of them must do, since the Republicans have them believing Liberals are stealing their money. And how many believe Obama wants to take their guns and force Gay marriage on them? It is a big misinformation campaign and the Blue Dogs are playing right along. The big problem with this thinking, is the majority of people that voted for them, Blue Dogs just don't care about their issues. They must think those people are their sheep. They are mistaken, they are just pissing them off yet again. That is why some people feel there is no need to vote, when you are just electing another republican in disguise. My suggestion is, get a true candidate that represent your interests and get rid of the phonies. The media, blue dogs and the right has got some democrats believing we don't matter. It will not work this time. Fool me once, fool me twice, but three times is the charm. The voters are not stupid. There use to be another Blue Dog Democrat in Arkansas. Where is she at now, living off her benefactors?
illegaloperation
(260 posts)We need blue dogs and a lot of them too. We can't just have benches of purists liberal Democrats. How else are we suppose to compromise? Congress full of purists liberal Democrats and Tea Party Republicans simply won't work. We need moderates in both parties.
What if the whole congress is full of Elizabeth Warren(s) and Ted Cruz(s)? How is anything suppose to get pass?
Also, how are we suppose to win bunch of races that liberal Democrats cannot win? Can you imagine North Dakota electing a liberal Democrat? I can't.
John2
(2,730 posts)of North Dakota and why should that state dictate the nation's agenda? They only should have the representation they are allowed. Now a state like Texas is another matter. Democrats just need to do a better job of getting their voters to the Polls. North Dakota has two Senators but so does Texas, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. I would be more concerned about turning those states over than North Dakota. If you can have one progressive Democrat in Ohio, then you can have two. If you can have a liberal Democrat in Wisconsin, then you can have two. Why concern yourself with a state like North Dakota because the Senate is runned on a state wide basis. You also have better chances in Maine and New Hampshire. It is just a matter of picking better candidates to challenge Collins and Ayotte. Both try to play the middle, but stick with their parties when needed.
illegaloperation
(260 posts)Why doesn't Ohio have two progressive Democrats? Why doesn't Wisconsin have two liberal Democrats?
There are these things call elections and Republican won those seats.
Republicans put seats in blue states in play (ie Illinois), so we need to put some of theirs in play also (ie North Dakota)
It you didn't know, we just have a non-incumbent Democrat won in North Dakota.
Also, Susan Collins is consider safe unless she retires. Kelly Ayotte is not up for reelection until 2016.
We need a majority in both the House and Senate. To do that means that we need a lot of moderates.
Would you rather have Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell for majority leader? Would you rather have Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner be Speaker?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I wonder if it surprises you that I can tell you have never functioned outside the East coast?
The whole 'let's talk about other voter's errors' addiction is a habit of the right and center that I find appalling,annoying, distracting and pointless. Some surly fellow voters spewing rhetorical venom and sarcastic quotation marks really don't impress me. While I am interested in your views on issues, your views on other voters are nothing but gossip. 'Those people over there, they are the problem''.
Snark and hubris simply does not replace reason and communication.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)are on the East Coast? Who knew?
So tell us ... How is a progressive candidate supposed to win in a deeply conservative district?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I've been to both States. Have you? Has the OP ever done any politics in the West? No, clearly no. It rings out from the OPs words.
If you and the OP want to elect Blue Dogs for your States and districts, you should work to do that. I assume that's the best you can do, for whatever reasons you claim, and you should do that. Such candidates would not win here, so we won't do that. If I look at 2010 and 2010 midterms and primaries, I'd say we get turnout and victory much more often than those areas that grouse about the wonders of Blue Dogs and the need to have more conservadems. The losses in 2010 were brutal for the east. Not so much in the West. We in Oregon had record breakers, both years and elected many Democrats while the States back East had dismal turn out and elected a bunch of Republicans. Why did so many stay home or vote Republican when faced with the Democratic choice offered in those States? If Blue Dogs were popular, wouldn't they win elections? Wouldn't people turn out to vote for them? If people don't vote for them,how long can you maintain the concept that people will ONLY vote for them? How many losses with 'moderates' is enough to at least try something new? Repeating that which failed the last time is not always wise. Repeating it for years while claiming it is the only thing that works starts looking silly.
If you like Blue Dogs, elect them. But don't just run them, actually elect them. Elect Democrats, like we do in the West. If you can not deliver electoral victory, all the wailing about how much you dislike liberal Democrats amounts to nothing.
Who has your State and district been electing? Is Kentucky, which you cited, not home to fucking Mitch McConnell? Why has some Blue Dog not defeated Mitch? No offense,but it is odd that you are asking me how to get a progressive elected there, why has some Blue Dog not defeated Mitch in KY? Hmmmm?
illegaloperation
(260 posts)In those districts, winning the seats mean winning over enough moderates to win.
