Skip to main content

View Diary: Surprise! Guess who Blanche Lincoln now represents! (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No it is not a good thing. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlexcSinger, kurt, a2nite

    Not if the "Democrat" that gets elected is going to vote like a Republican, certainly on the things that are the most salient and will be the issues that help decide  the next election.

    Not if they're going to provide Republicans with bipartisan cover (which also equals "moderate" in the eyes of way too many) and be used as bipartisan shields.  

    Not if they're going to muddle Democratic messaging by contradicting what Democrats are trying to say.

    Not if they're going to provide a distraction by creating more "Democrats in disarray" stories.

    Not if they're going to stymie or weaken the Democratic agenda or help pass the Republican agenda.  Besides the obvious policy implications, there is also the effect of making the Democrats look weak and ineffective and Republicans look the opposite.

    Not if they're going to be habitually vulnerable and drain party resources away from other races.

    These are all things that can and do have macro-level impacts and drag a party down.  

    Also, with regards to voting for the leadership, you are severely overstating the importance of leadership votes.  In both chambers but especially so in the Senate, everything has to be passed by a floor vote.  Neither the House Speaker nor the Senate Majority Leader can pass things by decree.  Gaining the votes of the ConDems on the leadership doesn't mean jack if they're not going to vote be with us on adopting the rules of debates, filibusters, amendments, and final passage.

    •  Yes the Senate is different (0+ / 0-)

      And I get the point of having to defend a vulnerable candidate in a tough state draining resources.  Muddling the message is a concern too.  But we don't have a multiparty system where the liberal Democrats can maintain a distinct identity, then form a coalition with the conservadems after the election.  The parties themselves are coalitions, there is no way to form a stable governing majority without pols like Lincoln.

      The best way to explain your argument is that Democratic candidates in more liberal states might have a better chance of winning because the base won't think they are wasting their votes on a Republican lite national party.  Which means simply giving up on trying to win in places like Arkansas and focusing on consolidating power in the northeast, west coast, and upper midwest.  That is a good argument, it could yield some dividends.  But I just don't see how having Halter is better than having Lincoln, which is essentially what you and the diarist are saying.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:05:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site