Targetting Dems In 2010

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:30


To begin the process of focusing our anger toward productive corrective action in next year's elections, I've compiled a table with some relevant information about Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment.

In the wake of House passage of the health care bill & the Stupak Amendment, we clearly have our work cut out for us.  Yet, at the same time, we have a tremendous opportunity: a very sizeable number of bad Dems have very publicly identified themselves in a way that average voters can readily grasp.  Whether or not they can be defeated in primaries next year, they can clearly be organized against, and that means that progressive infrastructure can be built in their districts, to increase pressure on them in the future.  And in some cases--where their general election margins are small--independent progressive candidates in the general election can be enough to defeat them.  Newly drawn districts in 2012 will mean that more progressive replacement candidates will  have a much better shot as a result. It's quite clear that we need to do this.  There is really no other way to ensure that House members will show any loyalty whatsoever to those who elected them.  And so here is a preliminary list of those who voted for the Stupak Amendment, along with some pertinent information for gauging who might be the highest priority to concentrate on getting rid of.


[Click to Enlarge in New Window]

Some of these people--such as Stupak himself--have designs on higher office next year.  Making sure that they fail should be a top priority for us.  Narrow general election victories and low Progressive Punch scores indicate vulnerability to general election challenges and disappointed core constituencies, respectively.  Crucial vote scores for this current session are particularly salient in terms of potential for recruiting activists to work against them. Another re-sort according to general election percentages is presented on the flip.  
Paul Rosenberg :: Targetting Dems In 2010

[Click to Enlarge in New Window]

It's not in my nature to argue a single-factor strategy. But it does seem particularly inviting to target the first six Democrats on this list, all of whom won with less than 53% in 2008.  Without Obama at the top of the ticket, a progressive independent need get only a few percentage to ensure a Democratic defeat.  And Kanjorski is the only one of the lot with a Progressive Punch "Crucial Votes" total over 50% for this session--so these are hardly loyal Democrats we're talking about.

Naturally, it's better to defeat them in primaries, and retain their seats with better Democrats in 2010.  But teaching elected Dems a lesson is paramount.  There is simply no point in expending enormous energy to elect officials who will more often then not vote just like Republicans when the chips are down.  And that's just what a Progressive Punch "Crucial Votes" score of less than 50% means.

So, what thoughts do others have about targeting strategies?

[Updated] By special request, here's the table sorted by alphabetically state & district.


[Click to Enlarge in New Window]

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Targetting Dems In 2010 | 182 comments
If this goes all the way through (0.00 / 0)
will the entire health care bill then be contested in the Supreme Court?
On What Grounds? (4.00 / 1)
Unless, of course, the public option is removed.  If it stays in, there's nothing constitutionally different than Medicare.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Just going to request this (4.00 / 5)
I guess we do think alike.

I actually am not sure what I think, except that we should go after some of them.

Generally I've thought that we should select a 5-10 vulnerable representatives nationally, from D districts where they might be replacable by  better reps. We can't go after all 64, and the ones in R districts have no reason to listen to us.

Health care is more my issue than abortion, but the fact that all of these guys were willing to risk health care in order to make their abortion point pisses me off.

My own rep, Peterson, barely has relations with the Democratic Party at all, at least in the three counties I'm in contact with. In my home county we didn't even put out his literature or put up his poster in the window. He the rep from Big Ag, and if he leaves the House he'll make much more as a lobbyist than he does now.

Going into one of the conservative districts specifically on the healthcare issue would be worth a try. The R case against health care reform depends so heavily on misinformation that it might be possible for an active campaign to change people's minds. The teabaggers are salt of the earth types, but their weird intensity is not characteristic of the rest of the salt of the earth.

5-10 Seats Seems Reasonable For A National Effort (4.00 / 6)
Though I wouldn't discourage folks from mounting local efforts anywhere.  That was my initial motivation, to put together a list that would provide a framework for folks deciding on how to organize.  Because if we can take down a number of representatives, we begin to build a countervailing force that goes against Versailles' rightwing tilt.  Trying to go after everyone will only defuse our efforts, and going on pure emotion will likely lead us to waste effort as well. Emotion has it's place, of course.  But it needs to be joined with reason as well.

Health care is more my issue than abortion, but the fact that all of these guys were willing to risk health care in order to make their abortion point pisses me off.

This is precisely the point.  They represent a reactionary wing of the party that essentially tried (and so far has succeeded) to usurp an enormous progressive effort for their own reactionary purposes.  If we don't punish that, we are not just shooting ourselves in the foot.  We are shooting ourselves in the head.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Great idea (4.00 / 3)
Although I think you're aiming a tad on the low side. Deposing 10 of the worst offenders would make a real statement that would have to be listened to. So I would target 20, expecting to get ten of them. This can be done fairly cheaply with guerilla marketing at first, since it's all about attack messages. If it works, get the other ten next cycle and so on.

It seems to me the greatest impediment to people running primaries against these people is the perception the incumbent can't be beaten. Changing that perception might encourage more people to run, by giving them the space to do so.

Abortion may not be your issue, but it is an issue for any woman who isn't rich. Indeed, it's an issue for anyone with any feminist proclivities at all, which includes me. The Stupak amendment is just thinly veiled Healthcare Apartheid. In any case, that's a pretty big segment to start with.

As low-information voters start to realize just how shitty this "reform" bill is going to be, they'll get angry. If we don't take advantage of it, the Thugs surely will. Assuming they are able to do so, which I have doubts about.

"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State" -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

[ Parent ]
I worry about spreading too thin (0.00 / 0)
And having a good candidate is major. I've cast a lifetime's worth of protest votes by now.

Unsuccessful challenges are a small nuisance to those guys. If they get less than about 40% in the primary, they're barely even that.

[ Parent ]
This is a concern (0.00 / 0)
In addition I have noticed that the NetRoots is much more likely to support then punish. So limited focus is very important.
[ Parent ]
The General Election Threashold Is Much Lower (0.00 / 0)
Getting 10% in the general election can be enough to knock someone off, as opposed to 50%+1 in th primary. That's a powerful argument for some strategies, not for others.

But I definitely agree re not spreading ourselves too thin.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
We do think alike, but with so little money.. (0.00 / 0)
I'm more hot about being conned by our own leaders, especially in the House.  So I won't take out my disappointment on Reps who voted their conscience on a bill placed in front of their noses by Hoyer and Pelosi.

But we need lots of money to kick lots of asses. I've a wild but exciting idea to generate national interest in raising money to help decide which asses.

How about an ass-kicking 'auction', where net roots leaders and math wizards prepare a full list of doable Dems that need to go.  Anyone can then donate any amount and have it directed at the Representative/s of their choosing from the list.
If I could give 10 bucks toward the ousting of at least 8 House members on my shit list - assuming they were part of the Master Shit List - I'd donate that in a heartbeat if I thought others might join in the effort.

Good way to get more money out of me too.  'Cause I'm so pissed and there now are so many asses that need kicking..??

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
Paramount? (1.33 / 3)
What is paramount is keeping the right wing at bay.

What I looked for in your analysis, but could not find is that in lean right, and heavy right districts, you aren't just going to replace a blue dog with a corporate republican.

No, you will replace them with a kook and extremist.

For instance, would you replace Michelle Bachmann with a Ben Nelson clone?

I would in a heart beat.

If you are into analysis, you would conclude that what we are dealing with is a lot of emotional thinking in the aftermath of a very tough battle for very controversial legislation.

Let's let the emotions die down and then put these "targeting" lists where they usually end up come election time: in the garbage.

Oh, shut up, Mr. Goodman (4.00 / 7)
You have no idea what we're going to do. We don't even know ourselves. Get back to us in a few days.

The Democrats' repression of all aggression and all emotion is one of the main reasons why they're despised.

I think that we should be alert to the degree to which the possibility of getting health insurance might change the political complexion of the district, bith by energizing non-voters and by resruiting centrists, moderates, and even non-insane Republicans.

The case against the bill is based mostly on misrepresentation, hysteria, and slogans.

[ Parent ]
Paul, if you don't have any trust in progressives making the right decisions... (4.00 / 3)
...what are you doing here, then? Honestly. Warning not to overreach, to chose targets wisely is one thing. But to make wild assumptions about possible foolish mistakes is another. And arguing for letting the BlueDogs simply get away with voting against their party in THE major piece of legislation this term is reaqlly too much! This has nothing to do with emotions, this is the only way to enforce even a bit of party loyalty, as Paul rightly pointed out.

You obviously are satisfied with the status quo. But then you're at the wrong blog. OpenLeft is about progressive3 politcs, not about the same old same old.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
He's not a progressive (4.00 / 3)
he's libertarian. He doesn't care what happens to any of us.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I don 't see the point in fielding more progressive primary (4.00 / 1)
challenges in Strong-R or Lean-R districts.  That's just the "Dede Strategy".  How well did that work out for the Republicans?

I'd rather focus on the Swing or Lean-D districts, or even Strong-D districts, where a progressive primary challenger has a good chance of winning the general election too.

