Keeping Better Democrats

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 14:33


The combination of today's jobs report and the less-than-great polling picture in the House has left me thinking that that large netroots email and blog organizations should consider a serious change in allocation of resources for the 2010 elections.  Instead of raising money almost entirely for challengers, as we did in 2004, 2006 and 2008, perhaps we should focus more on making sure that the incumbent Democrats who are defeated in 2010 are not the Democrats we really like.  A strategy of lose the bad Democrats, but keep the good ones.

Good Democrats in either swing or Republican leaning districts who I would like to protect include Representatives Tom Perriello, Eric Massa (yeah, I know I have ragged on him before), Alan Grayson, and Senator Russ Feingold. Even Democrats like Representatives Brad Miller, Phil Hare, Raul Grijalva, Betty Sutton, Chellie Pingree and Senator Barbara Boxer might face some trouble.  It seems to me that keeping these members of Congress around is a more prudent allocation of resources than taking a chance on candidates who, even if they are lucky enough to take away open and / or blue seats from Republicans, might not end up being all that great once they are in Congress.  We know who the better Democrats already are--isn't it better to keep them than to take chances on new ones?

Now, I'm not saying that we should abandon all offense.  Republican-held blue seats, open seats, and lightning rod seats (the leadership and Michelle Bachmann loud mouth types), can and should be vigorously challenged.  Plus, we should keep hitting primary challenges as hard as possible, in as many seats as possible.  However, it is just that if we lose 20-30 seats in the House, and 4-5 in the Senate, wouldn't it be a lot better if we made certain those seats were overwhelmingly the Democrats we find most annoying, rather than the relatively few members of Congress who both understand our community and are willing to work with it?

If such a strategy was successful, it is possible that we wouldn't even lose that many votes on key issues.  We could also create a storyline where the Democrats who lost were mainly those who let the base down the most.  It won't be easy, and it will take a change in thinking, but shouldn't we be working just as hard to keep the Better Democrats we have as we should to create more Better Democrats?  As long as we keep our champions, then we won't really lose any ground, no matter the partisan seat distribution in 2010.

Update: And Carol Shea-Porter, too.  Who else?

Chris Bowers :: Keeping Better Democrats

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Keeping Better Democrats | 50 comments
Carol Shea Porter (4.00 / 7)
The Re-thug base is really gunning for her.  She should be at the top of our list.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
Agreed (n/t) (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
Good idea, Chris. (0.00 / 0)
I also think Carnahan is Mo (replacing Bond and over Blunt) is an upgrade, although she probably fits soemwhere in between a "better" Dem and "more" Dems.

On the issue of the day, I suspect she would support the PO if she were in the Senate, but fold if Obama pushed her.

What's your view about contributing to Robin Carnahan.  I've already done it, since I'm in her state, but the disappointments lately (and need for money) have led me to reevaluate all possible contributions.

That said, I agree with your post.

[ Parent ]
I like this idea a lot (4.00 / 2)
and would support it with contributions in 2010.

Yes, it does sound defensive to some degree, but regardless of whether we expect to lose or gain seats, I think it makes sense for progressive campaign contributors to transition to a strategy like this now that we have a majority. Reinforcing friends with a good track record is a better way to build influence that the gambles of 2006 and 2008, only some of which did us much good even when we "won."

I think letting the DCCC and others make the tactical decisions on challenges often makes the most sense. With the clear exception that we must throw our full weight behind successful primary challengers we supported, when and if they make it to a general election.

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)

Chris, what about Senate primaries? (0.00 / 0)
I was looking at the 2010 Senate races, and don't see a whole lot of opportunities to make further inroads into the Senate.  However, I was wondering if you've heard any talk about primarying Harry Reid or any other Senate Dems who are acting as obstructionists -- say Blanche Lincoln, or Evan Bayh.  

If I'm going to throw money into any campaign this next cycle, or any time, my number one goal is to push the Senate more to the left.  Do you see any other way to do it?  Reid's numbers are getting really low, that's why I'm wondering about him.  

premature (0.00 / 0)
IMHO, discussions about "protecting" our allies in 2010 are premature.  

The focus should be on getting progressive policies implemented -- and that means being on the offensive against Blue Dogs and the Congressional Oborg who care more about staying in Obama's good graces than advancing progressive priorities.

If Democrats worried about a re-election challenge, they should be worrying about progressive supporters staying home more than they are worried about "centrists" voting for a Republican.   That's how the Christian Right has been so successful -- the threat of their "not showing up" keeps Republicans in line.  

