Further Strategizing On Targetting Dems In 2010

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 14:30


This is a followup to my earlier diary, "Targetting Dems In 2010", which featured three different sorts of a spreadsheet of Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment.  In this diary, I want to clarify my proposed overall approach, discuss some options within that framework, and encourage discussion of some particular points that need to be further clarified.

First, The Overall Approach:

    (1) My intention here is to develop a methodology for supporting a plurality of strategies for building progressive power and getting rid of bad Democrats. While different people may feel strongly about different aspects of strategy (for example, "don't target Dems in GOP districts, because you can't expect better"), I think it's important to realize that it's impossible to expect everyone to agree on strategy. So we should support a plurality of strategies, looking for the best targets for each strategy.

    (2) My use of spreadsheets is heuristic, not determinative. It's mean to guide our decisionmaking toward the best targets and away from the less promising ones, so that we can better focus our resources. But it's meant to assist us in reasoning consistently, and making reality-based decisions as much as possible. It's not meant to do our thinking for us, or to rule out the role of passion or of intangibles. It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

    (3) I am not wedded to restricting ourselves to those who voted for the Stupak Amendment. It simply represented a very good pool of portential targets to start with. Another such pool would be all those who voted against the final bill (though I certainly do not support targetting progressives like Dennis Kucinich for voting against it becauseit was too weak.)

Second, Additional Factors To Consider:

    (1) Add a category to identify leadership positions, such as committee or subcommittee chair.
    (2) Add a category to indicate length of tenure.
    (3) Add a catetgory to identify those who may be running for higher office.
    (4) Add a category for those who seat is likely to be redistricted in 2012.
    (5) Add categories for specific issue area Progressive Punch scores.
    (6) Add a free-form note column for noting particularly eggregious actions.
    (7) Add free-form note columns for recording on-the-ground attitudes and perceptions.
    (8) Add columns with the filing date, primary date, and filing date for a general election challenge.

Comments are welcome regarding other factors we should track.

Third, Potential Options--With Rationales:

    (1) Focus on those who won with a very small margin, as these are easiest to defeat with an independent progressive candidate in the general election, should a primary effort fall short.
    (2) Focus on those in Dem districts, as a successful primary will almost certainly be elected in the general election.
    (3) Focus on those with leadership positions, as this will strike at the organization heart of the conservadems.
    (4) Focus on those recently elected (such as last 2 cycles), as these will be more easy to defeat.

Comments are welcome regarding other rationales--they need not be single-factor rationales such as those above.

Paul Rosenberg :: Further Strategizing On Targetting Dems In 2010

[Click to Enlarge in New Window]

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Is there any reason not to primary every Democrat? (4.00 / 2)
Not that we'd allocate the same resources to each candidate. But having a progressive in every race will allow progressive Democrats nationwide - and many independent progressives - nationwide to actually cast a vote against the current direction of the Democratic Party.

The GOP works mightily to run candidates in every district. Why shouldn't progressives do the same?

That's not a rhetorical question, by the way - it's just that I'm having a hard time figuring out why we can't at least put another line on the ballot.


This Is About Targetting Naitonal Resources (4.00 / 4)
In my previous diary I already said that I don't mean to discourage local activists from taking action on their own.

Plus, you know, there are some Representatives who are already pretty darn progressive.

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


[ Parent ]
Thanks, and apologies. (4.00 / 2)


[ Parent ]
And of course these ideological purges... (2.00 / 2)
...have been working out so well so far for the Club for Growth.

Except, Of Course (4.00 / 8)
The Teagbaggers represent 20% of the population.  And the Club For Growth represents about 1%.

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

[ Parent ]
Over the last 40 years (4.00 / 8)
the right wing's strategy of taking over the GOP and tolerating deviation from their ideology less and less is winning over and over again in government policy-making.  The "center" is much, much further to the right than it was in the late 1960s.

Part of the reason is that their agenda largely matches the agenda of the ruling class, and we certainly want an anti-ruling-class agenda for the Dems.  But the ruling class is, at most, agnostic about an issue like abortion, and even on that issue the right wing has made enormous progress since Roe was decided.

And of course these ideological purges...
...have been working out so well so far for the Club for Growth.

The rich have gotten much, much, much richer over the last 40 years, while workers' incomes have stagnated at best and union membership has collapsed.  Looks to me like the Club for Growth has been doing just fine for themselves.


[ Parent ]
Yep, look at the bailouts, the weakened health care bill, the lame@ss stimulus, etc... (4.00 / 3)
Looks to me like the Club for Growth has been doing just fine for themselves.

Need I say more? Well, just that all of this happened with a supposedly "Democratic" Congress and much of it with a "Democratic" President.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.


[ Parent ]
So your solution is: (0.00 / 0)
To hand them back all the committee chairs and the control of the agenda that goes with them? I got news for you, start mounting primary challenges from the left to Democrats in right-leaning districts and that's what exactly you'll get, because that's where the seats that give the Democrats their current majority come from -- along with control of the Speaker's office and all the committee gavels that come with it.