Suit yourself. (4.00 / 8)
But those of us who LIVE in Strong-R districts will do everything we can to find progressive challengers.

I'm with John Emerson. The number of people who don't vote (because they've never been given any reason to) is larger than the margin between winning and losing. If a progressive can be recruited, they can inspire people who haven't voted to vote. It would have to be a real progressive though, not a fake like Obama.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Honest question (4.00 / 1)
When has this strategy worked? I mean, can you point to a case when a solid R district was turned blue because of a progressive candidate? If so, then I'm with you all the way. But I have a strong feeling that it won't work.

I live Buyer's (IN) district, so I would love nothing more than seeing that asshole replaced by a progressive. But I worry that in a solid R district, it's probably not the case that the non-voting population differs so greatly from the voting population. From a statistical point of view, it is very unlikely that the voters in my county are religious wingnuts (and they are) but the non-voters are waiting to be inspired by a strong progressive. I think it's more likely that the non-voters are more apathetic versions of the voters.

[ Parent ]
Montana? (4.00 / 3)
It's all about framing progressive policy not as "liberal" but as populist and for the benefit of the citizenry.
[ Parent ]
Perhaps, (0.00 / 0)
but Senate elections and House elections are a different beast, especially in the upper Midwest where man people will cross party lines to vote for a specific personality. Tester had legit "down-home" cred, without which I doubt he could have won. Plus Tester had the benefit of challenging Burns, who wasn't having the best PR year, to put it lightly.

That said, because the upper Midwest has a history of crossing party lines to vote for a personality, I think this strategy would work up there if we had the right candidate. But having lived up there for 9 years, I can pretty much guarantee you that if people are motivated to cross party lines in an election, it's not because they were motivated by a platform. It's because they are motivated to vote for a candidate they see as honest, who "gets" them, who isn't too tied to special interests, and who has a platform that doesn't piss them off too much. But I'm not at all convinced that Baker's idea would work in most places, and I'd still like an example from a House race.

[ Parent ]
Deeds is the proof. (4.00 / 3)
The number of people who don't vote (because they've never been given any reason to) is larger than the margin between winning and losing.
ANd Sadie is completely correct. And that is the strategy of winning forever. It is the Fifty state strategy as it needs to be targeted to progressives Democrats.

And engaged citizenry, demanding rights and common cause, fighting like populists for things that actually change peoples lives is what will save America.

Deeds proved, as if it needed being proved again, and as has been thoroughly analysed and explained on these pages just since Deeds used the turning right to capture the middle ploy to drive half the democratic party electorate away from the polls. The Obama voters who deeply wanted those lofty calls for power and change to mean something, who don't vote when it means shyte, and didnt vote for Deeds.

Sadie is on target.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Although there are important lessons to be learned from Deeds, (0.00 / 0)
I don't think the one you propose is one of them. There is a difference between turning off reliable progressive voters--which is exactly what Deeds did--and running a campaign that can mobilize a subsection of the population that doesn't typically vote. That is a big, big difference. Showing how to lose reliable votes doesn't give the blueprint for gaining unreliable votes.

For what it's worth, I also disapprove of Deeds' campaign (and values), and also approve of the 50 state strategy. I know it doesn't sound like it, but I do as long as we pick the low-hanging fruit first. But there is a difference between supporting it from an ideological standpoint and thinking that it will have practical dividends in mobilizing non-voters. I'm just saying that I haven't seen evidence that the justification from a practical standpoint is valid.  

[ Parent ]
I don't care. (4.00 / 6)
You fight not because you expect to win but because it needs to be done. If this man has the heart for the fight I am with him.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
As long as (0.00 / 0)
we can stomach the very real possibility that those seats will be by-and-large filled with Republicans, then that's fine. Plenty of fighting Dems have went up against terrible Republicans in red districts and lost.

I suppose it's just a matter of principle. Do you want to be pragmatic or idealistic? I'd like to have both, but that's not going to happen.

Here is what I'd do, considering that I don't believe a progressive would turn a solid R into a D:

Start with the bad Dems in districts that are swing or better. Those are the low-hanging fruit, and we could see the most progress for our money and efforts there. THEN go to these lean/solid R districts with compelling Dem candidates. But unless you have a great candidate--like Tester in MT--then I think we'd be wasting resources.

[ Parent ]
This is the core of the bad frame, the losing strategy and why the house is filled with bribable oatmeal. (4.00 / 3)
Do you want to be pragmatic or idealistic? I'd like to have both, but that's not going to happen.

As above Deeds proves that oatmeal and "pragmatism" (shorthand for being half an assh013), being real, fighting hard, gritting your teeth and telling the truth thats the path to victory.

So long as you have a sliding scale between principled and sellout, the result is going to look like Deeds or Kissle.

We need Democrats to have a sliding scale between wonk and populist. If you are up against a red stare opponent dont go right, go populist. The answer is fighting harder.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
There is a difference (4.00 / 1)
between being pragmatic when figuring out which districts we are likely to win and deciding how to campaign within a district. I think it's a pretty self-explanatory fact that it's easier to replace a shitty D with a progressive in a solid D district than to replace a shitty D with a progressive in a solid R district. All I'm saying is that we should first ensure that we have progressives in solid D districts. If money, time, and effort were limitless, then I absolutely agree with you. But they aren't, and I just want to use those limited resources as wisely as possible.
[ Parent ]
I agree there should be a lot of work paring down the list of who we target (4.00 / 3)
But I am takiung about candidates, and how a candidate thinks about what we need going forward. Pragmatism that dilutes principle doesn't win elections, it looses them.

The Deeds/Baker Rule.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Of course those seats may be filled by Republicans. (4.00 / 6)
I know that already.

But the point is we can afford to lose some of them. The price we pay in shitty legislation to keep the blue dogs is too high. They are dragging down the party and keeping it from honoring its commitments to the American people.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
And I appreciate that. (0.00 / 0)
I am much more willing to buy the argument that bad Dems are worse than Rs than I am willing to buy the argument that this will be a practically viable for winning seats in lean R districts. All I was saying is that we should be realistic about the likely outcome of this strategy, and this comment suggests that you are.
[ Parent ]
Though I will point out (4.00 / 7)
that one of the most under-represented groups when it comes to voting is single women, because face it, what has government done for them? They have the highest poverty, the bleakest prospects. What difference does it make to them if they are being screwed by a Republican or a Conservative Democrat?

I think single women are a sleeping giant.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Not To Mention (4.00 / 2)
When they do vote, they are solidly Democratic. (Duh!)

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
True, (0.00 / 0)
but how do we get them to the polls? I know they didn't turn out in great numbers to vote for either Gore or Kerry, but those two weren't running progressive campaigns. I did some searching on Google to see crosstabs for specific elections, but I couldn't find anything good on single women. I wanted to see if progressive candidates bring them out to the polls in much bigger numbers. But regardless, I'm not sure we could expect enough votes there to turn a solid R to a D. Perhaps a lean R, and certainly a swing district, but I'm not sure about more.

Regardless, though, I think what we need here is election reform more than a progressive candidate. I grew up with a single mom who never voted until she married much later. The reason was that she couldn't take off from work and didn't want to bring a very active kid to stand in line at the polls by herself. But if we had Oregon's mail in ballots, I know she would have voted. I should go see if single women vote in OR more than other left coast states....

[ Parent ]
Saturday voting (4.00 / 2)
This won't help with child care, but our state's early voting includes open polls on Saturdays. My Democratic volunteer support group offers rides to the polls for seniors, and some candidate meetings offer childcare if arranged for in advance. Haven't seen that service being offered on Election Day, so that's a good suggestion.
[ Parent ]
Weekend voting is the standard in most industrialized nations! (4.00 / 2)
I never understood why the US discrimate against working people by insisting on weekday voting. What is the effing idea behind this? Has there ever been a good reason for this?

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
The republicans are very diligent about voter discouragement (4.00 / 3)
They know that low turnout helps them, and they push everything that makes voting difficult. They'd support a poll tax if they thought they could make it happen.

Hans von Spakowsky has made this his life's work, but Chief Justice Rehnquist worked on it before he was put on the court. It's an ongoing, multi-decade project.

Conservatives only talk against democracy quietly among themselves, but a lot of them really believe that we should not have one-man-one-vote or universal suffrage at all. George Will has made this all but explicit. Many of the ex-segregationist states restricted voting quite generally, and many color-blind restrictions are still in place.

Some Democrats have fought against this program, but others have been oblivious and some Democrats have probably cooperated.

I still lose it every time a nice liberal says "Some people are just too stupid to vote", and I often hear this. Restricting voting always and only hurts us.

[ Parent ]
Give them candidates worth voting for. (4.00 / 1)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Donna Edwards (4.00 / 4)
Rep Edwards was a khock-out during the debate yesterday. She made one of the opening requests before the Rules vote, she handled the proceedings from the chair for a portion of the debate in the afternoon, and she was still going strong during the committee debates. Plus, her modern, golden garb blended right into the Speaker's chair.

She spoke for the need for extending healthcare from experience as well!

