Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections 4Q 2011 House fundraising reports roundup (126 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not enough. (0+ / 0-)

    If that's the one issue you need, I get it, but many conservadems are pro-choice, & that can't be a reason we don't primary them to get pro-choice progressives.  Kirkpatrick was a Blue Dog & AZ 1 can do better.  Will they?  Who knows, but the attempt must be made.

    Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

    by Leftcandid on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 10:26:18 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Kirkpatrick (7+ / 0-)

      wasn't actually a member of the Blue Dog Caucus. And she was generally good on social issues such as hate crimes legislation, Lilly Ledbetter, and DADT repeal (plus she was endorsed by EMILY's List).

      21, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), hopeless Swingnut

      by sapelcovits on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 10:38:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks; I had a bad source. (0+ / 0-)

        Still, socially liberal, fiscally conservative Dems are libertarians, and not good enough.  She voted with Wall St. & Fossil Fuel Inc. too often.

        Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

        by Leftcandid on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:52:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  AZ1 (7+ / 0-)

      The district is R+1. You don't find a lot of liberal Dems holding down R+0 to R+2 districts. I think anyone to the left of Tim Walz or Tim Bishop would be a nonstarter in a district like that. Even the current Dems in D+1s are not a very liberal crew: Sanford Bishop, Barrow, Boswell, and Schrader.

      SSP poster. 42, CA-5, -0.25/-3.90

      by sacman701 on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:11:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You don't find it when it isn't tried. (0+ / 0-)

        Which is what we should be doing.

        Liberal economic populists, with strong grassroots support based on a record of community involvement and service, can get Republican votes.  Look at Grayson winning an R+2 district.  

        We can't let "holding the district" be an excuse for supporting the lesser candidate in a primary.  In AZ 1 Romney will pull the Mormons and Baldenegro will pull the AmerIndians.  There's no reason NOT to support the more progressive Wenona now, & then supporting whoever wins the primary.  The fact that there is no progressive candidate clusterfuck as in 08 makes the dynamic different.  It's one on one.  

         

        Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

        by Leftcandid on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:51:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Grayson won in a D wave year (5+ / 0-)

          then in an R wave year got absolutely spanked, worse than most D incumbents who lost.

          Baldenegro is too much of a gamble, and I like to play it safe.

          21, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), hopeless Swingnut

          by sapelcovits on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:22:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Safe? Then why did Ann lose? (0+ / 0-)

            Grayson painted a big target on himself in a year where Democrats staying home doomed him.  But Kirkpatrick lost too for the same reason, and has far less to show for it than Grayson.  

            There's no evidence at the moment that 2014 will be like 2010.  Let's not preconcede anything.

            Also, what's a swingnut?

            Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

            by Leftcandid on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 04:46:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It was always my opinion that Grayson was running (5+ / 0-)

              against a weak incumbent in 2008, there was the year, and to be honest I dont remember Grayson being this loud and outspoken in 2008. In terms of Kirkpatrick in 2008 she got 56% while McCain was getting 54%, a significant number of people split the ticket for her. Then in the red tidal wave of 2010, she lost the 54% McCain district by a margin of only 6% while other democrats were losing 51% Obama district by double digits. She has proved her case and proved it quite well.

              •  It's dangerous to compare districts to each other (0+ / 0-)

                especially in a Presidential election year where the GOP candidate is from the state in which this district is.

                What part of McCain's total was his homestate name rec?  What evidence do you have that Baldenegro would have gotten less than 56% in 08 had she been the candidate?  What do you know about AZ 1's Republicans compared to the real scumbags of 2 and 6?

                If Kirkpatrick wins the primary, people should vote for her.  But there is insufficient reason to throw in with her now especially because her money will be there either way.  If we want better Dems, primaries are how we get them.  There's no reason to believe Baldenegro couldn't outperform Kirkpatrick in this district if she wins the primary and gets DCCC support as a result.  

                 

                Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

                by Leftcandid on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 12:35:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Umm... you started comparing the districts (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY

                  by bringing up Grayson and now your telling me its dangerous to compare districts.....

                  •  No, the point was that progressives can win R+ (0+ / 0-)

                    districts, something initially denied by you & other commenters.  I used Grayson as an example.  The fact that he was running against a weak candidate is mirrored by the weakness of Kirkpatrick's opponent.  I compared candidates and results, but I didn't make any specific comparison of FL8 to AZ1; I know nothing about FL8's demos except they will be sad to lose Dwight Howard.  

                    The follow-up point is that in '10 Kirkpatrick and Grayson both lost, but Grayson achieved far more--making himself a target of more enemy money (enemoney?) in the process--than Kirkpatrick did.  

                    If we decide that only well-funded Dems can hold R+ districts, instead of populist Dems who have a record of in-district service as a real strength for reelectability, then we are failing in our mission.

                    Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

                    by Leftcandid on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:39:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well-funded (0+ / 0-)

                      I think your use of Alan Grayson does not help your argument, as he was and is very well-funded, so his election gives no evidence about the ability of someone who is not well-funded to win a district with a PVI that is against them.

                      Your argument may or may not have merit, but this piece of evidence does not bolster it.

            •  Do you think Baldenegro would have won (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, Setsuna Mudo, SLDemocrat

              in similar circumstances?

              At any rate, it's not 2010 anymore and it's a bluer district, but that doesn't mean we get complacent.

              See here for Swingnut.

              21, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), hopeless Swingnut

              by sapelcovits on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:55:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  i think you made everyone's point for us (5+ / 0-)

          Whether or not Baldonegro can win with Obama on the ticket in 2012, (This fundraising is nowhere close to what Grayson was able to put up so I think the comparison is weak) what happens in 2014 when he isn't at the top?

          •  Don't make the mistake of worrying about 2014. (0+ / 0-)

            Here's a novel concept: see if we can elect a progressive.  If we can, we'll see how she does, and perhaps her record will generate transpartisan approval that will carry her in 2014.

            Do not fall into the trap of Serious D.C. thinking.  They NEVER want Better Dems, just More.  They want those who are compliant, silent except in the face of overwhelming consensus, who'd never say anything controversial such as complimenting Occupy, who will kowtow to the wealthy donorbase that, y'know, basically forced progressive Paul Eckerstrom from the chairmanship of the AZ Democratic Party.

            Don't think it's a virtue to play it safe based on district analysis.  It's shortsighted & ignorant to view one R+ district as equivalent to others.  AZ 1 is overwhelmingly rural with one college town, and Wenona's background puts her FAR more in touch with the average resident than Kirkpatrick.  I mean, do any of you commenting know anything REAL about the district other than it's R+1 & that Serious Thinking sez only a centrist Dem can win & hold it?  Gawd, the self-defeating pre-comprimise in these comments is unbecoming of Kossacks.  

            TAKE A CHANCE on a principled progressive who absolutely can win & hold this seat for a long long time if given the opportunity.  Fuck the cynicism that sez it will always revert to GOP in non-presidential years if held by a progressive.  Most of all, fuck the notion that money will always defeat the good, which is basically what y'all are advocating.

            (deep breath)

            I'm sure you mean well & are basing these comments on your own experience.  Just think about this, do some research, & dare to dream of & work for a Wellstonian unlikely outcome, because if we want change, we have to go for it on occasion, & we must destroy the cancerous certainties that only certain candidates can compete in certain districts.  

            Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

            by Leftcandid on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 04:40:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not as novel on this site as I'd like (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              R30A, Setsuna Mudo
              Here's a novel concept: see if we can elect a progressive.  If we can, we'll see how she does, and perhaps her record will generate transpartisan approval that will carry her in 2014.

              And what's your evidence that politicians with progressive records get any kind of approval from Republicans in Arizona, especially in recent years?

              Wellstone won in Minnesota, which is much more Democratic and liberal than the Arizona district in question, so make that part of your analysis.

              On this sub-site, we don't generally engage in counter-factual dreaming. So please show some actual evidence, instead of merely claiming that those questioning and logically disagreeing with you are falling into a trap.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 02:35:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not all AZ Republicans are alike. (0+ / 0-)

                First, Independents are the largest group in AZ.  That's part of the transpartisan coalition needed to win.

                Second, the worst Republicans in the state are suburban PHX.  Some of these are in AZ1, but most are in 2 and 6.  

                AZ 1 has a large rural white population and a large Native population.  The Native population, we can agree, will turn out & vote heavily for Baldenegro vs. Kirkpatrick.  White Democrats will not be less motivated by Baldenegro than Kirkpatrick.  Independents are the key, and someone whose record is more clearly one of advocacy for people over business can do far better with Independents if she has a motivated grassroots base that outworks the moneyed GOP garbage.  Whether or not that is factual is almost beside the point: we must try defeating money with people, at every opportunity.  We cannot rely on countering money only with money, and Kirkpatrick will not be the beneficiary of grassroots support like Baldenegro will, even with Obama on the ticket.  If you take your own evidence seriously, it shows Obama is not necessarily an asset (although we should agree that McCain got a homestate boost in his total), & Romney will draw the district's Mormons.  Having a Native candidate is IMO probably a better draw than a vanilla conservaDem for boosting Dem turnout.

                My point here isn't to forecast what WILL happen; the point is that we shouldn't presuppose the dominance of money in a race like this because it will become habit.  There's no evidence that a progressive Dem (who is no Graysonesque firebrand) will do any worse than a conservaDem.  That's neither fact nor logic; it's the sort of conventional wisdom that's actually BS.   The only reason conservadems do better historically in these districts is that they attract more campaign money with less effort, so the hierarchy comes down on their side, squashes the less wealthy challenger... and that's not an acceptable way forward in the long run.  Believing that Cook PVI is the final word in all cases simply cuts off possibility.  Dreaming is not counter factual, but is required to forge a new reality that dispenses with old, not-actually-factual facts.

                At this point, why not throw in with the better Democratic candidate, and see how it plays out?  Kirkpatrick needs no help yet.   I am no longer living in AZ & honestly have no idea where Wenona's campaign is--maybe she's insufficiently organized & her ground ops are nowhere near ready--but it just pisses me off to see what passes for useful analysis & strategy dismiss a progressive on grounds that seem flimsy underneath.

                Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

                by Leftcandid on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 12:26:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Independents aren't partisan (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Leftcandid

                  So my assumption was that they aren't trans-partisan, either. And I maintain that support from Republicans - though not necessary to win in that district - will not be forthcoming to any significant degree.

                  I would argue that Wellstone, who I loved, was very much the exception, and I'd point to a whole host of light-spenders, such as candidates who rejected DCCC funding, as counter-examples, plus Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. Wellstone, I'd also suggest, was a very skilled politician, and it takes skill and not just substance to win when you are so far behind in funding. I don't know how skilled Baldenegro is.

                  How do you figure Obama won't be an asset?

                  My point here isn't to forecast what WILL happen; the point is that we shouldn't presuppose the dominance of money in a race like this because it will become habit.  There's no evidence that a progressive Dem (who is no Graysonesque firebrand) will do any worse than a conservaDem.

                  You claim this is bullshit, but you haven't shown your work here. And yes, what we do here is forecast probabilities. That's the point of the Daily Kos Elections subsite.

                  I do appreciate your descriptions of the district, and I do think Baldenegro would have a chance to win, but I remain concerned about what would happen to her in 2014 if she does win in 2012. Democratic constituencies tend to turn out poorly in off-year elections, especially when a Democrat is in the White House. That's true historically, right, with the exception of 1998, in the aftermath of the Clinton impeachment?

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 01:38:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Won't Dems turn out more for someone locally (0+ / 0-)

                    involved, like Baldenegro, in off-years when they're not motivated by a President?  This has been her whole career, unlike Kirkpatrick.  Baldenegro is someone who has already committed to the people in her local communities, which she can probably translate into a commitment to many other communities in AZ 1.

                    If we are to break the trend of Dems not turning out in off-years, shouldn't we be trying to do that by selecting people of integrity, whom money won't be able to slander, rather than selecting people of money, who won't be perceived as having integrity?

                     

                    Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

                    by Leftcandid on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:25:59 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)
                      Won't Dems turn out more for someone locally involved, like Baldenegro, in off-years when they're not motivated by a President?

                      And I think neither do you, probably. But depending on Democratic votes only won't do it in that district.

                      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                      by MichaelNY on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 04:39:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I mentioned the predominant Independents earlier (0+ / 0-)

                        and while I can't prove it, to me it makes sense that people who are independent because they don't trust a party--distinct from those who are independent because they can't be bothered to pay attention--are looking for candidates of integrity who care about the concerns of local communities, and that if they believe they have such a candidate, will show up again & again to ensure they don't lose that person as their representative.

                        Now two elections are exactly alike, but regardless of how the presidential wind is/isn't blowing through one, we must be working to create an environment where demonstrable integrity wins on its own against money. This cannot be set aside for the sake of our own money in the primaries stage, or we're just postponing our own goals needlessly. We create reality through work; if we do the right work, the dynamics change in response. We can't just react to district demos as if they are unalterable truths. We need to shift the politics of the electorate by giving them surprisingly good people to represent them.

                        Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

                        by Leftcandid on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 07:12:28 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site