It's never premature to engage in planning... (4.00 / 1)
We can't start talking about resource allocation in late 2010 and expect that discussion to have any real value at that point. It's too late then.

Nor can our congresscritters see anything of substance in us and plan accordingly, at the last minute. The whole point to developing a real strategic mindset about all this now would be precisely to do what you suggest: make it clear what we want/need, what our priorities are and who we're willing to go to bat for if the crap hits the in-room air circulation device. The pseudo-christian right you speak of spent decades developing the infrastructure, including massive candidate development programs, to get where they got. They spent billions as well. None of their people entertain any doubts as to what their benefactors want, or are willing to give to get what they want. They're quite clear about their strategic priorities and back that up with a system of support/punishment.

We can't wage campaigns against the rightist Dems without resources. We can't bolster the people we do have unless we can show we're willing to protect the better ones. Right now, many of the incentives are weighted to those who would sell us out--and not by our choosing. Witness the White House's notion of legislative liaison with progressives. In other words, there's very little competition to please us, but there are lots of incentives for selling out and making excuses later.

They take us for granted and that has to stop.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
Donna Edwards (4.00 / 4)
the people who are upset she beat Al Wynn are still going after her.  It will be in a primary, but she will need our help.
'Tis some good thinking here. (4.00 / 1)
Couldn't agree more. I also agree we can't give up on offense. We seriously need to boot some baddies from office if the movement is to grow towards a more powerful position. But at this point, i'd prefer to target corrupt or right-wing Dems (I'm being redundant!) than Thugs. I think we would all love to see Baucus primaried, for starters.

One minor kvetch on Boxer: I'm increasingly convinced that while she's still in office, she basically has the mindset of one who is retired already. When she's on the tube, it's usually to promote one of her new novels (who knew Senators had that kind of free time on their hands!?), with a few words about policy thrown in for relevance. She's lost her will to fight and she basically advertises it every time she says, "Well, that's the way the Senate works," when excusing the Dem caucus' awful behaviors. I get sick of hearing that from MY Senator. So personally, I wouldn't mind if she wasn't too high up on the priority list. That said, she should still get some credit for her years of good service. (I'm sure this will displease a lot of people and I completely understand. It's just my damned opinion. Heck, ten years ago I wanted her to run for President.)

But I like your thinking. We need to hold onto our gains and expand on those. And since we will always be outspent by the corporate-owned right, we have to be careful in how we allocate resources.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

Sen Chris Dodd most of the time has been a better Democrat (4.00 / 1)
and he seems to be in trouble.

Anyone know Mary Jo Kilroy...how's she doing?  

http://www.actblue.com/page/th...

I just went to the Act Blue page thanking the those who are defending the public option.  There are some names who are there who might be vulnerable.

Lloyd Doggett, Tx
John Yarmuth Ky

Maybe those Blue Dogs who say they will only vote for the public option like Dan Maffei (see if they carry through)

Garamendi replaced Tauscher in CA and he is more liberal than the district has had before.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Tauscher was a DLC hero -- (4.00 / 1)
-- so it was no surprise that Obama appointed her. Nevertheless, Garamendi is a single-payer supporter, and replacing ANY DLCer with a single-payer supporter is a good thing.

In fact, replacing ANY DLCer with ANYONE is a good thing, since it reduces the DLC's power to further corrupt the DP and move it ever rightward.

[ Parent ]
Dodd (0.00 / 0)
He is the first or second most vulnerable incumbent Dem Senator and is facing a gaggle of very well-funded potential Republican opponents. He was instrumental in getting a good HC bill through HELP, and will likely be leading that committee permanently with Sen. Kennedy's passing. After missteps last year and early this year damaged his standing among the Democratic base, he has recovered all of that support thanks largely to his work in the Senate this year.

If the primary aim of this effort is to keep better Dems in Congress (rather than build up less vulnerable Dems' warchests to use for other purposes), then there is no other incumbent Dem Senator more worthy of being on a list like this.

[ Parent ]
Which Democrats to Support? (0.00 / 0)
I'm dusting off my old Howard Dean buttons and getting ready for 2012.
Dean is an opponent of single-payer... (4.00 / 1)
...and has been his entire career. I was appalled when he expropriated Wellstone's "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" bit.
[ Parent ]
No reason to elect Democrats (4.00 / 1)
Obama has create the worst possible enviroment. He has declare that electing Democrats is useless, he will do nothing unless Snowe likes it. So I think we should take it one step farther. Start running ultra progressives (with some hard core social libertian leanings) as Republicans. Call it operation bull moose.
You go right ahead (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
I was joking to prove a point (0.00 / 0)
If Obama refuses to do anything unless get a few republicans the progressive community is wasting its time. We would really and ironically be better off if we never unseated chafee.