[ Parent ]
CA-1 in 1990 (4.00 / 2)
The incumbent business Democrat, corrupto Doug Bosco, finally got people in the district fed up.  We ran a semi-viable candidate on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket in the general election.  The P&F candidate got 10% of the vote, enough to throw the heavily Democratic district to Frank Riggs, a Republican.  

In the next election -- 1992 -- progressive Democrat Dan Hamburg beat Riggs, who then took the seat back in the Republican tidal wave of 1994 by 1998 the seat was in the hands of Mike Thompson, a Blue Dog, but one who voted against the war in Iraq, and who is a strong supporter of a robust public option.  

All in all we here in CA-1 are much better off having gotten rid of Bosco, even if it meant suffering through three terms of a Republican.

[ Parent ]
Dammit, Paul - (4.00 / 9)
To begin the process of focusing our anger toward productive corrective action...

You never let us have any fun! Can't we at least slash a few tires and burn a few effigies first before we have to be all focused, productive, and movement-building again?
**Sigh.**

It is the weekend. (4.00 / 7)
I say we slash tires and burn effigies till tomorrow.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Stay out of my way today (4.00 / 4)
Just spilled coffee all over my lap when reading for the umpteenth time this morning some comment about not letting Stupak and the Dem sellout of women stop us from appreciating the real hypothetical benefits in this historic legislation.  
[ Parent ]
Aye aye. (4.00 / 2)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
IANAL (4.00 / 1)
I am not counselling anyone to pour sugar into SUV gas tanks because that would make the engine useless forever. It would be illegal and there much better ways to bring down carbon levels. I appreciate that you may be angry at asshats who sell off whatever isnt tied down for their own goals, but wreack havoc at your peril.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Sure, Slash Away! (4.00 / 5)
After all, I am the king of "walk and chew gum."

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Knowing that the original quote was a bit different, excuse me pls... (0.00 / 0)
...for not walking behind you, Paul!
:D

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
Shouldn't the focus be on primarying those in strong D districts, as a more liberal candidate in a lean R district will likely lose in the general (4.00 / 1)
For those like Periello, the enthusiasm gap among progressives caused by this vote will be enough to take him down in the general and deliver the seat to the Rs.

But Ds from safe districts who voted with Stupak should be the focus of primary challenges now!

Don't vote for laundry! Don't support a conservative D in a strong D district just cause there's a D next to their name.

Go after Kanjorski, Murtha, Cooper, Barrow etc.

We can afford to lose blue dogs. (4.00 / 4)
The destructive effect they have on legislation hurts all Dems.

We can get this country moving again, and start solving problems, but only if they are cut loose. We can't have both progress and blue dogs both, we have to choose.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
But some districts would clearly go Republican if we ditched the Blue Dog (0.00 / 0)
Like Chet Edwards' TX district, for instance. I don't see what's to be gained to getting rid of such members. We should obviously order these from most to least-Dem leaning, and focus energy and resources according to that ranking.
[ Parent ]
That's what I meant (4.00 / 5)
when I said "lose." We can afford to lose some of them. They cost too much to keep.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I see (0.00 / 0)
So long as you don't mean it would make sense to primary people like Edwards and Matheson, which would be a real waste of resources.
[ Parent ]
Personally (4.00 / 2)
I am stalking a challenger to my own piece of shit blue dog. I know who I want. He has held state-wide office before. He is pro-woman and a friend heard he is thinking about running. I want to track him down and tell him I am his heart and soul between now and the next election.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
And, if they do? (4.00 / 4)
What have we lost?  I realize there is 85-kinds of insanity in the GOP at the moment.  But, that doesn't mean that the Anh Cao-s don't exist.  How many card carrying Republicans voted for Obama?  At this point, I'd be fairly satisfied voting for an honestly liberal Republican - I expect a few still exist - as opposed to someone who pretended to be a Democrat because they didn't want to be affiliated with the 85-kinds of crazy.  Heck, I'd probably even campaign on their behalf.  Party affiliation is an insufficient identifier, imo.
[ Parent ]
You would vote for Snow? Who has vowed to defeat and filibuster health reform? (0.00 / 0)
Cao isnt a liberal republican, he is an anomaly, there is no one else like him, and he will be replaced in the next Republican Primary, and a Democrat will win that seat.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Cao is a freak (0.00 / 0)
There won't be many more of him.

There are no liberal Republicans any more and haven't been for years. There are very, very few moderate Republicans; it's down to two in the Senate, and seemingly the Palin wing will go after the ladies in Maine soon.

Nowadays when you say "moderate Republican", it just means conservatives like Voinovich, Lugar, and Hagel who aren't batshit crazy.  

[ Parent ]
Someone who has a PP score of 37% in crucial/lifetime.... (4.00 / 1)
..would be no loss at all. Who needs a Dem who more often than not votes against his own party when push comes to shove? Even some moderate Republicans may beat that record.  

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
We need to study the Deeds/Baker rule. (see above) (4.00 / 1)
The Deeds/Baker Rule is Named after Sadie Baker's comment above and NOTGovernor Deeds.

Deeds is the proof.   (4.00 / 1)

 

The number of people who don't vote (because they've never been given any reason to) is larger than the margin between winning and losing
.
And Sadie is completely correct. And that is the strategy of winning forever. It is the Fifty state strategy as it needs to be targeted to progressives Democrats.

And engaged citizenry, demanding rights and common cause, fighting like populists for things that actually change peoples lives is what will save America.

Deeds proved, as if it needed being proved again, and as has been thoroughly analysed and explained on these pages just since Deeds used the turning right to capture the middle ploy to drive half the democratic party electorate away from the polls.



Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Part of My Reason For Posting This (4.00 / 6)
Is so that we can have this debate in a more informed manner.

Maybe what we want to do is adopt a multi-faceted strategy, with several different logics employed, each targeting the best 1-3 examples.

For example, it's my own POV that some conservadems in GOP-leaning districts are going to lose anyway.  And that the party will spend truckloads of cash trying to prevent that from happening.  That's part of the big picture way in which the party takes time, money & effort from its progressive base & uses it to prop up conservatives. So beating a few of these candidates ourselves is fighting back against the party bosses as well as against the particular members.  So I think it's worth doing.

Now it's highly unlikely that everyone will agree with that, even if I mount the most stupendous array of arguments ever seen.  But it's much more likely that people might support that logic in a small number of the most promising districts, along with their own favored strategy in the districts where that strategy is most likely to succeed.


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I think you are right (4.00 / 7)
and it is all the more reason to make sure it is not our money the party uses to try to save these guys. Let them spend the money of their corporate donors, that's what it's there for.

Meanwhile progressives should only give money to progressives, not to the party at large.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Very VERY well laid out. (4.00 / 2)
If only to prevent the continued pouring of progressive monies into conservadem's campaigns to protect seats that sell us out.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
I don't think we should SPEND time and resources to defeat those in strong R districts (4.00 / 1)
this doesn't mean we should help them or care about them either.  We have limited resources and we need to play to win.  Most of the Democrats in strong R districts are gonna perish at the hands of Republicans anyway, so let them do our dirty work for us.
[ Parent ]
This is only one Factor (4.00 / 1)
An important one, but not the only one.

I have in the past proposed an Ostracism of a Senator and 3 or 4 congresscritters each cycle as a goal. Essentially a two year process where the community discusses a selects targets as a way to pressure our representatives continuously.

I don't think we can spread ourselves to thin and still be effective. I don't think some spreadsheet sort can or should determine our targets.

Having said that let me suggest a target. Colin Peterson.

Minnesota is a caucus state. That plays to our strength. We probably could deny Peterson the endorsement and just possibly entice a primary challenger to emerge (or accept a draft). This could actually get a real general election republican opponent to run against him.

He is and will be one of the biggest roadblocks to progressive legislation because of his seniority.  

Please Let Me Clarify My Purpose Here (4.00 / 3)
I'm not suggesting that any one sort will give us the answer.  My own view is that we should not follow one strategy, but several.  And for each strategy, we should pick the best targets.  So the sort provided here is just one way to look at things--albeit a very promising one.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
"we should not follow one strategy, but several. And for each strategy, we should pick the best targets." (4.00 / 4)
[ Parent ]
It's tricky… (4.00 / 2)
...do we fight for the soul of the existing Dem Party, or move to legitimize a progressive arm that will actually serve everyone better? We seem kinda locked into this Dem/GOP binary. I look at what happened last night (even last Tue) and wonder to what degree the parties even matter. The Election Day numbers in NJ and elsewhere suggest that "independent" voters are on the rise, one explanation being that folks aren't identifying Republican any longer. Hard to know what to do now that the healthcare debate has exposed the centrists on our side.

I must add that I'm surprised at the number of people, even on Open Left, willing to treat abortion rights as if they're not a health issue.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

I trace that to the Obama campaign. (4.00 / 4)
Obama attracted a lot of "creative class" (what we used to call yuppy) young white males who now think they are progressives, because they voted for Obama, but really don't have a deep grounding in progressive history or ideas.  