If we have a district that is 45% Republicans, 35% Democrats, 20% Independent, we need a Blue Dog Democrat that can win a big chunk of Independents to win that seat.
No matter how much those 35% of Democrats turnout, it is still about winning over Independents.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)But I expect that. What did my post say? If you dig 'moderates' get them elected. Running them is not enough, they have to win. It can not be 2010 over and over for those States. If you 'need moderates' to win, but when you run moderates you lose, the argument that only moderates can win starts to look ragged and unproven.
It's electoral politics. Win elections, that proves your point. Lose them, that proves a different point. Suffer dismal turn outs year in and year out? That makes a bunch of points as well. If you offer candidate Type X, the candidate loses and the next election sees fewer voters at the polls it becomes wise to reconsider Type X. Losing is one thing, but losses that lead to low turnout in the next cycle do lasting damage.
If you dig Blue Dogs, elect them. To elect them, you will need to get higher turnouts. Here, we run liberals who win and we have growing turnout, better than most States and always trending up. So it would be daft for us to run Blue Dogs so they could lose and depress interest in the Party. We like to win, not to make big shows about how to lose without looking too liberal.
illegaloperation
(260 posts)What that means is that in a good year (2008) Democrats win those seats, but in a bad year (2010) Democrats lose those seats.
And yes, Democrats should turn out to support our candidates.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to me, that sounds like disgruntled Republicans and Ron Paul types. You are also assuming high turn out for Republicans. In the district you cite, what is the actual turn out for Republicans? It sure is not 100%. I note you skipped that very important factor.
The point is, if you say that's how you can win, then win. Don't just run them and lose and then keep repeating the cycle. If 'only a moderate can win' is true, then show us a moderate winning. Get them elected. If you can't, then consider trying something new. If your assumptions lead to continued losses, there is no risk in questioning those assumptions. If they lead to victory, no one will question them at all.
illegaloperation
(260 posts)These districts are conservative leaning districts, but moderate enough to elect Blue Dog Democrats.
Of cause Democrats need to turn out to support them, but they are really at the mercy of how Independents would vote.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)moderate enough is only valid if the Democrats there can elect them. If the candidates chosen using that theory keep failing to win, perhaps the theory is not correct? If they don't elect them, they don't elect them. 2010 was pretty dismal, and it was not the entire nation that did not vote and thus elected the GOP House.
My Rep is Peter DeFazio, a member of the Progressive Caucus. Last two cycles, his Republican opponent has been the crazier than Tea Art Robinson. Peter wins. We see organized groups of 'Republicans for DeFazio'. He is a member of the Progressive caucus. He gets the independent vote. All the Democrats. And Republicans march around begging people who vote Republican to vote for the Democrat in that case.
Here is not there, but Peter is in DC, and some of the 'must be a moderates' are home catching up on Game of Thrones. It is possible that rather than play 'those damn progressives' games, Democrats who face conservative districts might take a look at Democrats who win the sort of votes they say they need and think about how it all works.
To actually win such places will take more than just trying to be all super moderate. I don't think that's the right way to look at it at all, it is too simplistic, it is not how voters think at all, and I just don't see it creating more Democratic wins. I repeat that if this theory was working, I'd not be looking to question it but I look at the current House and I say we should question all things where we lost to such foul candidates.
TM99
(8,352 posts)
illegaloperation
(260 posts)Read my comment below.
illegaloperation
(260 posts)A good example is Joe Donnelly who is part of the "Blue Dog Coalition" and got elected senator because Richard Mourdock defeated the longtime incumbent, Richard Lugar.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
You might want to read the OP (and everything I've written on this topic) again.
Hint: The topic was Blue Dogs versus Republican in close or conservative districts ... Not Blue Dog versus Progressive; not Blue Dog versus anyone in a Democratic safe district.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So if the topic is actually Blue Dogs vs Republicans, the title is an odd choice.
I've read your posts.
I say again, it's politics. Elect who you like. But don't just run them, elect them. Consider looking to those who win for advice. Many Democrats win in very complex districts, our Rep Peter DeFazio gets votes from Republicans, no less. Member of the Progressive Caucus. Gets bipartisan support. Peter gets elected. He does not just run. He's not a moderate. But he is trusted and honest and refuses his raises and will both please and disappoint each and every one of us every term. And he wins. We win. People vote for people, not for 'moderates' or 'liberals' but for people. Perhaps some of these districts that keep losing should try running a person instead of a vague political concept, try a candidate not a measured out position scripted to avoid insulting the Party you wish to defeat.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the OP?
illegaloperation
(260 posts)The title means that we shouldn't primary our Blue Dogs and replace them with Progressives that cannot win those states/districts.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Primaries are part of our electoral system for a good reason. I like democracy. It is absurd to say that a candidate who could not win a nomination would have won the general. It is like saying I could have won the Masters if they did not make me play golf.
illegaloperation
(260 posts)Remember when Richard Mourdock defeated Richard Lugar in a primary and went on to lose the general election?
The same thing can happen on our side if we start purging our moderates.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)What's ridiculous is your claim. Joe Lieberman in 2006 and Lisa Murkowski in 2010 lost primaries and then won in the general election anyway.
illegaloperation
(260 posts)Richard Lugar (R) was a shoo-in for that seat until Richard Mourdock defeated him in the primary.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)I was always an east coatster, but I was not always the paid political class (and the paid political class is not necessarily big bucks!). That blog entry I wrote was my first in 2.5 years, and 99% of the blog is from before I was a staffer. If you read some of my old entries, you will see my former point of view. My former congressman (redistricting) is a member of the progressive caucus and I've sat in meetings with him about progressive issues. I used to volunteer for his campaign until being shipped off. I'm on a first name basis with him. I was never talking about primarying him with a Blue Dog (although his seat might open up soon as he has his eye on the senate). Should his seat open up, I want him replaced with a progressive (and I have someone in mind if she does not win the governor's mansion in November).
The districts I worked in include a 14 county district centered by a liberal city (which I was based in). If it was just that liberal city, the district would be a lot more progressive, but you have 13 rural counties surrounding it that make up the district. I worked on a coordinated campaign (defined as every Democrat on the ticket lead by a progressive, for that state, senate candidate running against a tea party nutjob with national name ID). When I was on the doors talking to voters, many of them (registered Democrats) told me that the senate candidate was too liberal for me. I then asked about the Blue Dog congressman (who voted against Obamacare) and was able to sell many of them (voting GOP for senate) on him (using the vote against Obamacare as a selling point). The congressman squeaked out a victory in an otherwise terrible year for Democrats. (The victory was not official until around Thanksgiving).
Then I had a state senate district the shape of Texas. We were based in a city known for wearing dairy on their heads, but the city was not actually in the district. The district included affluent suburbs and very rural territory. There was really only one area in that district that was remotely friendly to Democrats. The Catholic Church has a stronghold on the area and for many voters, abortion is the be all end all issue. Every day on my drive to work, I passed the clinic and there were always at least two dozen protesters there.
In the bluest state I worked in, I had one of two districts in the state with split representation (in this state, the senate and assembly districts were the same. This district has a Democratic senator and GOP assemblymen). If it were an even year it would be much more liberal, but unfortunately our urban voters turned out 10 and 15% below the average for the district. We had people focused on turning them out, but we were also doing persuasion of the suburban and rural voters who were voting GOP for assembly. Of all the districts I've been in, this was the most diverse even though it was the smallest (parts of one county). On one end you have a city who's past has been made into an HBO show and the other end, I was running a phone bank out of a chicken coop. The progressive movement in the state refers to the senator (that won) as a 'Christiecrat' and has threatened to primary him (even though they never did).
The last district I was in (that I refer to the most) consists of 19 counties and 7 independent cities, and it is larger than the state that I live in. This particular district had a Blue Dog congressman from 1982-2010 when he was replaced by a teabagger. Voters in this district are more conservative than the rest of the state (Obama won the state but lost the district by 29 points). The gun culture is very big in the district even though it is the site of a mass shooting. When I interviewed for the race, I was told that it was a Blue Dog district and to tone down any of my (personal) "liberalness" We actually had to tone down our candidate's liberal positions on a few issues (ie marriage equality and abortion) because they would not appeal to voters in the district. Even though I had my best staffer covering the coal country section of the district, that is where our race was lost. Too many voters bought into the 'war on coal' and voted straight GOP.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You are exactly on point about the tea party. Your example from Delaware regarding Witchy-poo is right on target. The Republicans had that seat for the asking and gave it up with an ideologically pure candidate.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)And as a Democrat, it's fun to sit back and enjoy the GOP doing themselves in. However, there are lessons that we need to learn from their mistakes.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Constantly trying to get the purists to realize that in their districts, Blue Dogs were more likely to win. There is a stubborn lack of reality - they keep insisting voters are to the left on the issues. If voters really were, then they would vote for the progressives. Suddenly Montana and Missouri are going to elect someone to the left of a blue dog? The purists just won't deal with that question and start insulting you.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)It's been getting under my skin too. And I used to be that purist too.