That is the problem with refusing to go paritisan, there is no reason to ever elect more democrats.

[ Parent ]
Except the passing of legislation and justices. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Please explain the legislation that passed with a Republican (0.00 / 0)
I'm completely unaware of a single bill that passed on a party line vote so far. In fact Obama has made it clear that he will gut any promise instead of pass legislation with Republicans.
[ Parent ]
I meant without (0.00 / 0)
I meant without republicans sorry.
[ Parent ]
NONO, I am saying I hope that we keep enough democrats in office to pass legislation. (0.00 / 0)
Trying to talk with multiple levels of sarcasm is difficult.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
very good (0.00 / 0)
I hope we get a president that cares about passing important reform at any cost more than looking bipartisan.
[ Parent ]
The Stimulus Package (0.00 / 0)
had  three Republican votes one of whom became a Democrat after the vote.  That was damn near a straight party line vote.
[ Parent ]
Nah, they'd get zero GOP funding. (0.00 / 0)
But running actual progressives against right-wing Democrats from outside the party is a step in the right direction.  If nothing else, it will provide genuine progressives with viable alternatives AND help force the recalcitrant Democrats to the left or run the risk of losing.


[ Parent ]
yes thats why Micahel has been elected so many times, in so many races. And the number of his candidates that have won. (0.00 / 0)
In fact he can count the number of times his electoral brilliance has been effective with every toe on his hand!

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Too early to see (4.00 / 4)
who exactly needs our help. But I'd start out with Grayson and Perriello. I could care less what happens to Eric Massa. I don't think anyone else is in serious danger, but if some of them are shown to be in danger closer to the election absolutely.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
And if we can push new better dems than that too, but populista and CVhjris are right, keeop the ones we have, then new better dems (0.00 / 0)
We need more effective fundraising, more outreach to other progressives, so that we can move to a fifty state strategy ourselves.

But we can easily ignore the people who call for defeating Democrats in the general.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Three legs to the tripod ... (4.00 / 3)
Leg 1: long shot candidates in Republican seats. A little early money each in a number of seats ensures an ongoing campaign, and will certainly yield a few seats in any event due to the incumbent tripping up.

Leg 2: The Dirty Six. Identify "Worst of Breed" Democrats and raise money explicitly to primary them. Dirtiest Anti-Green Democrat. Worst Welfare for Banks Democrat. Worst Anti-Union Democrat. Etc. ... indeed, make it a contest to elect the "worst", and then force the bastards to fight for their seat.

Leg 3. Sheltering our own. Identify those candidates we want to work to keep, again, spread a little money around early to signal that we got their backs, and then keep on top of their campaigns and provide support at strategic times.

I'd like a little more better democrats in this, but stools can have four legs cant they? (4.00 / 2)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
That's leg 1 as well ... (4.00 / 1)
... but we've come close to running the table on swing districts in the House ... the first leg of the tripod is the path that we have the most practice at ... as election day gets closer, we focus more and more on the closer races. Indeed, that's a natural progression.
[ Parent ]
OK -good (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
I would add running left-wing independents as backups for primary challenges. (4.00 / 1)
It's not enough to run primary challenges against the worst of the worst; we have to make it clear that right-wing Democrats are as unwelcome in the halls of power as Republicans.  The farther to the right they tack, the less support they should receive from progressives and more support given to genuine progressive challengers.  Since Obama and the Democratic party have proven they are absolutely no better than Republicans, as was so eloquently pointed out by David Swanson, there's really no longer any excuse for the anybody-but-a-Republican argument since anybody isn't necessarily the right person for the job.


[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 1)
not absolutely across the board, but I've just never seen a concrete example of a time when I think a left-wing independent was a good idea. If he's really progressive, run him in a primary. If he wins, great. If he loses, respect party Democracy.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee
[ Parent ]
This is, of course, why its a progressive coalition ... (0.00 / 0)
... and not a progressive faction. Members of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party can make common cause with progressive independents on progressive candidates, and they go their separate ways on a DINO.

The "Conservative" Movement plays that Inside/Outside game all the time, for a substantial expansion of their political weight inside the party.
 

[ Parent ]
Ordinarily I would agree with you. (0.00 / 0)
However, given that even primaries now often fail to move Democrats leftward enough, we have to have some system in place for general election pressure.  Without it, Democrats have no incentive to represent their constituents.