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Even Worse (4.00 / 1)
Many of them (though certainly not all) actually have a pretty deep misunderstanding.  As if voting for a black guy gave them all the moral authority of Martin Luther King.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Can we really lay this at the campaign's feet? (0.00 / 0)
I mean, when you say "creative class", relatively speaking, my mind says "socially liberal" even though many of those same individuals are quite possibly conservative when it comes to money, entrepreneurial pursuits, private ownership, etc. If the economy hadn't gone bad, they may not have even voted for Obama, so I'm not sure that casting a ballot for him made them view themselves any differently.

The variable in 2008 was that the cat was finally out of the bag on what deregulatory fiscal practices had wrought...a sort of "naked lunch," to borrow from Burroughs. It seems to me that questioning Dem party affiliation moved aboveground well before that, with Ralph Nader, so the organizational question for next year is, where are we?

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
Richard Florida's definition of the "creative class" was incredibly (4.00 / 1)
sloppy sociologically- he used the term so broadly as to be thoroughly meaningless. When you think "creative type" do you think doctors and lawyers? But Richard Florida can get sexier stats if he can include them, so, presto, there they are. The term was designed to allow readers' self-congratulation, not to be intellectually constructive.
[ Parent ]
The chart should point out committee chairs (4.00 / 3)
Maybe people like  Ike Skelton, Bart Gordon and Collin Peterson should be targeted first and left to die in the general election if a primary doesn't work because they are committee chairmen.  Cut the leadership of the Blue Dogs might do more than just focusing on cutting the numbers of Blue Dogs.

John McCain won't insure children
good point (0.00 / 0)
I was ready to ditch Peterson just based on his obstructionism on climate change, anyways. That's a case where it's actually better for us to have a Republican win.
[ Parent ]
There Are Many Ways To Slice This (4.00 / 2)
This is just a first cut, to promote people thinking (a) systematically and (b) in terms of adopting multiple strategies and choosing the best targets for each.

Accordingly, I would say that it makes sense to go after one or two committee chairs--but only the most vulnerable ones where we really have a chance to do some damage.

It can be just as effective, in the long run, to knock of first and second termers, since that sends the message that following those guys is a career dead end.  So it that route is an easier one, then it makes more sense to concentrate more effort there--especially at first.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Trophys of great size are more imposing and create a more teachable momment. (4.00 / 3)
Taking down a committee chair will suggest an appreciation of the power of principled anger. And principled anger is part and parcel of populism. And progressive populism that actually brings about change is what drives and will drive the restoration of democracy.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Not just more better Democrats... (4.00 / 2)
...but more better Democrats even if the price is more worse Republicans.
I'm in. (4.00 / 1)
Let me know what comes of it.

Visit Street Prophets to talk about faith + politics!
The subject line and the comment itself seem at odds. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Meaning: (4.00 / 1)
If something gets organized, let me know, I'll help.

Visit Street Prophets to talk about faith + politics!
[ Parent ]
I don't think abortion should be made a make-or-break issue for the Democratic party (4.00 / 1)
That's what's happened for the Republicans, and it hasn't helped them. Some parts of this country are just much less likely to vote for a candidate that's pro-choice.

But if you take those who voted for Stupak and against the overall bill, and then take the most Dem-leaning of those districts, then you have a near-perfect guide of which districts to target for primaries.

That's because you (4.00 / 8)
don't understand why forced childbirth is wrong.

If you don't get that basic idea, you won't be able to understand anything that follows it. It's kind of like algebra that way.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Feel the same way about gays? (4.00 / 4)
Some things are just right.  Why the hell would I help elect anybody who doesn't respect my right to privacy and health care.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
You certainly shouldn't help elect them (0.00 / 0)
But I don't think it should necessarily be the main criterion in applying to decide who to primary.
[ Parent ]
Why not? (4.00 / 1)
A serious issue affecting over 50% of the population isn't heavy enough to be a make-or-break?
[ Parent ]
well- (0.00 / 0)
Health care affects over 50% of the population. So does climate change. And defense spending. And transportation policy. All of these are heavy issues. My goal is to get a government that's as progressive as possible on all of them. If we drive every pro-life Democrat out of the party, we'll have fewer Democrats, even progressive Democrats, in Congress, and the goal of progressive governance will be harder to accomplish.
[ Parent ]
if the Democrats are going to vote like Republicans (4.00 / 2)
there's no point in keeping them around

to be honest the Stupak amendment has done nothing but cement my loathing for the Democratic party as a whole

this country is fucked, I really wish there was a nation out there generous enough to grant refugee status to Americans, or a third party, or anything at all other than arguing with/against wishy-washy center-right "lesser of two evil" types

[ Parent ]
Have you read Digby's take? (4.00 / 3)
It's an instant classic, called "The Lesson"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com...

An excerpt

Any legislation such as health care reform must therefore be tempered by a liberal sacrifice, something real, a principle that will make them hate themselves and loathe each other for having done it. It cannot be a clean victory, lest they come to believe they can do more. In the end, the "moral" must always be that you cannot go too far left.

The Stupak amendment was designed to do just that

She's right, as usual. Mistrust and loathing are the whole point of the exercise. It's meant to knock the heart out of us. Let's don't give in to it.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I've Got A Diary Coming Up Later Tonight (0.00 / 0)
That quotes from Digby.

I would have thought this would be obvious to everyone.  But, then, I would have thought that I would know better by now.

So it's nice to have someone else to quote who's so on point.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I generally skip Digby because she was a HRC apologist in the primaries (0.00 / 0)
that said, not sure how this makes any of what I said not true, per se
[ Parent ]
Only the (0.00 / 0)
"this country is fucked" part. Which is still true, of course, all I'm saying is we can't surrender. This is the middle of the story, not the end.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I kind of feel like the end happened a while ago (4.00 / 1)
somewhere between Bauccus getting put in charge of this whole fiasco and Anthony Weiner giving up the ghost on single payer (aka the actual solution to this problem)
[ Parent ]
"Some parts of this country are just much less likely to vote for a candidate that's pro-choice." (4.00 / 2)
so just because some areas are less enlightened/educated, we should just abandon women's rights?
[ Parent ]
This Is NOT About Abortion, Per Se (4.00 / 5)
It's about reactionary Dems casually holding hostage a progressive piece of legislation that has taken enormous effort over a period of many, many years.

They were the ones who chose to make this all about abortion.

Not us.

Where was the militant pro-choice demand that all abortion restrictions be dropped as part of health care reform?

Nowhere, that's where.

So let's be real, okay?  Abortion is just the ploy.  Nothing more.  No matter what the troops on the ground may believe.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I mean, I basically agree with this: (0.00 / 0)
It's about reactionary Dems casually holding hostage a progressive piece of legislation that has taken enormous effort over a period of many, many years.

They were the ones who chose to make this all about abortion.

Not us.


But it's also true that a lot of Dems jumped on the amendment at the end when it was already clear it would pass so that they could bolster their pro-life credentials in conservative-ish districts, but also voted for the overall bill. Yeah, that's a bit on the craven side; no, they're not progressive heroes.

But we have to choose who to target, and at the very top of that list should be those who voted against the overall bill, and especially those who voted for the Stupak amendment and against the overall bill. Those are the ones who are doing nothing but undermining progressive values, and undermining the Democratic Party for that matter.

[ Parent ]
That's just what I was thinking (4.00 / 1)
1) John Barrow (GA 12)
2) Artur Davis (AL 7)

Barrow is serving his third term, Davis his fourth.

On reflection, though, I agree that it's not wise to let a spreadsheet drive this decision. These calls about who to challenge should finally be made based on local knowledge of the representative's relationship to his district, and on the quality of the challengers we can recruit.

That said, I agree that the place to start is to look at primary challenges for strong D districts; we should pick out six or eight, and see what potentially strong primary opponents we can identify in those districts. Hopefully, that will leave us with a handful of strong challengers.

I'd focus on primary challenges because I think supporting independents against Democrats in general elections will make us easier to dismiss as latter-day Naders. In the long run, I believe wresting control of the Democratic party from its current masters is a much more promising route to progressive power than working through third-party challenges, so that's the place to start. Any politician we can identify who would make a good independent challenger would also make a good primary challenger, and the primary electorates will be more progressive, which increases the odds of winning. And winning is better than spoiling. Ask Doug Hoffman.

[ Parent ]
To Clarify (4.00 / 3)
When I said, "That's just what I was thinking," I was referring to the last paragraph of the comment: "But if you take those who voted for Stupak and against the overall bill, and then take the most Dem-leaning of those districts, then you have a near-perfect guide of which districts to target for primaries."

I was not agreeing with the comment's title; I favor an abortion-rights litmus test for Democratic candidates and judicial nominees, and I certainly think a candidate should be energetically pro-choice in order to get support from us here at Open Left.

[ Parent ]
Artur Davis (0.00 / 0)
I just read an explanation from Matt Yglesias of why Davis voted the way he did: he's running for governor of Alabama.
[ Parent ]
A signup sheet should be prepared..... (4.00 / 1)
... and publicized here, at Firedoglake, and elsewhere.

I'm in Collin Peterson's district. I can say that I doubt that his abortion vote will hurt him here, but we could go after him on his healthcare vote and his plutocrat connections.

I actually think that primarying Collin would be futile, but you never know until you try.

I don't know how futile it would be (0.00 / 0)
The Dean Barkley vanity party seeing progressive backlash could actually nominate somebody that we could support over Colin.
[ Parent ]
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about (0.00 / 0)
Collin Peterson is one of the most corrupt, loathable members of our caucus.  He has literal spent his life in public service assuring that the government will help the wealthy at the expense of the poor.  Primarying him out would be wonderful.

The difference between him and someone like David Obey, who is actually with us on everything but abortion, is astronomical.  Yet according to this strategy, we should weight one unimportant vote more seriously than careers of significant ones.

[ Parent ]
"With us on everything but" (4.00 / 2)
where have I heard that before?

If there are openings to primary both, why not do it? And how do you know until you start looking?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Who says that? And what do you think the scorecard is for? (4.00 / 2)
Paul clearly says we should use this information, not simply the knowledge about a single vote, to pick some lawmalers who really should be replaced. Of course, gowing against a Dem who voted both for Stupak and the healthcare bill, and has a lifetime record in crucial votes of 80% would be questionable. But look at the table, there are some horrible DINOs in it. And not all are from Rmleaning districts. So, no false excuses for them!

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
I Agree That Obey Has A Long & Good Record (4.00 / 2)
He's probably the #1 shock on this list. But you fundamentally misunderstand my purpose here, since I'm trying to porivide a framework for look at all the major factors we should consider.

Hence the Progressive Punch scores where Obey scores much higher than most on this list.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Joe Baca was also a head scratcher (0.00 / 0)
that said, progressive punch isn't everything...hell HRC had a score in the 90s
[ Parent ]
Yes, And (4.00 / 4)
Clinton would have never pulled this sort of shit.  She's far from perfect, but she's nowhere near this territory.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
I was just using her as an example of someone with a high PP score (0.00 / 0)
who is definitely not a progressive
[ Parent ]
I didn't want to say that. (4.00 / 2)
But I was thinking it.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
The point though, is that there are much more important (0.00 / 0)
issues to create a framework to look at.  This vote is mainly an ideological one.  I don't agree with it, but I think the Netroots should be targeting people who opposed cramdown, cap and trade, etc because these are much more important votes than Stupak.
[ Parent ]
This Is A Beginning (4.00 / 2)
I think you've really stepped in it by how you've expressed yourself. You're still doing it by referring to abortion as "ideological" as if economic matters were not.

But it's not my intention to limit our considerations.  I'm all for targeting people on a variety of issues, and I certainly think we need to pay a whole lot more attention to economic issues.

However, there's also a problem here with the lack of equally high-profile votes.  The more that issues have been suppressed by the party as a whole, the more difficult it is to find high-profile decisive votes, and thus the harder it is to effectively organize.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Importance is in the eye of the beholder, (4.00 / 3)
as the comments here reveal. What makes the Stupak vote so valuable is that it's a high profile vote on an issue that matters to progressives and that can be used to motivate occasional voters to come out to the polls. That makes it a vote that can swing a close election.

If you make this vote the centerpiece of a primary challenge, it's easy to explain why you're doing that, and the explanation helps make the case for your candidacy. Plus, it's a vote that cuts two ways--it's anti-choice, and it also endangers health-care reform.

Most of the Dems who voted this way did so because they were afraid of the anti-choice machine. We need to make them more afraid of alienating progressives than they are of pissing off the American Taliban. Progressive primaries in Lean D or strong D districts are the opportunity to make that happen, and the reasons I cited above make the Stupak vote an ideal hook (although not the only one) to hang a primary effort on.

[ Parent ]
Terrible strategy (2.00 / 4)
Not the targeting DINOs part, but the targeting DINOs over abortion part.  There are so many more important issues than the Stupak amendment.  Stupak may get a lot of attention because it's easy for the average voter to understand, as was pointed out.  However, we are supposed to be beyond that.  I think almost everyone here understand that there are plenty of votes that have more of a practical impact than Stupak.  Why don't we focus on some votes that will actually effect lives instead of petty ideological ones?
The Stupak amendment was wrong twice (4.00 / 4)
Besides the abortion position, they also showboated and put health care at risk.

I personally would primary the anti-healthcare reps, but if someone in a liberal district wanted to primary someone just for Stupak, how could I say anything against that.

Collin Peterson doesn't force that kind of hard thinking. He's 50/50 D/R on the issues.

He's threatened to quit in the past when the leadership annpyed him, and he holds the Democratic Part at arms length.

[ Parent ]
Yes this is the important point. (0.00 / 0)
Besides the abortion position, they also showboated and put health care at risk.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
My life and the lives of my daughter, (4.00 / 11)
nieces, and god-daughters are neither petty nor ideological. They are the only lives we have.

I feel sorry for you if you have no women or girls in your life, because they are delightful, but your personal poverty is no excuse for  betraying the principles of the Democratic Party.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Daughters (4.00 / 3)
When teenagers tell their parents they are pregnant, 3 out of 4 of them claim they are pressured to get an abortion.  While people have mixed feelings about abortion, I think that really cuts to the chase.  When it is your own daughter's livelyhood at stake, you don't want her to throw her young life away with early motherhood.

[ Parent ]
Dan Quayle's Finest Moment (4.00 / 2)
At one point, Dan Quayle said that if his daughter wanted to have an abortion, he would support her.  Not exactly "pressuring her to have an abortion," but pretty clearly sensitive to the notion that she could be throwing her her young life away.

Of course, it was totally hypocritical of him.  But it was still his finest moment.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Pathetic (4.00 / 1)
Can you debate my argument on its merits instead of accusing me of not caring about women because I disagree with you?  I find that very offensive.  

Also I opposed the Stupak amendment, I just don't think it's all that important in the grand scheme of things.  
T

[ Parent ]
How is it not important? (4.00 / 2)
In what sense is a woman's right to choose not an important issue?
[ Parent ]
He hasn't ever been pregnant and poor enough to have someone put a coat hanger into him to try and prevent the pregancy from contiuning. (4.00 / 3)
[ Parent ]
I wish I was ignorant enough to believe (4.00 / 1)
that every time someone thought differently from me, it was because of some personal shortcoming.  However, I think I overcame that somewhere between the age of 5 to 10.
[ Parent ]
You do not have a short coming. (4.00 / 1)
The choice between a penis and and a vagina was not yours to make, and both are wonderful. However, there are things that affect how ones thinks when has one of these that radically determines how you live you life, that are associated with one of those.

I am not sure that having one is the direct determinant, but there is a strong correlation between people with one, and how they treat women. Once you are subject to the rules that owners of one make for owners of the other, you have a completely different view on the world.

Knowing even to your life and safety, sanity and control of how you live your life is not in your hands, but always in the hands of those that own penises changes you.

You may not want to control another woman's life, you have said so, but women don't care what your personal opinion is, because they are still always governed by penis owners, and you let that happen, because it isnt very important.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
You're getting pretty snarky (4.00 / 1)
for someone who's allegedly arguing for tolerance of the other person's opinion.
[ Parent ]
Here is why I don't think it's very important (4.00 / 1)
1.  There never was federal funding for abortion coverage.  I wish there was, but there wasn't.  People keep saying, "what about a poor woman who can't afford an abortion" but this isn't what the issue was about.  The Stupak amendment was about whether people could purchase SEPARATE abortion coverage with their own money.

2.  Few people buy abortion coverage with their own money, because it's a ripoff.  The only service that insurance companies provide us is the ability to absorb risk (consequently, this is why government is the most efficient provider of insurance).  The average abortion costs about $500.  It simply does not make economic sense to get insurance for something when you can absorb the risk.  Most people can.  Those who can't, also can't afford abortion insurance.  Again, I wish we would assist these women, but if we aren't going to, we shouldn't pretend like the problem will be solved by allowing them to purchase abortion coverage with their own money.

3.  I do find it offensive on an ideological level that people do not have the freedom to purchase insurance for a legal medical procedure.  However, the result in practice will be that a few middle class women who can afford abortions will not get ripped off by insurance companies.  Poor women who can't afford abortion will not be effected.  

[ Parent ]
okay, I understand (0.00 / 0)
where you are coming from now whew

but now I am totally confused I thought the amendment says that women have to buy supplemental insurance if they want abortion covered in their plans - it will not be covered under their general health insurance policy.  Are you saying the amendment says they can't buy supplemental insurance for abortions?  Like I said, very confused now...

Also I guess you are assuming $500 is not a big concern for most women with insurance.  I would think when you are living paycheck to paycheck (even if you are still considered "middle class" and have health insurance) it could be a very scary predicament to come up with the money.  I thought we were living in a recession where the middle-class is dwindling and a lot of folks don't have an extra $500 for food, housing, medical procedures - am I wrong to assume the cost of an abortion is a big obstacle for a lot of women?  

I do understand that you don't consider the details of the amendment to really effect women (except those who are wealthy enough to afford to get an abortion on their own)  - therefore its not important.  I might not 100% agree with you, but I understand where you are coming from.  thanks for clarifing.