I guess it makes a certain kind of sense. You obviously won't get any Democratic defectors on liberal initiatives that never make it to the floor for a vote. :-b

People have short memories.


[ Parent ]
Oh really? ... (4.00 / 2)
Rahm recruited corporate whores and other type lackeys because he knew he could control them .. and they'd be beholden to him .. I'm still waiting for someone to answer what Progressive he recruited(no matter the district)

[ Parent ]
apples and oranges (4.00 / 4)
Club for Growth's goal is to make the Republican party even farther right of the voters on economic issues than they already are. A progressive strategy should be to make Democrats represent all of their constituents rather than wealthy corporate interests. The Club for Growth approach pushes the Repubs to be even more the party of the rich and powerful (if that's even possible.) The progressive approach pushes Dems to be the party of the people. They are not the same.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
It did (4.00 / 5)
Glub for Growth has been remarkably successful.  The world is now changing out from under them and they are no longer helpful to building a new Republican coalition, but don't underestimate their strength through the years.

There will come a time when this strategy is bad for liberal Democrats, but now is not that time.


[ Parent ]
Being Reality-Based (4.00 / 6)
There will come a time when this strategy is bad for liberal Democrats, but now is not that time.

If we stay focused on being reality-based, we won't be pursuing this strategy beyond its usefulness.  The real point should be to get the Democrats out of conservative ass-kissing mode.

Once that's accomplished and they start passing decent legislation, we will be in a whole different ballgame.

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


[ Parent ]
Different (4.00 / 6)
I don't think we're talking about ideological purges, at least I'm not.  I'm talking about political payback.  If a politician knows he or she can take your vote for granted, chances are he or she will.  My thought isn't to attack more conservative Democrats across the board, but rather to, as the Chinese say, "upbraid the monkey by killing the chicken."  In other words make an example of one or more Democrats who have betrayed us on an issue not dangerous for them in their district, but near and dear to their corporate sponsors.  The idea is to make other Democrats take notice, to make it easier to enforce Party discipline on issues we care about.

As for how that's working out for Republicans, did you ever notice how disciplined the Republicans are?  Did you notice that only one House Republican voted for health care reform?  That ALL Republicans in the Senate will likely vote against cloture?

Why do you think that is?


[ Parent ]
Quite Right (4.00 / 2)
I won't deny that there's more behind this in terms of motivating people.  But as far as the logic that will dominate, this is largely the case.

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

[ Parent ]
Club for Growth has had a great deal of success by their lights, but... (4.00 / 2)
It is not a model for us.  They have tremendous financial resources at their beck and call, tightly controlled by a small clique.  

We possess no such advantage.  So any attempt by our side to enforce discipline to some set of principles will have to look and work differently than that.

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


[ Parent ]
Democracy vs. Plutocracy (4.00 / 4)
That's the big picture frame for what's going on here.

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

[ Parent ]
MoveOn (4.00 / 5)
We have our own models that work, though.  For example, this is from a MoveOn letter in my inbox:

Yesterday, we asked MoveOn members how much they'd contribute to a primary challenge against any Democratic senator who helps Republicans block an up-or-down vote on health care reform.

Together, we've pledged an astounding $2 million in less than 24 hours!

And then a couple days later:

$3,578,117!

That's how much progressives pledged this week to fund primary challenges against any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option.

So yes, this is workable.


[ Parent ]
Meh (4.00 / 1)
That's not changing the terms of the fight on the Hill at all, really.  It's just taking one side in the fight (in which both sides are supporting utterly inadequate policies) and helping them win.

Nothing that MoveOn does is remotely unsettling to establishment DC, fundamentally.  They about as scary to them, I'd guess, as NOW or the Sierra Club.  They're part of the system, and the system is corrupt, as well as utterly unwilling to take on entrenched, powerful interests.


[ Parent ]
Missing the point (4.00 / 3)
The point is the Left has access to money, but in a different way.  MoveOn is the best of of the Left in terms of fund raising.

I don't care if the establishment fears them now.  The whole point is to change the rules of the game.  Get MoveOn on board, like they are in the Senate, and real muscle can be applied.  No one will be scared until there are a series of successes.  But with success, the fear will follow.


[ Parent ]
MoveOn will never be feared (4.00 / 1)
because they're not interested in threatening the establishment in an existential way.  There is no chance whatsoever that MoveOn will spend money on mass strikes, or occupying federal buildings, or boycotting elections, or anything else that's designed to disrupt and undermine currently-constituted power.  So currently-constituted power really has nothing to fear from them.

[ Parent ]
I was going to parody you (2.00 / 2)
But realized I could not.  You've become that ridiculous.  I'm beginning to think you are a right-winger trying to cut off talk on effective strategy.  Your line of reasoning is that stupid and unhelpful.