[ Parent ]
"even primaries now often fail to move Democrats leftward enough" (4.00 / 1)
What the hell are you talking about?  YOu have to be talking about the Presidential primary, and that was as non-ideological as a primary contest could possibly get.  

Actual primary races where there is actual discussion of issues have been shown to push candidates quite effectively.  

[ Parent ]
He is talking about defeating Democrats. (0.00 / 0)
That is all he talks about. That is his agenda.

And I did vote for the left-wing alternative.   (0.00 / 0)
I wrote Kucinich in for president, and Edwards in for vice president.  MY conscience is clear.

Yay he has a clear conscience! I am sure someone cares.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
MD Governor, 1966 (0.00 / 0)
A segregationist won the Democratic primary (Mahoney?) and Spiro Agnew was voted in by liberal Democrats.  A liberal independent might have won the thing.  Within 2 years, Agnew was elected Vice President and then was convicted of bribery.
[ Parent ]
supplements vs replacements? (0.00 / 1)
it seemed in the past few elections that where we were most effective was when we provided money to candidates who would not otherwise have gotten funding from the established Democratic Party sources. "new" dollars.

is Barbara Boxer really going to have trouble raising funds? i have no idea - i mean, i would think the answer is No, but i guess the question is, can she raise enough, and "enough" will be by comparison to whatever the opponent is getting.

what i don't want to end up doing is enabling the D*CCs et al to shift money from actual liberals to Blue Dogs.

i guess this does not apply to other kinds of support - volunteering and such. so it might be useful to focus there.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

Ciro Rodriguez (0.00 / 0)
is another good one.

And I also think we should be spending a lot of resources on Marcy Winograd's primary challenge to Jane Harman, which appears to be the only viable left-wing challenge to a Blue Dog in the House this cycle (we have Sestak-Specter and Romanoff-Bennet in the Senate).

The Crolian Progressive: as great an adventure as ever I heard of...

Grijalva? (0.00 / 0)
I live in his district and I was under the impression he was safe, that he can hold that seat for life if he wants to. I'll send him some funds anyway to thank him for a job well done, but I think resources could be better directed elsewhere.

Am I wrong?

Wasn't he on the Use It or Lose It list for having a campaign surplus last cycle?

Please advise.

He's pretty damn safe (0.00 / 0)
Having virulent racist Joe Sweeney knock off NRCC recruits before they even reach the general makes the GOP just want to give up.  The last time they recruited a serious candidate against Grijalva was 2006, and Sweeney trashed him in the primary before going down in flames in the general.

The Crolian Progressive: as great an adventure as ever I heard of...
[ Parent ]
Its a given but I'll say it anyway (0.00 / 0)
We're keeping Alan Grayson if it kills us.
Loretta Sanchez too (0.00 / 0)
Although she is a blue dog, she has been very progressive on healthcare and supports a public option.  She could be in a tough race against Van Tran.  
Feingold (4.00 / 1)
Losing Feingold would be a tremendous loss to liberal causes.  Even if he loses sheerly out of general disappointment with Democratic lack of action, or some local issue, the right would surely elevate his loss to symbolic status, as the lone Senate dissenter on the Patriot act, and a tireless opponent to the secrecy state.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link (4.00 / 1)
and these weak-link blue dogs are killing us.

I nominate Jim Cooper and Lincoln Davis to be voted off the island.

Montani semper liberi

LOL (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Cooper! (0.00 / 0)
He leads the charge against health care and represents what by Tennessee standards is a liberal district.

Joe Donnelly has been selected by Progressive Punch as the conservative Democrat who strays furthest from his district.  He might be a likely,too.

[ Parent ]
Makes sense (0.00 / 0)
though I think events may outrun this strategy.

My guess is if the economic environment does not change we will struggle to keep the House.  If I am right, the calculus may change significantly.  

If the economic environment does improve (say unemployment below 8) then we may want to play offense.  

We probably know less about the state about the economy 12 months from now than we have at any time in the last 70 years.

That also means we probably know less about the political environment as well.  

Chris Dodd (0.00 / 0)
Disclosure: I worked for his presidential campaign.

From FISA, to banking oversight, to credit card reform, to housing, to producing the only Senate healthcare bill that includes the Public Option, he's been a monster legislator. He's a true liberal and has shown himself open to engaging the progressive online base.

Losing Dodd would be the biggest blow to the Senate, as he is the liberal lion in Kennedy's absence.

My $0.02.

Keeping Better Democrats | 50 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox