Skip to main content

View Diary: What Democratic leadership failure looks like (337 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My goodness (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kos has spun WAY out of orbit recently.

    The messenger will be shot here, but here's the reality no one wants to focus on I guess.

    Who EXACTLY is it that the DNC is supposed to be funnelling money to these days, and for what?

    Entrenched "good" liberals like Bernie Sanders who reised in heavily blue states who have little to no chance of losing their elections? Alan Grayson is going to be richly funded by the DNC with our donations based on his being placed atop the GOP hit list. This has already been well documented.

    On the flip side, you have Democrats seated in heavily red states, and/or lightly blue states with a high risk factor to turn red in 2010 or 2012. Now, we can debate all day long whether the 50 state strategy EVER made sense (of course, questioning Howard Dean on here these days is liking slapping an ice cream cone out of the hands of a five year old, so I won't go there), but we are smoking happy grass if we believe you hold Democratic seats in these states by campaigning on dyed in the wool liberal issues. Not to mention our unbelievably naive notion that somehow primarying these guys/gals with truer progressives in these states will produce wins at the polls in the general. Polling is pretty clear -- these states elect moderate Democrats at best, and most of the time they better walk and quack pretty much like a Republican duck to even get a whiff of a win in the general.

    We went postal when the DNC aired Ben Nelson ads questioning a woman's right to choose. WHY??? Do any of us NOT understand that more than 2 out of 3 Nebraskans oppose abortion, and that Ben Nelson has ALWAYS run on this position? Do any of us have any clue that embracing these positions in HIS state is how you win as a "Democrat" in Nebraska? That running as a true fiscal conservative is how you win a Senate seat in Arkansas, where we've crucified anyone who dares support Blanche Lincoln there?

    Now, AGAIN, we can talk all we want about whether we should even CARE about having Dems seated in Nebraska, Louisiana, Arkansas and North Dakota given these realities. And I'm MORE than willing to listen to that argument. But for pete's sake, can we PLEASE wake up to reality at some point and stop drawing a direct line between how candidates campaign for the Senate in their own states, and how the DNC is doing at their job??!! Especially when it was WE who were HAILING the brilliance of a 50 state strategy in 2008? Are we that clueless?

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: bitching about Blanche Lincoln running to the center on healthcare and moaning about the DNC funding anti-abortion ads for Ben Nelson in Nebraska shows how LITTLE we are focusing on the political realities on here. You AREN'T GETTING a pure progressive in either of those seats ANYTIME SOON, and that's a fact. So, the question boils down to whether you actually want 60 seats or not. If you do, you'd better wake up to the reality that to get there, you'll need some southern and/or plains states before long, and those folks DON"T THINK and SEE THINGS as we do. Running pro-choice, pro-single payer, pro-higher taxes candidates there now is suicidal by any objective measure.

    If you don't care about 60 (and I don't), then CAN WE FINALLY STOP SEEING AND HEARING THE CONSTANT COMPLAINING AND BITCHING ABOUT THE VOTING PATTERNS AND CAMPAIGNS OF THESE CANDIDATES, and start zeroing in on the seats and states where we damn well SHOULD be winning and getting better representation from their Congresscritters?

    New Hampshire residents voted for change in 2008, and overwhelmingly support a public option. Maine voters the same. Ohio voters have trended blue as their state has fallen under the economic bus, and yet both the House and Senate have Republicans speaking for that state as loudly as anyone. There is a useless Republican in Obama-friendly Iowa. There is a stubbornly centrist Dem in Florida, where you could improve that seat with a campaign flush with cash and focus as in 2008. Indiana may be ready to see past the Bayh charade soon.

    That Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut, and Iowa have Senators who refuse to vote for the public option and are steadfastly working against the majority of their constituents' wishes on progressive reform bills of ALL types IS VERY MUCH the ballgame here. It should absolutely be our singular focus to ensure that those seats change hands, whenever they are up, as well as holding on to Obama's old seat in IL, Reid's seat in NV, and the two seats in Colorado. Our daily focus should be on how to turn the Southwest into the next Northeast, mirroring the polling that shows an electorate strongly shifting that way. Toss in unseating McCain in Arizona and Ensign in Nevada if you want to challenge yourself. Here too, these Senators are working in the face of their constituents' wishes, and should be pressured. NOT Arkansas and Nebraska for god's sake.

    Kos, your increasingly frequent rant on Nelson and Lincoln bugs me immensely not because I love either one of them (I can't stand either one), and not because I love the DNC for funding ads in Nebraska to the extent they have. But simply because of how wildly off the mark they are with anything that matters on getting a real progressive agenda secured realistically over the long term, and because we now seem to be prepared to act against the DNC on this basis, which is simply absurd. I'm sure no one will be thinking about this in November, just how more of our efforts could have made a difference.

    By the way, your polling shows ONE thing -- how disinterested WE'VE become in the Party, not the populace as a whole. I'm quite certain if core Democrats were energized behind a theme of working to better represent constituents in NH, Mass, Conn, and especially Maine, who have been essentially hijacked by the Party of NO in the Senate, those trendlines would move up. Instead, we've grown bitter that the DNC and those Senators in GOP states refuse to work AGAINST their constituents' wishes and the means to staying seated in the Senate, and we've directed our anger in that direction?? Ridiculous.

    Please recalibrate your political compass and demonstrate that we even know what we're talking about on here. Right now, our message, and focus, is completely lost in the woods and the wheatfields.

    •  Is such a thing as a GOP state? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Exactly why is it that Republicans refuse to believe there are Blue States but Democrats are resigned to the idea that there are Red states?  Seems to me that if you run on issues that appeal to voters and deliver on the promises you win irrespective of what "colors you fly".

      The shortest distance between two points is never a straight line.

      by noofsh on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 11:56:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There should not be... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but if you've ever traveled to the South or the nation's midsection, or taking a quick glance at even the most basic of polling there, you'd draw the unmistakeable conclusion that somehow someway, there are two distinct Americas.

        Your last sentence is the fallacy in our common way of thinking here. The way WE think is that women have rights, and Roe v Wade is a law that should be protected and followed. In Nebraska, only 1 in 3 voters thinks that way. Nelson runs on that position, and is now trying to deliver on the promise of restraint in supporting government's role in abortion. He is doing exactly what you are saying he should. Yet, we bash him for it, and cry foul when the DNC throws its financial support behind the campaign it takes to get him elected.

        It makes no sense to me, other than it's quite clear many of us on here have no idea what the "rest of the country" actually thinks, and what it took to get the Lincolns, Nelsons and Landrieus elected in the first place. Clearly when they " on issues that appeal to (THEIR) voters, and deliver on the promises..." we have no tolerance or understanding of what is really going on there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site