[ Parent ]
The amendment bars any plans in the exchange (0.00 / 0)
from offering abortion coverage.  Before the amendment, a woman could have purchased supplemental coverage in the exchange, but they would have had to do it with their own money.  

I understand that $500 is real big deal to a lot of middle class families, however they ultimately can manage it.  Insurance on things costing less than $1000 is a relatively new idea and it's essentially a scam.  Companies hoodwink customers into insuring their products and they make a killing off it because the cost of insurance is way more than the value of the insurance to the costumer (Value=Cost of payout X odds of receiving payout).  This is acceptable for something like health insurance because you're protecting yourself from a worst case scenario that you simply can't afford.  With something like abortion, the worst case is something that can be afforded, even if it causes some hardship.  It's not like having $100,000+ medical bills.

[ Parent ]
"I understand that $500 is real big deal to a lot of middle class families, however they ultimately can manage it." (0.00 / 0)
And of course, everyone seeking an abortion has a family income (i.e. multiple sources of revenue) to work with.  Wait, no, that's not at all true.  This reasoning is just awful. "Well, abortions only cost as much as a cheap used car, no big deal."
[ Parent ]
You clearly haven't been reading the discussion (0.00 / 0)
Because I outlined that this isn't an issue of whether abortions are made available to women.  The bill always barred federal funds from going to abortion.  

The only issue in Stupak is whether women should be able to pay for abortion insurance.  I think that they should as a matter of principle... However, as I explained, I think it's generally a bad thing when women buy abortion coverage. It doesn't increase availability of abortion to poor women who can't afford the insurance (without federal funding) and just causes those who can afford abortions to be scammed by insurers into buying coverage they don't need.

[ Parent ]
"scammed into buying coverage they don't need" (4.00 / 1)
And how would that happen, exactly, had Stupak failed?
[ Parent ]
Abortion was allowed in the exchanged pre-Stupak (0.00 / 0)
However, no federal funding could go to abortion coverage, and abortion coverage would have been separated from the rest of the health insurance plan.

Again, because there was no federal funding, abortion coverage would not have been available to poor women anyway.  And because the only value that insurance provides (absorbing risk) is not there for women who can afford abortions, it won't not benefit them.

In theory, the ban is reprehensible... However, I don't think it is that bad of a thing in practice.  It would be if it were limiting access to abortion, but that won't be the case.

[ Parent ]
Stupak limits access to abortion (4.00 / 4)
because private insurers will no longer offer abortion coverage.

If women can't afford abortions, and their insurance won't cover it, they won't get them.

If that's not limiting access i don't know what is.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Again, pre-Stupak abortion funding was banned so (0.00 / 0)
any abortion coverage would have been supplemental.  They would have had to go out of their way to pay for individual abortion coverage (it would not have been part of their whole health insurance package) AND they would have had to pay for it out of their own pocket.  If a poor woman can't afford an abortion, she probably can't afford abortion coverage without any financial assistance.  
[ Parent ]
Um, No. (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Can't argue with that logic (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
See here, too. In addition.
[ Parent ]
No. (0.00 / 0)
Currently most insurance policies include abortion coverage. After Supak they won't.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Under Capps, any abortion coverage purchased in the exchange would (0.00 / 0)
have to be separate from the general insurance policy to assure that no federal funding goes to abortion.
[ Parent ]
It doesn't affect him. (4.00 / 3)
Ergo, not important.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I understand (4.00 / 6)
that you don't think the Stupak amendment is that important to you in the grand scheme of things.

but it obviously would severely impact the health & safety of many, many women.  So I guess my question is how do you back up your claim that in general the amendment isn't that important?

Can you understand that women are sick & tired of hearing that their safety and freedom isn't "that important in the grand scheme of things"?  It is blatantly offensive and quite scary to me, to be on the receiving end of so many people not thinking reproductive freedom is all that important......unless you are thinking the amendment might never get implemented?

otherwise why don't you think that the amendment will have a practical impact?  How will this amendment not effect lives?

[ Parent ]
I suppose I shouldn't say this (4.00 / 1)
Different people have different priorities. Over the years I've met tons of strong pro-choice Democrats who are weak on the other Democratic issues. The people we're talking about today, some of them, are strong on the other issues and not on choice. That's life.

Some people are going to be more militant about the Stupak vote per se than others. I don't think that this should be a litmus test, and so far it never has been despite what the Republicans say.

On the other hand, if someone else wants to primary Stupak voters, that's not my idea but I couldn't say no to it.

[ Parent ]
I guess I don't understand (4.00 / 3)
why it is acceptable to be weak on this issue.  Maybe if you give me another example of an issue that Democrats are weak on that it is acceptable to shrug off?  

I am not sure why it shouldn't be a litmus test.  Not having freedom over ones own body (which of course involves access and economics....ie healthcare!) - seems like a no brainer priority to fix to me.  am I missing something?  

just to be clear, I am quite honestly confused why progressives wouldn't be upset by this amendment.  It would appear to really endanger and harm women's (who are not wealthy) healthcare.......or like I said am I missing something?

[ Parent ]
What did the Netroots do (0.00 / 0)
When half the CBC signed a letter opposing net neutrality?  How about when the progressive caucus went back on it's promise to oppose a bill with a robust public option?  
[ Parent ]
exactly! (4.00 / 2)
those were bullshit moves and so is this!

My opinion is we should be livid over those examples and hold them responsible & livid over the Stupak Amendment.

were you okay with the above two examples?  because this might just be an issue of having disagreeing methods with how to deal with anti-progressive maneuvers by Democrats.  

[ Parent ]
I'm not ok with the other examples (4.00 / 1)
Nor do I oppose primary challenges to deal with DINOs.  I think it's a good idea generally and they can be very effective (see Specter, Arlen).

But at the same time, when deciding where to challenge, we need to look at the whole picture.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't be looking at Stupak because I understand how important it is to a lot of progressives... But there are tons of other issues that deserve but haven't been getting netroots pressure.

[ Parent ]
I'm a bit touchy about this (0.00 / 0)
Like I said, I probably shouldn't have said anything.

I support both kinds of liberalism. But my special issues (anti-war, economic issues, anti-police state) lost continually for about 40 years while cultural issues (women's issues, gay issues, and environmental issues) did pretty well. This was because a lot of centrist Democrats and moderate Republicans were culturally liberal but otherwise conservative.

OK, that's the breaks. But it annoys me when people who've been mostly doing pretty well all that time lose one and act as this was the first time this has ever happened to anyone. Someone like Kaptur is good on my special issues and bad on yours. There are others who are good on your favorite issues and bad on mine. I certainly prefer someone who's good both ways, but I'm not sure, for example, that I'd be willing to trade Kaptur or Obey for a prochoice DLC corporate Democrat, and sometimes that's how it works out.

[ Parent ]
"Someone like Kaptur is good on my special issues and bad on yours." (4.00 / 2)
Reproductive rights are not a yours/ours issue.  They affect everyone.  Some of you are treating this like we're discussing a trans-fat ban or something.
[ Parent ]
My issues are not yours / ours issues either (0.00 / 0)
But plenty of people will support a pro-choice candidate who does not support the issues important to me. I had to deal with that constantly when I was in Oregon and Packwood was Senator. He was really a shitty Senator on everything but choice.

Politics is messy and involves priorities and compromises. Different people compromise in different ways.

[ Parent ]
this really shouldn't be a compromise issue (4.00 / 1)
If Packwood was so all-around awful, he should have been primaried.  I'm tired of people telling me I have to support the Clintons and the Hoyers of the world because they're "closer" to my "side".  Compromising on an issue as important than this is nothing short of all around surrender.  What good is extended health insurance benefits if you can't get a legal, safe abortion?  You're spinning, here.
[ Parent ]
Packwood was a Republican (4.00 / 1)
He was a very effective pro-choice leader so NARAL and NARAL voters supported him. There are a lot of pro-choice Democrats  who are really pretty bad otherwise.

The reason I shouldn't have said all this stuff is that it's a divisive side issue and not immediately relevant to any actual race. Nonetheless, if a pro-choice DLC Dem faces Marcy Kaptur in the primary, something unlikely at this point but still possible, and something that has happened in the past in one form or another, I'd be torn if I had to choose.


[ Parent ]
I answered generally why I didn't think it was important above (0.00 / 0)
However, specific to this post:

- Reproductive freedom isn't in question here.  The question is over the freedom to purchase abortion insurance.

[ Parent ]
Reproductive freedom is in question here. (4.00 / 1)
The Stupak amendment was designed to drive all insurance companies out of covering abortion.

Not as sexy as shooting a doctor or blowing up a clinic maybe, but it will get the job done.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I find your position (4.00 / 3)
incredibly offensive. You think women are disposable, not as important as "your" pet issues.

Don't get snippy with me.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Two suggestions (4.00 / 2)
1) Guerilla candidates, who can move to the district/state, as necessary (well, it may be too late for this, during this election cycle;heck, I think the registration deadline in Illinois already passed;  what are residency requirements like? I have no idea.)

2) A 2-sided 'contract with America', with regional/district differences allowed. (However, it's to be hoped that there is mostly overlap between the contracts for different region/districts, so that it makes sense to refer to the (Democratic or progressive) contract with America). By '2-sided', I mean voters also sign onto the contract (basically an online list), such that if the candidate votes in harmony with the contract, they promise to support them in the next election; but if they break the contract, then the voter promises to vote against them in the next election. This will help avoid embarrassments like the Progressive Bloc accepting donations from people who expect them to insist on a robust public option in healthcare legislation, but then folding when just a small number of them could have forced the issue (or dramatically underscored why the Progressive Bloc needs to get bigger). As it is, what the Progressive Bloc just demonstrated is that they will 'always' fold, and can't be trusted. All this, with nothing in the way of consequences likely. Not a very good way to change their behavior, now, is it?

This 2-sided 'contract with America' can be thought of as a poor man's policy option grouping, in the IVCS system, but with a long-term commitments on the part of the voters.

Some of you don't want to hear this, but these 'contracts' need to be chosen such that the candidate can actually win. I'll let you all figure out what that implies.... (Hint: a commitment to a smaller number of positions, than otherwise.)

A twist on this idea is to let the voters who originally signed these 'contracts with America' to vote on particular bills pending in Congress, to determine whether (in the voters' view) any particular bill is consistent with their 'contract'. Unfortunately, this last may not be a workable idea, as some bills are just enormous, and how many people are actually going to read them? Making this last idea workable may require 'voter guides', who do have relevant expertise and who put in the time to advise about whether or not a particular bill lives up to a contract.

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

Candidate petition deadline was Oct 24 in Illinois n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
That's an example of the way the two parties have gained a monopoly (4.00 / 2)
That kind of law has to be changed. Illinois is a liberal state, but it's a machine state,
[ Parent ]
And the time-honored (?) follow-up (4.00 / 1)
is that signatures may be challenged as to their authenticity. If enough are deemed invalid (and I think it can be as little as a missing middle initial) and are knocked off, your candidacy ends right there.
[ Parent ]
Another suggestion (0.00 / 0)
A good source of guerrilla candidates might be the http://pnhp.org/ . More generally, healthcare activists who have a track record.

E.g., get the two "mad as hell doctors" and a handful of nurses who played a prominent role in fighting for healthcare.  (Obviously, something to work out is whether they can sign onto a contract for at least a (well-defined) strong public option, or whether they will insist on single payer).  

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
Building my own list here: (0.00 / 0)
http://left.wikia.com/wiki/Aff...

If Democrats have a pre-911 mentality, Republicans have a pre-July 4th mentality.
other key factors, too (4.00 / 2)
Paul, as you build your spreadsheets, it might be useful to include those who played particularly egregious roles at crucial times, by leading the "weakening health care" forces...
I'm thinking here of people like Jim Cooper & Mike Ross who seemed happy to become the poster children for the Dem reactionary forces...
Looking seriously at taking out at least one committee head also has appeal.  We should make it clear that going out of your way to weaken core progressive initiatives will cost you, both early & later in your careers...
And we should not forget Marcy Winograd's challenge to Jane Harman, since Marcy took the "better Dem" initiative on an earlier key issue, illegal spying...
Good Idea, But Hard To Quantify, Though (4.00 / 1)
I think the way to handle this would be a notes column.

And I should make the underlying spreadsheet available online.  But this is just the quick-and-dirty beginning.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
We should make another spreadsheet (4.00 / 2)
that quantifies the EXISTING liberal primary challenges that are already underway, irrespective of whether or not the incumbent being challenged voted for the Stupak amendment or against the health care bill.

For example, the aforementioned Jane Harman didn't vote either way, but we should work to elect her primary challenger, Marcy Winograd, anyway.  Especially if she supports single payer (which she does).

My guess is that a lot of liberal primary challenges lose because liberals in the blogosphere don't even hear about them, or if they do hear about them because they don't care or don't really do anything to help them.

[ Parent ]
"Progressive" hard to quantify? (0.00 / 0)
Absolutely, and more so as the biz-as-usual D leadership (and of course, particularly, the DLC, the originators of Orwellian use of the term) cram their neoliberal, pro-war, pro-police-state, expand exec authority, etc agenda down the throats of D loyalists.

What's the "progressive" position on healthcare: maintain (or worse, expand) the current system ruled by insurance and pharma giants, or single-payer?

How about war and occupation -- keep funding it, or bring 'em home?

Unwarranted searches and surveillance; extrajudicial imprisonment; targeted killings (assassination); PATRIOT I and II, the MCA, Gitmo, Basra and their ilk; the "drug war"...keep 'em or shut 'em down?

NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO and their hideous neoliberal spawn -- which side are progressives on: labor and the environment, or Big Capital?

The Bush-Obama bailouts of the banksters, Glass-Steagall, regulating derivatives, auditing the Fed, breaking up the TBTFs, etc: are progressives on the side of, say, Bernie Sanders, or, say, Phil Gramm?

On education -- the Bush-Obama teach-to-the-test, bust-the-unions, privatize, NCLB crap, or REAL reform?

Whose side should progressives support on climate change -- that of James Hansen, Greenpeace, and OL sponsored link Friends of the Earth, or that of Bush-Obama (anti-Kyoto, no caps without Enron-style trading, etc)?                                  

[ Parent ]
National Targets (0.00 / 0)
I support all local districts primarying these guys (and they are almost all guys).  However, if we are to target our resources nationally, the goal should be to actually elect good progressives.  I'd go for a list that is the union between:

1) Voted for Stupak Amendment
2) Voted against the healthcare bill itself
3) Democratic district
4) Vulnerable in previous elections

With #4 optional if too hard to meet all conditions.

Union? (0.00 / 0)
That's a pretty huge union.  Don't you mean intersection?

'Course, I'm a union man, myself. But I realize we have to start modestly, so I'm arguing for the union of several distinct strategies, each of which is based on its own set of intersections.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Do we need a Venn Diagram here? (0.00 / 0)
Looks like the components are building!
[ Parent ]
Intersection (0.00 / 0)
Sorry about that.  I was in a hurry out the door when I typed that; not thinking straight.

But I would first look to see how many people meet all four criteria.  Those should automatically be on the list.  After that I'm less sure how to prioritize, but I think I'd go in the order listed.

[ Parent ]
Agreeing and disagreeing (4.00 / 3)
I'm not sure how to put this, even hesitant to post.  I'm male, married, unreservedly pro-choice.  There are a number of important women in my life.  I think I understand reasonably well why forced childbirth is wrong.

Abortion just isn't one of my "hot-button" issues, the kind that makes me grit my teeth and cry when I lose.  Health care and liberal economics generally is, but so is gay rights.  I understand perfectly the people on here who are infuriated by those who voted for Stupak, even if they are generally reasonably progressive, as some are.

I personally would not support an effort to defeat Marcy Kaptur (to take the most extreme example), or several others over Stupak (certainly not now), but I wouldn't tell anyone else not to either.

Nobody can agree with anyone else 100 percent of the time, nor does anyone have unlimited tolerance for opposing views.  Most of us on here agree about a lot, and can therefore work together a lot.  Sometimes we need to go our separate ways.  Disagreement over abortion, or gay rights, or some other issue, can be a deal-breaker for some, but I don't think disagreement over attitudes towards those we disagree with on single (or small clusters of) issues should lead to vitriolic fights among us.  If there isn't some room for disagreement, even on issues we care passionately about, we will fragment as a movement.

Marcy Kaptur (4.00 / 6)
is Catholic, so her vote is unsurprising though disappointing.

I agree that we probably shouldn't work on Kaptur, as her district (mine) is very Dem and I don't know that I see a primary attempt working or challenging her particularly hard.  She is also stellar on issues like financial reform, was pretty good on health care up until this turn, and is also better than a good number on clean energy.

As for abortion's being a significant issue, it is important for me (an ultimately privileged white, upper-middle-class, straight, private college educated, New York City-raised male) to remind myself and others of the privileged dimensions not just of abortion in general, but this particular rule.  This rule doesn't outlaw abortions, it makes them nigh inaccessible to women without the economic means to get it for themselves (which is how it has ALWAYS been, even when it was illegal).  The ramifications of unintended childbirth are just astronomically different for poor women of color.  Adoption is of course a possibility, but let's not forget that the adoption process does not work out well for a large number of children of color- they are less wanted than white children and even when adopted by white parents face tremendous difficulties in cross-racial homes.  If the child is kept, you are looking at 20+ years of financial, emotional, and physical commitment, which means fewer resources to invest in career advancement and future childrens' welfare.  And by you, I mean the poor woman of color without the privileged access to abortion.

It's about basic equity and civil rights and economic development.  Look at the poverty statistics.  50% (50%!) of female-headed households with children under the age of 5 are in poverty.  Abortion, sexual education, and sexual choice is a keystone issue not just for a particular community, but for everyone, though it obviously affects some more personally than others.  Women's issues have always been, and will always be, significant not only for the half of us that are women- they are crucial to the kind of society we intend to be.