If you have any suggestions one what should be done, feel free to suggest them.  At the moment you sound more like Robert Smith complaining to his mom she bought him the wrong shade of mascara.  Yes, that whiny.


[ Parent ]
Bush Dogs (4.00 / 5)
Can we also get a column for those individuals that were previously identified as Bush Dogs?

I'm looking at you, Dan Lipinski....


Lipinski has the Daley Machine behind him (4.00 / 1)
He will be very hard to remove. Take it from one who spent many frigid weekends trying last election cycle!

=(

Howard Dean in 2016


[ Parent ]
Ditto that (4.00 / 2)
The Chicago Machine presents its own unique set of problems.

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

[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 1)
I got on this thread specifically to say to forget about Lipinski. He seems like a perfect target -- solid Dem district, only got 53% in the last primary, but it really is not a race that can be won in 2010 for the reasons stated above and more. The only way to win that seat will be a multi-year, movement/infrastructure building approach. Which doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but if you are looking for low-hanging fruit, IL-03 is not it.  

[ Parent ]
I would say that a primary challenge (4.00 / 1)
in 2008 is a real good start for building a long term movement. And the arguement just gets stronger with the stupidpak vote. This is a really easy story to tell. Remember, it took Donna Edwards two elections to beat Al Wynn.


[ Parent ]
I know (4.00 / 1)
I don't disagree... I don't think, unfortunately, that any of these people are just going to be "fixed" by a primary challenge. There's a reason that primaries are difficult to win (and Lipinski is harder than others). But you have to start somewhere...

Long term infrastructure building is important in all these cases including Lipinski's. As much as deciding where resources should go for immediate primary results is deciding where long term resources should go.  


[ Parent ]
Henry Cuellar! Didn't he even shmooze with Dubya? (0.00 / 0)
Oh, yeah, he did, I found the cute picture with google:
http://www.democraticundergrou...

Really a DINO, who is of no use for the party. Get rid of him!


[ Parent ]
One of four (0.00 / 0)
Cuellar is one of four Hispanic Democrats from Texas (out of six in all) to vote the Catholic Party line on abortion. Aside from this huge disappointment, all four of these Democrats rate over 90% on Progressive Punch. But if you want to go into South Texas with a campaign against these guys for following the Pope's teachings on abortion ... No sabe nada!

[ Parent ]
90%? But certainly not at crucial votes. (0.00 / 0)
And certainly not from 2001-2008. Sry, I can't check this, progressivepunch.org doesn't run on my Firefox.

[ Parent ]
Cuellar's ProgressivePunch score is 215/435. (0.00 / 0)
215! Yeah, very impressive. That's in BlueDog territory. Nothing progressive about him.

[ Parent ]
A column for names of potential progressive candidates (4.00 / 1)
Add a column in which to name identifiable progressive candidates who can be researched and vetted.

I'd also urge that this strategy be carefully and robustly distinguished from the teabagger's purging strategy.  We cannot maintain a national majority at this time with only progressive democrats elected.  So there is no hope of achieving ideological purity.  But showing that we will work hard against a few of the blue dogs and unprincipled conservative democrats will help stiffen the spine of others who might wish to ward off their own challenges in years to come.  So I agree with not limiting challenges to strongly democratic districts, but also would resist attempting to purge the party of all of its more conservative members.


question (0.00 / 0)
Does the X in the third column mean they voted for or against the final bill?

miasmo.com

Against (0.00 / 0)
You name a category & check off those it applies to.

Right?

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


[ Parent ]
Vs (0.00 / 0)
Thanks to Pesto's comment I now understand that "Vs" signifies "versus." I read it as some kind of abbreviation of "vote" or "votes." My bad. Also, sometimes a check mark signifies yes and an X signifies no.  

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
The column is titled "vs final bill" (4.00 / 1)
so I assume the "X" means that they were against the final bill.

[ Parent ]
Add (4.00 / 1)
A column for either the Obama % or the district's score, e.g. D+5.  Anything with a D+ is a prime target.

I think it is just as importasnt to name progressives to open seats as to target these zeros.  


"District Tilt" (0.00 / 0)
Covers that for now.  It comes from the Progressive Punch website, and didn't take any extra work to include.  But I agree that a more exact measure should replace it.

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

[ Parent ]
The strategic optimum (0.00 / 0)
is to GOTV in 2010, really go all out for the Dems as they are: a holding strategy to limit right wing gains.

In 2012 primaries try to get "better Democrats" so that they can ride Obama coattails.


There will be no coattails (4.00 / 5)
unless the government starts passing legislation that helps regular people.

The blue dogs are standing in the way.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I'm all for limiting GOP gains... (4.00 / 1)
We just need to make sure that all the democrats losing seats are blue dogs.

We can lose a dozen of them in the house and still have a majority.


[ Parent ]
Doesn't work like that (4.00 / 1)
Obama opposed all the 2008 primaries. He doesn't like intra-establishment fights.

Besides, by 2012 it'll be too late. The window for progressive change is closing fast.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
I was willing to take it easy... (4.00 / 2)
But no longer. Between this, OFA undermining the No on 1 campaign in Maine, and efforts already underway to weaken the Senate climate bill, I've had enough. My Nevada Congresscritters are lucky because they've been on good behavior, but all the others who I supported, the ones who've now let me down, can't count on my support any longer! Oh, and same goes for OFA/DNC. Until they deliver on fixing this wretched health care bill, passing a stronger climate bill, and actually do something to advance LGBT equality, I'm done with them.

I will ONLY support Democrats who actually fulfill their promises to us.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.


I'm very angry right now (4.00 / 1)
and so despite not being the smartest thing to do, I almost want to organize phonebanking in 2010 to tell Democratic voters in these districts to NOT vote for their Blue Dog representative. Make them all lose their jobs after selling out the Dem leadership.

But...I really don't want Boehner in charge of the House during Obama's first term. So using primaries would be the best strategy.

Kind of pissed at Rahm Emmanuel right now for recruiting so many of these Blue Dogs.


Please join us. (4.00 / 7)
We've been talking about this at The Blend as well, and I got an idea.

Harvey Milk really got it right when he talked about all of the "us's", the oppressed minorities, consolidating our power by joining together to support each other. I'd like to see us queers join the feminists, the unions, the environmentalists, and all the other progressives who've been thrown under the bus by The White House & the ConservaDems in teaching them a lesson.

We should all get together to:

1. support those House & Senate Democrats that have been good to us and really fighting for us

2. support primary challengers to those ConservaDems that have been obstructing us and weakening our legislation in one way or another

and

3. challenge President Obama & the DNC/OFA to either start fulfilling the promises they made us or risk losing our campaign cash and volunteer time when 2012 approaches.


Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.


[ Parent ]
If the web had existed in 1984 (4.00 / 1)
my guess is that the core activists in Jesse Jackson's campaign and the Rainbow Coalition would have written this comment.

[ Parent ]
Defeating A Few Blue Dogs In The General (4.00 / 4)
could be very effective, with relatively minimal risk.

I wouldn't put all our eggs in that basket. But I would put a few.

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


[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
It would be much cheaper to get rid of Bright and parker by running an independent in the general in their district and get the word out to the (likely small) liberal democrat community there. Start with Alabama st. and troy st. in Brights district. These guys are likely to go down anyway, if we run a liberal as an independent, the DCCC might be leary to throw away money on obvious losers- could help reinforce the message.


[ Parent ]
Intersection (4.00 / 3)
Here is my first pass, those I'd think everyone should agree on.  I ignored the strength of the candidate in previous elections.

Voted for Stupak Amendment, against health care, Dem district:
Davis, Artur
Barrow, John

Voted for Stupak Amendment, against health care, Swing district:
Chandler, Ben
Altmire, Jason
Tanner, John

Those are the five I think should automatically be on the list.


So there you have it, Barrow needs a primary challenge... (0.00 / 0)
And we need to find a progressive to replace Davis when he runs for AL-Gov. We'll need to do more analysis on and ask the locals about Chandler's, Altmire's, and Tanner's respective districts before we make final decisions on those races.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
Also, support Davis's primary opponent (4.00 / 2)
Right now, his only opponent is Ron Sparks. I don't know much about Sparks, but he did call on Davis to support the health care bill and the public option.  

[ Parent ]
Hmm. (4.00 / 1)
Except maybe we want him to win for governor...

No strong progressive is going to become governor of Alabama, after all. And, would he retain his House seat if he lost? Because if so, then we'd definitely want to move on and become Governor, and get a real progressive into the House, no?


[ Parent ]
I think the message is more important than the seat (4.00 / 1)
The message, "Cross us and we will kneecap you" will have a stronger and better effect on the votes and behavior of other congressmen than "Cross us and you will be elected to higher office and maybe replaced in Congress by someone better" does.

[ Parent ]
Swing State Project (0.00 / 0)
wrote a glowing review of Ron Sparks back in 2007.  He sounds really good for an Alabaman.

In any case it's hard to be worse than Artur Davis, a DLC honcho.


[ Parent ]
I think progressives should aim all of their firepower at (4.00 / 2)
Stupak. If it wasn't for him throwing a tantrum, this amendment may never have reached the floor. Take him down and scare the problem blue dogs into line.

It looks like he may run for MI-Gov... (4.00 / 1)
We need to see if there's a progressive in that race and support him/her. Looking at how Stupak managed to make an already lame bill into a downright horrid bill, he doesn't deserve any kind of promotion. I know outgoing Gov. Granholm is pro-choice herself, so I certainly hope she doesn't throw her support his way.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
I would like to see a poll of his district (0.00 / 0)
He won handily last time, so he's not low-hanging fruit, but if his amendment weakens his support, I say go for it and throw him an anvil.


When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850


[ Parent ]
His district is R+3 (0.00 / 0)
I don't know how liberal a Representative we can get out of that.

[ Parent ]
Stupak Amendment versus Healthcare Bill (4.00 / 2)
As a side note, one reason I like focusing on the Stupak Amendment instead of the healthcare bill is we know the vote on choice mattered.  There are a lot of cowards in congress that wanted health care to pass but did not want to vote for it personally.  My guess is the bill had a larger margin of error than the final vote showed.

Now, getting rid of these cowards isn't such a bad idea, just not as clear as dropping those actively hurting our party and ideals.


Don't underestimate the Blue Dogs (4.00 / 2)
Not that they're geniuses.  But Arlen Spectors -- utterly principle-less hacks who will support essentially any position whatsoever, or change positions over and over again, in order to cadge a single extra vote -- are rare.

I think these folks are against us...because they're against us.  They basically like the status quo; they consciously favor the ruling class over us; and they're deliberately misogynists.  

All of which means that I don't think many of them can be scared into siding with us.  Lieberman hasn't betrayed his deeply-held, reprehensible beliefs because he lost a primary to Lamont.  And if he'd lost his Senate seat, he'd just be making a fortune on the speaking circuit, or be a highly-paid lobbyist on the Hill.

I think most of the Blue Dogs will be pissed if we successfully primary a friend or two of theirs, but it won't change their beliefs, or behavior, or votes.  And if they lose, they'll just get private-sector jobs with the interests they've been working for all along.

Primarying them could improve maybe 2 or 3 seats in the House, and would supply us with lots of schadenfreude.  But I think it's a very small part of any plan to make American politics even remotely useful to the vast majority of people in the country.


Intimidation Is The First Step (4.00 / 5)
The aim is less to change votes than to prevent them from happening in the first place. That was the deal with Stupak Amendment--we wanted to stop it.

If we alter the cost-benefit ratio, we will shift the political center of gravity in our direction.  This is not a magic bullet.  It's just one part of an overall strategy. But it's a vital part.

At the same time, developing candidates of our own is part of a much longer-term strategy. So this is inherently a multi-pronged strategy we're talking about.

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


[ Parent ]
To the extent that you reduce the numbers of Blue Dogs by one or 2 (0.00 / 0)
I understand that you could marginally reduce the chances of a Stupak Amendment in the future.  He might have 1 or 2 fewer votes to play with.

But I don't see how, say, defeating Jason Altmire would deter Stupak at all.  Did Lamont's victory deter anyone?  Okay, Lieberman ended up winning the general (with the support of pretty much the entirety of the establishment Democratic Party behind him, against their Party's own candidate!).  But Donna Edwards actually won.  Did her victory over a terrible, corrupt, un-progressive incumbent scare anyone?  deter anyone?

We can pick off the halt, the lame, and the old.  But I think the Blue Dog herd is going to keep galloping in the same direction regardless.

As for developing candidates...I'm of two minds.  Yes, I want more lefties elected to DC.  On the other hand, I frankly think that even the best people pay a substantial price for becoming part of establishment DC.  It is very hard to be a functioning part of an institution and, at the same time, try to dismantle that institution.  That is, "our own candidates" will cease to be our own the longer they spend on the Hill.


[ Parent ]
Just Go Commit Suicide, Already (4.00 / 5)
Since everything is so pointless and bleak.

Me, I'm going to keep on being inspired by the likes of Denmark Vessey, Gabriel Prosser and Nat Turner.  Now they faced a situation that seriously was bleak.  But they acted anyway.  And they changed the world.

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


[ Parent ]
Hey Paul, you ran this up the flagpole (0.00 / 0)
Do you just expect everyone here to salute?  Or do you want people to critique what you're proposing?

Make an argument in favor of your proposal and against my criticism, if you can.

Comparing a plan to win a couple of primaries against the worst of the Dems to leading an armed slave rebellion is utterly nuts.  If you think the situation now is as desperate as the one facing Vessey, Prosser, or Turner, why not propose an armed rebellion?

Lastly, suggesting that other Open Left members kill themselves seems like a pretty disgusting thing for anyone to do, especially a front-pager.  Get a fucking grip.


[ Parent ]
Reasonable critique, pls. (4.00 / 2)
That progressives should only be able to unseat 1 or 2 Blue Dogs is ridiciulous. Much more of them are in blue districts, where they are vulnerable.

[ Parent ]
Assertion Is Not Argument (0.00 / 0)
As Yogi Berra said, "You could look it up."

See Gray, above.

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


[ Parent ]
FIne, as long as you accept that standard, too (4.00 / 1)
The vote yesterday infuriated a lot of us, and it would be really satisfying to make the assholes who supported the Stupak Amendment, and have taken similarly shitty positions on a host of other bills, suffer at the ballot box.

Especially if doing so meant that we ended up with Congresscritters we liked more.

But as long as you've brought up "assertion is not argument"...

1) How big an impact do you think successful primary challenges would make?  You said above:

If we alter the cost-benefit ratio, we will shift the political center of gravity in our direction.  This is not a magic bullet.  It's just one part of an overall strategy. But it's a vital part.

which is fine, but covers a whole lot of gray area.  I agreed above that it could alter the math of the House, which could shrink the size of the 5th Column, so to speak.  I questioned your (unproven) assertion that it would deter future shenanigans by asking what positive, deterrent effect the Lamont campaign had had on Lieberman (or anyone else), or the Edwards/Wynn race on Stupak or his ilk.

You replied by asking me, "Why don't you kill yourself already?"

Which isn't really evidence supporting your assertion.  

2) What kind of resources are we talking about here, and what are the probabilities of success?  This is basically the issue of limited resources and time.  According to wikipedia, Wynn was the only House Dem to lose a primary challenge in 2008.  In 2006, Cynthia McKinney was the only one.  It looks like 2 TX incumbents lost primaries in 2004, though that was affected by the gerrymandering engineered by Tom Delay which pitted incumbents against each other.  In 2002, it looks like the 3 Dem incumbents who lost primaries were Earl Hilliard, who lost to Arthur Davis; Gary Condit, who was in an unusually vulnerable position, and Cynthia McKinney in her first go-round.

Now, maybe no one's even plucking the low-hanging fruit, but it's very, very rare for incumbents to lose primaries.  It's been more common in the GOP lately, it seems, but they have a very, very mature ideological movement with enormous amounts of power -- rightwing activists started their intraparty purges back in the mid-60s.

Now, obviously you can't put out a budget or anything. I'm asking you to give some sense of the scale of the effort here, to give your sense of the prospects of electoral success (2 primary wins?  5?) and your reasons for picking that estimate, and then to justify your assertion that those wins would have some kind of ripple effect in the House.

My personal sense is that you'd very quickly get to a point of fast-diminishing returns on this kind of strategy -- spending vast amounts of money, throwing lots of talent into the effort, and ending up with not a whole lot to show for it.

But if you want to offer evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.


[ Parent ]
It Worked For The Right, It Can Work For Us (4.00 / 1)
The whole point of my approach is to try a variety of strategies, all within a larger framework that mimics rightwing success over the past three decades. And it's not limited to primaries, as it specifically includes running independent progressives in the general electin as well.

The fact that initial efforts have not produced dramatic results proves nothing, except that you lack any sort of long-term perspective. Of course it will be harder for us, since we're fighting against elite power, but that's true no matter what type of activism we chose.

Furthermore, you simply ignore the educational and infrastructure-building aspects of this plan.  As I've pointed out previously, Bernie Sanders won a whopping 1% the first time he ran.  Definitely not cost effective by your standards.  What an idiot!

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


[ Parent ]
None of those primaries had a national apparatus (0.00 / 0)
Of course you'll mostly lose if your budget is on a shoestring and you can't get huge amounts of media. Of course you have to rely on weak incumbents. But that was without a national apparatus, sending staff, money and voter lists the way of good candidates.

Now maybe there is a limiting factor. Certainly there are cost issues. But past experience isn't especially relevant here, as what's being proposed is not like anything done before.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Great point (0.00 / 0)
One of the reasons primary challenges are so often unsuccessful is because nobody, the liberals who should be behind them especially, takes them seriously.  They're underfunded, undersupported and represent a scattershot rather than coordinated and dedicated effort.  If we actually get our act together and play to win, we might just do that.

[ Parent ]
Answers (0.00 / 0)
1) The impact will at least be felt in that race.  We're seeing how much of a difference a primary challenge can make on an incumbent's behavior in the case of Arlen Specter.  If we can win and elect a Better Democrat I think it's worth it irrespective of its influence on other races, no question.

I do think that once primary challenges start succeeding more often, it'll encourage others to make their own runs, and lead to a snowball effect.  Conversely, repeated failures will discourage others from challenging conservative incumbents.

2) I do think we need to divvy up our limited resources VERY carefully.  There are three categories of bad Democrats to primary:

- Democrats in strongly Republican districts: These will be heavily targeted by Republicans.  I say we contribute to these Democrats' defeat simply by not providing any kind of support.  I don't think we need to waste time or money to help them be defeated; let the Republicans take care of them for us.

- Democrats in swing or slightly Democratic districts: We can run primary challenges or liberal minor party challenges here, but I think these should be lower priority.  We should probably only target the most egregious of these Democrats.

- Democrats in strongly Democratic districts: This is where we should be devoting the vast bulk of our time, energy and money.  Just shaking up the system or giving the incumbent a good scare isn't good enough - we HAVE to win.


[ Parent ]
That is, "our own candidates" will cease to be our own the longer they spend on the Hill. (4.00 / 1)
...Bernie Sanders?

[ Parent ]
Dennis Kucinich? (0.00 / 0)
Or Ron Dellums, before he retired, or his replacement, Barbara Lee?  Or Pete Stark, from the district next door?

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

[ Parent ]
Actually, it's been argued that (0.00 / 0)
Lamont's victory over Lieberman transformed the entire Democratic Party's way of thinking over the politics of Iraq.  Before Lamont's win, there was already rumbling of discontent among the Democratic base and the general populace over Iraq, but Lieberman's defeat was the first concrete demonstration that incumbents could end up losing their jobs over this.  Afterwards most Democrats became outspokenly anti-war.

In any case, I think that while you're probably right that the "deterrence" effect of primary challenges is limited, even you would agree that they're still worth it.


[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
Edwards won in an overwhelmingly Democratic district, so Blue Dogs, most of which come from swing or conservative districts, aren't going to care.  If we take out someone from a swing or conservative district they'll probably pay more attention.

[ Parent ]
You are right ... (0.00 / 0)
we got rid of Al Wynn ... and that didn't change too much in the end .. at least not yet

[ Parent ]
outside of Artur Davis (4.00 / 1)
Did anyone in the CBC vote against us on this? It's hard to prove anything, but I recall Ed Towns being the target of progressives in 2008. Wasn't he part of the progressive block?

Ivan


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure .. (0.00 / 0)
if Towns was part of the progressive block .. but I believe Davis is the only CBC member to vote against it

[ Parent ]
so maybe it did have an effect (0.00 / 0)
it just was limited to the CBC?

hard to know.


[ Parent ]
voting with their party when votes were decided by a margin of 5% or less (4.00 / 1)
I think this is really all that matters.  the reality is the GOP have amazingly managed to transform their party into one that acts and looks much like a party in a parliamentary system.  Our party still acts like one in a presidentialist, first past the post style system (which is what we have, so that's not surprising).  Pitting a parliamentary style party with their discipline and top-down messaging against a presidentialist one is like the proverbial bringing a knife to a gun fight.  give me a parliamentary party with a minority representation any day and watch as they cause all sorts of trouble to the majority party.  the GOP has essentially mutated and this mutation is giving them a disproportionate amount of power in our political system right now.  

in 2010 we need disciplined members.  we get that either by electing members who are willing to be part of a parliamentary style party or through various carrots and sticks getting members to reluctantly decide to fall in line.  

simply put, we find all the liebermans in the senate and house and we support primaries against them.  All of them- nobody gets a pass and we aren't going to "make an example" of just a few.  the only way to do that is to look at close votes and decide who fell in line and who didn't.  apart from Lieberman, its nothing personal against these members.  they may have their reasons.  but the democratic party must evolve as the GOP has or it will always be fighting with one hand behind its back.  


And what happens when the Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)
including the President, come out in support of all the people we're primarying -- even after they've lost the primary?

[ Parent ]
We Say, "Gee, We're Sure Glad We Learned Our Lesson, And Stopped Giving Them Our Money!" (4.00 / 2)
This is a fight for the long haul, in case you didn't notice.

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

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I understand what that means (0.00 / 0)
Do you mean that you drop out of the Party altogether?  If so, why not do that now, given the history with Lamont-Lieberman and what's happened on the Hill this year?

If not, then what does it mean, exactly?  What's the next move if the Party mobilizes to squash the challenge, if it's not leaving the Party?  


[ Parent ]
That won't happen ... (4.00 / 2)
because I believe most states don't allow you to do what Holy Joe did in 2006 .. and if there are states other than CT .. please let me know ... and besides ... Holy Joe was the Republican candidate in 2006 GE

[ Parent ]
The sore-loser thing was unusual (0.00 / 0)
but the dynamic of the Party establishment supporting the incumbent won't be.  They will throw resources into defending them, which makes primarying the Blue Dogs much less likely to succeed.

That's one reason why it's easier to take over a party that's out of power.  The one that's in power has a lot more inertia.


[ Parent ]
they don't have unlimited resources (4.00 / 1)
They will also have to pick and choose their battles. To save money for the general, they might have to tell some incumbents to fend for themselves.


[ Parent ]
Also (4.00 / 4)
Lieberman won in CT because the Republican candidate wasn't a serious candidate, just a sacrificial lamb.  In districts where there is a stronger Republican candidate, we can punish our selected Blue Dog by forcing a Republican win.

My own choice would be a highly visible anti-Obama Blue Dog like Dan Boren.  


[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
Due to Oklahoma history and the teabaggers, I'd like to see a Socialist cause Dan Boren to lose his seat.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
that's inevitable, but shouldn't dissuade us (0.00 / 0)
the president's interests do not 100% correlate with a progressive agenda.  his focus right now is being reelected in 2012 and its still up in the air right now what his strategy will be to get reelected.  i have no idea what is actually happening in the back and forth between axelrod, jarret, rahm and obama, but i imagine the internal debate is whether to run to the middle (ala CLinton in 1996) or run on results (which means he would essentially need to tack to the left to enact progressive legislation and stare down the centrists who opposed him).  

but all that's sort of irrelevant to 2010.  we need a disciplined party.  ideology is really an afterthought here, since as a whole the party membership is more liberal than conservative.  i don't care if a member is extremely progressive on a few things and then bucks the party here and there to grab headlines, extort pork, etc.  we simply can't afford it and those people need to be primaried.  again, its nothing personal- i don't dislike or hate those members who do so.  they are just playing by a set of rules that no longer applies.  they are dinosaurs in the sense that they have failed to adapt- the game has changed, but they haven't.  our goal should be to modernise the party to make it more effective.  of course a concurrent discussion should be going on regarding who should be the party leadership/committee chairs but i don't think the netroots really has a seat at the table on those sorts of decisions.  

the GOP has done this already and I think one of the byproducts of our strategy will be to shine a light on this.  the most important development which the media has missed is not that the parties are polarizing around their left-right ideologies.  that's missing the point.  Instead, the GOP has become a parliamentary party with iron-clad discipline of its members.  that gives it power disproportionate to its votes.  Until the Dems adapt as well, we will be weak whether we have 65 or 55 votes in the senate and whether we control 65 % or 55% of the house.  the personal incentives for the dinosaurs who still think its 1984 and they are being "good" politicians by defecting when it suits them are simply to high.  those dinosaurs need to go.  


[ Parent ]
I'm not particularly interested in a "strong" Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)
because the Democratic Party, as an institution, is basically bad on the issues, though significantly less so than the GOP is.  

Strengthening the Democratic Party means more militarism, more corporate welfare, fewer civil liberties, etc.

We won't get progressive outcomes by strengthening the Democratic Party.  We'll get progressive outcomes by persuading DC that the alternative to progressive outcomes is much, much worse for the ruling class than the progressive reforms we're demanding.

Strengthening the Party is the Party's problem.  Posing an existential threat to the interests they serve is ours.


[ Parent ]
Good point, but I disagree (0.00 / 0)
I think the party is overall more liberal than it is conservative.  Given the current dynamics, the most conservative members can repeatedly triangulate/extort the party leadership, pulling the party to the right.  We in the netroots correctly rail against this dynamic, but the rightward pull is only an effect of a collapse of party discipline- fix that and the party will inevitably be more liberal.  The GOP has already done this- and the best example of how the GOP focuses on discipline NOT ideology is their treatment of Snowe.  Snowe was playing along with the Dems and on her way to getting a number of conservative ideas (like the trigger) inserted into the health care bill.  And yet she was threatened, publicly, and im sure much worse privately, by the leadership for challenging their decision not to negotiate in good faith with Obama and the Dems.  Again, some may look at the GOP treatment of Snowe as stalin-esque but its actually what any good european parliamentary party would do to a defecting member.  

Apart from Steny Hoyer, i don't think any of our leadership in the house or senate is inherently conservative.  They range from center-left to left in their policy positions.  Our committee membership is a disaster and I think we need to figure out a way to influence these internal decisions, but I just don't think we're there yet.  

Our job should be to help Pelosi and Reid "discipline" the defecting members of the party by supporting primary opponents.  Overall, i think you and I would end up with a list of members that need to be primaried that is pretty similar so I'm not sure we practically speaking there's much disagreement.  


[ Parent ]
Another consideration: past support from Act Blue and the like (4.00 / 4)
It is also worth going through the Act Blue page to take a look at past support given to various candidates, and to take special umbrage at those who have received significant progressive support and then turned their back on us on votes like this.  Here's one significant culprit in that regard:  

Steve Driehaus (OH-01):  From a lean-D district, Driehaus has netted c. $250,000 from Act Blue, including $56,000 for 2010.  Driehaus is less than 50% on crucial progressive tests in the chart above, so this does not seem to be money well spent.

There seems to be good reason to tie such money to voting with progressives on crucial issues.  So I urge consideration of this sort of factor in choosing targets for primaries.


So what if (0.00 / 0)
Ahn "Joseph" Cao decided he wanted to switch parties and become a Democrat, would you welcome him? He seems to have one major stumbling block, doesn't agree with abortion being Jesuit. He's also from Louisiana, more conservative terrain, even among blacks. What's the Southern strategy for white candidates? What are the show-stopper issues and what issues can be compromised?

How about focusing on Stron Dem districts? (0.00 / 0)
I count 19 DemoPublicans - that seems a good starting point.

That's the Democratic party's job. (0.00 / 0)
You mean Dem-leaning districts now held by Republicans? Our only effective role there would be to support more progressive democratic candidates in primaries, but once the primary is done, the DNC and DCCC have both resources that dwarf ours and the interest to use them.

Our relatively limited resources mean we need to look for strategically crucial points where we can get maximum leverage.

Does anybody know of an potential progressive challengers in Republican-held districts that have a chance and could use our support?


[ Parent ]
I'm sure there are many (0.00 / 0)
just off the top of my head, Darcy Burner is a terrific liberal and just who we need in WA-8.  I don't know if she's running again, but if she is we gotta get behind her and help her win.

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








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

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search