Skip to main content

View Diary: The case for a Democrat in every race (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Blue dogs... (9+ / 0-)

    While many may dislike blue dogs they are absolutely essential for the Fifty-state strategy to work and for us to win back the House and keep the Senate. You just can't have a progressive candidate in every race who can win you need someone who's a right fit for that district and can connect with voters. While people like Landreiu, Begich, and Tester may seem blue-dogs to the Dems living in that state their probably the most progressive person elected statewide.

    •  Catering to voters is different from catering to $ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Donkey Hotey

      of out-of-district contributors, which is the Blue Dog (and broader establishment) sin that I feel the most strongly about.

      •  You don't understand politics, then (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Donkey Hotey, davybaby

        Liberal Democrats can't win in R+ districts. And if you can think of one exception, there are 100 examples of the rule. It's extremely hard, in any case, for Democrats to win districts that are more than R+6 at most.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 06:00:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actual & potential voters justify candidate lean (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          to the Right on those issues where they need to,

          but many candidates and officeholders lean farther than the voters force them to, and make no effort to register more voters, partly because they think their voters are more Right than they really are (which has been statistically documented), and also because they need money, which flows easily from wealthy contributors to Right-leaners, and is harder for Left-leaners to raise.

          Various strategies are worth pursuing to push back against these syndrome, in districts of every color.

          •  This is true (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Donkey Hotey, nimh

            and data show that members of Congress from both parties think their voters lean further to the right than they actually do.

            However, that's a far cry from saying that in R+ districts, it's more politically viable to run liberal Democrats than Blue Dogs. It's clearly more viable to run Blue Dogs, and even they have a low chance of winning such districts.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 06:35:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Much depends on prioritized time-frame and (0+ / 0-)

              goals, for the reasons mentioned in my other comments.

              •  I'll have to read those (0+ / 0-)

                because these comments don't compute to me. "Prioritized time-frame"?

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 02:57:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  MNY, by "prioritized time-frame", I mean: (0+ / 0-)

                  in addition to the short-term priority of winning the current campaign in the district, one can put equal and or higher priority on longer-term goals, such as:

                  1. laying groundwork for later wins (perhaps by a less Doggy Dem) in the district,

                  2. gradually improving the district's influence on potential wins on statewide candidates and issues, and moving the statewide conversation and Overton Window to the Left,

                  3. avoiding election of the type of Blue Dog who will vote, for example, in support of "slashing" social security, or enabling big banks' abuse of little guys with impunity. These types of votes can do long-term harm to Democratic prospects by confirming the suspicions, held by actual and potential voters in and out of the district, that Democrats are no better or even worse than Republicans in standing up for them.

                  •  Doesn't really make sense to me (0+ / 0-)

                    You take what you can get. In Mississippi, I'd  vote for Thad Cochran against the rabid neo-Confederate primarying him, knowing that though I'd vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election, s/he wouldn't win, but also knowing that a guy like Cochran, who believes in government spending, is to the left of a neo-Confederate maniac. The other part of my calculus is that by no means am I close to certain that even the strongest possible Democratic candidates (who probably won't run) would beat a rabid neo-Confederate in a general election in Mississippi today, especially a midterm election without presidential turnout from black voters.

                    A practical leftist supports any politician who's more left or less right than the alternative. In Mississippi, that means Cochran, and in South Carolina, that means Graham, at least in the Republican primary, and I believe those are open (don't require Republican registration) in both states. I hope some credible Democrat runs in case either of those incumbents are toppled in the primaries, but you take what you can get.

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 07:21:05 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Technically, liberal Dems can't win R+... (0+ / 0-)

          ...until opinions and perceptions change.

    •  It's simple... (7+ / 0-)

      Real life examples:
      Joe Donnelly is a way better senator that Richard Mourdock would have been.

      Nobody thought Donnelly could win. He's pro-labor, pro-ACA in a red-red-purple state and has to hedge to win elections.

      I live in Bloomington, a "liberal oasis" and now have a TPer congressman Todd Young. Blue dog Baron Hill was waaay better.

      What is so hard about this?

      •  The corollary: no Blue Dogs in Baby Blue states (0+ / 0-)

        Exhibit A: Dianne Feinstein X(

        •  Feinstein is far from my favorite (0+ / 0-)

          but though a bit conservative for a California Democrat, she really is not a Blue Dog. The main area in which she is less than progressive is her support for pervasive spying and government secrecy.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 02:59:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I played at a Feinstein campaign event..... (0+ / 0-)

          Must have been 1993 when she ran against Huffington (yes that one) which was fairly tight race. I was playing bass with the band. She was pro-death penalty and I distinctly remember her explaining (paraphrase):
          "I won't get votes from conservative leaning folks in the Central Valley etc. if i'm come out against capital punishment." Her explanation felt and sounded like an apology.... i.e.; "sorry guys, i have to do this".  

          I would have (especially at that time) preferred principled, moral LEADERSHIP.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site