[ Parent ]
Comment deserves a 10 (4.00 / 5)
"Abortion, sexual education, and sexual choice is a keystone issue not just for a particular community, but for everyone, though it obviously affects some more personally than others.  Women's issues have always been, and will always be, significant not only for the half of us that are women- they are crucial to the kind of society we intend to be."

This is why we must reject once and for all those who would use these issues as wedges and ploys (and those who allow themselves to be carried along--for whatever reason), no matter if abortion happens to be one of our personal "hot button" issues or not.  It is only serving to feed the death spiral of the Democratic party by sacrificing some of the most vulnerable of this society.  

A friend of mine calls this zombie politics: Zombie Dems vs. Zombie Reps.  Maybe battered politics...resulting in an ever more battered nation.

[ Parent ]
Well put (4.00 / 1)
While I'm sympathetic to the anger about the betrayal of the pro-choice position, and even, upon reading Chris Bowers' exhortation yesterday to call my Congressperson and spread some bile, which I did ("What next?  If the NRA tries to tie Concealed Carry in public health clinics to support for the Public Option will be obliged to eat that shit too?") I want to make a pitch for strategery as opposed to pure emotion, while understanding those who want to let that emotion burn longer.  (In any case, my Congressperson was Jan Schakowsky who needed no input from me to be outraged, and gave the most impassioned speech against the Stupak amendment.)

But still, I want to try to put this in perspective.  That perspective is possibly influenced by watching much of yesterday's debate on C-Span.  Though I knew, intellectually, that parts of the country were very rightwing, the sheer intensity, nastiness, and stupidity of just about every Republican's arguments still surprised me a little. Gotta stop watching so much MSNBC.  There's a war on and it won't be easy to win.  Even though I know it's true, hard to imagine that none of these jerks face any negative consequences for their odiousness and stupidity.

Several posters have mentioned the 50-state strategy.  No one has mentioned the remark with which Howard Dean launched this strategy - the remark about wanting blue-collar guys with guns on the back of their pickups to vote for Dems on pocketbook issues.  If you want to know where votes for Stupak's amendment came from that's one place to look.  I say this not to oppose the 50-state strategy - I strongly favored it and still do, but we have to understand that it doesn't solve all problems.  I remember well when virtually no Democrats would vote for such a thing.  I also seem to remember that that was when Democrats generally lost on the national level, let alone got anything done on Health Care.

Finally, I have to question the strategery of the pro-choice caucus about this.  Supposedly there was a compromise at hand that was less bad than what passed but the pro-choice caucus would have none of it.  That stand would have made more sense had any of them been willing to oppose the amended bill - but none of them did!  Now, yes, I do understand that reports of this compromise may be Versailles bullshit to get us to form a circular firing squad, and no, I don't know what the compromise was, and it might not have been all that much different, in which case all of this paragraph is null and void.  But assuming they left something on the table of value, that is precisely the kind of price we pay for valuing emotion over strategy.  Argue if you will that that's a reasonable price to pay.  Reasonable people may disagree on that.

It may simply be that at the end of the day, we had a weak hand to play.  Our side in the Congress wanted two things - Health Care Reform and preservation of the Right to Choose, and wasn't willing to sacrifice the first for the second.  The Stupak side was probably less passionate about first and more passionate about opposing the second, and more willing to play hardball.  At the end of the day, they had the votes to back up their position and our side never did.

I would also agree with Jane Hamsher's criticism of the inactivity of NARAL and other pro-choice organizations around this.  This intra-party skirmish has been going on for months.  Did we ever hear anything about it other than that the situation was well in hand except it never really was?  

So yes, I favor strategically coherent efforts to extract whatever penalty we can from the conserva-Dems, as opposed to the "plague on all their houses" approach.  I agree that the "worst of the worst" are those who voted for the amendment and against the bill from Democratically safe districts.  There are limits to our resources.  The GOP Club For Growth model of enforcing party discipline will not work for us.  We don't have the resources they do.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
How About (4.00 / 1)
A list of people who voted for the Amendment and against the Bill?  Those are the real assholes who deserve to be thrown out of office.  Can we get that list posted, too?
See Column 3 (4.00 / 2)
[ Parent ]
My reading skills (4.00 / 2)
Clearly leave much to be desired.  Thanks for the yeoman's work Paul.
[ Parent ]
In July, 57 Dems -- the much-touted "Progressive Block" -- (4.00 / 1)
-- said they would not accept a bill this bad:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/...

Two of them kept their commitment: Dennis Kucinich and Eric Massa. The rest, 55 of them, lied.

(h/t David Swanson)

That was strategy. (0.00 / 0)
IF they would have said they would accept such a bill, Emanuell and the Blue Doigs would have demanded even harsher concessions. And Kucinich and Massa almost made the bill fail, it passed with only two votes plus. I don't have any sympathy for playing such dangerous games out of a "holier than thou" attitude.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
Add Baird (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't call it holier than thou. It's quite possible that they had a deal with Pelosi, just like some of the Blue Dogs. That's how I would have voted in their place.

The Baucus Bill was actually bad enough to vote against on the merits. As far as I know, this one isn't. But the proof's in the pudding.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, and StiVo said, there wasn't much risk... (0.00 / 0)
...they could have switched their votes if necessary. But so could others, and I still think such grandstanding isn't helpful when a vote is this close. As I see it, it would have been much better to let the single payer ammendment come up for a vote. It probably wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell, but it would have allowed ALL progressives to make a point, not only three of them.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
Yikes!! (4.00 / 3)
...way to stand tall. And who has the headlines (not to mention the leverage) now? Centrist Dems. Same-old, same-old...

About finding solid primary challengers: After recently watching the documentary The Life and Times of Harvey Milk again, it struck me that Milk lost several times before being elected a City Supervisor. With that in mind, one reason we may want to get behind good candidates in primaries is because a hard-fought challenge still comes with name recognition, and could jumpstart a political career. If we're thinking long-term, that's not a bad idea.

One other thing to toss out there: I do NOT think the President will sign any bill that puts public health-insurance policy in opposition to the law of the land as expressed by Roe v. Wade. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see it.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
Not Just Harvey Milk (4.00 / 3)
Bernie Sanders started out winning like 1% the first time he ran.  He just kept running, and running, and running, and running.  But he treated each campaign as an educational effort, and in the long run that was the key to everything.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Obama will sign it. (4.00 / 1)
Because girls are icky. Like gays.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Not Just Harvey Milk (4.00 / 1)
Both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan ran and lost before they ran and won.
   
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
       Calvin Coolidge
       30th president of US (1872 - 1933)

Persistence is all.

[ Parent ]
This is wrong, and it is ignorant of the Deeds Baker Rule (0.00 / 0)
There is a difference between turning off reliable progressive voters--which is exactly what Deeds did--and running a campaign that can mobilize a subsection of the population that doesn't typically vote. That is a big, big difference

There is now great evidence from Deeds throwing away a Blue State that the people who came out for real change and not oatmeal that it is exactly what is happening. "progressive voters" aren't people who wear berets pamphlet in their offhours for fun and post on lefty sites, they are the general voter, the rent payer, the worker without unionization. They are more than half of the public, and lots dont vote for oatmeal, no matter which colour its painted.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

Damn - late with a comment again (0.00 / 0)
It always seems that when I write a long post it's on a thread that's about to die, or be replaced by a new thread.  So forgive me for tooting my own horn and posting a link to my tardy comments on the previous thread on the subject.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
I'm an idiot. (0.00 / 0)
I wanted to post this on the OTHER thread, not this one.  D'Oh!

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
Heh! Heh! Heh! (0.00 / 0)
My clever plan is working exactly as I anticipated!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
I hate to rain on the parade here (0.00 / 1)
but shouldn't we have been talking about primary challenges awhile ago?  Obviously, we didn't have the health care votes back then to guide us, but it was obvious even then who could use a good primarying.  And who knows, maybe if we got started earlier it would've influenced the final outcome, ala Sestak vs. Specter.

Now it's November and it's getting too late for primary challenges in a lot of cases.  These things need time to build up support and raise money.  Most primary challenges are not like Ned Lamont's, with a wealthy self-funder tapping in to a latent combustible issue.  In a lot of these bad Democrats' districts, most voters are probably unaware of what their Representatives are doing and of the grievances we have against them.  Which is why we lose.

In general I think Open Left needs to be more proactive and engaged in electoral campaigns.  I know the health care issue and other issues have sucked up a lot of oxygen here but we're missing out on crucial opportunities to shape Congress in our favor for years to come.  For example, the MA Senate Democratic primary is in a month and I haven't heard any real discussion on which candidate is best and the one we should get behind.  This, despite that a Senate seat in MA is probably the best one we could ask for to install a strong liberal who'll fight on our side for decades to come.

Podcast? Here's one (0.00 / 0)
The Boston Chamber of Commerce holds programs in their Government Affairs Forum series. They recently hosted a panel discussion with the four primary candidates. You may download the podcast here.

If you'd like to watch the 46-minute C-Span video, it's here.

[ Parent ]
Targetting Dems In 2010 | 182 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox