Democrats are in electoral trouble; Progressives are not

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 14:28


The current National House Ballot shows Democrats ahead by 2.80%.  However, most of those polls focus on registered voters or even "all adults," not on likely voters.  Current polling among likely voters by Rasmussen shows Republicans with a comfortable advantage.  Lest you think that Rasmussen is to be dismissed, Daily Kos recently published information showing that 81% of Republicans will either definitely or probably vote in 2010, compared to only 56% of Democrats.  Even Democracy Corps shows Democrats only ahead by 2% among likely voters.  This means Rasmussen is not really much of an outlier, and Republicans are well positioned to make major gains.  Retaking the House is even a possibility for the GOP.

My current feeling on this is a strong: "meh." Why should I care about Democrats facing such electoral difficulties?  It is hard to figure out how this is much of a negative for progressives:

  1. The House currently has a non-progressive majority. According to Progressive Punch, 227 members of the House have voted with Progressives less than 50% of the time on crucial votes in 2009.  That makes for an overall non-progressive majority in the House of Representatives of 227-208. So, we are not even defending a progressive majority.

  2. Most of the Democrats set to lose are part of that non-progressive majority. Of the 34 Democrats most endanger of re-election, 19 of them are part of the non-progressive majority.  One, Jerry McNerney, is exactly on the fence, with a 50.00% voting record in 2009 on crucial votes.  Only 14 are in the progressive minority.  So, most of the Democrats in trouble are part of the non-progressive majority.

  3. General elections are easier to win than primary challenges.  Since 2006, only two members of the progressive minority have won their seats through primary challenges against sitting Democrats (Hank Johnson and Donna Edwards, neither of whom actually defeated members of the non-progressive majority).  However, twenty-five members of the progressive minority have won their seats through general election challenge in seats held by Republicans (including five members of the Progressive Caucus).

    It sure seems a lot easier to acquire new members who vote progressive 50% of the time or more through general elections than through primary challenges.  As such, a necessary step to getting a progressive majority in the House actually requires a large number of the non-progressive Democrats to lose to Republicans.

  4. The Progressive Caucus could gain seats and influence. Only three members of the Progressive Caucus are endangered for re-election in 2010.  However, the CPC has at least four good pickup opportunities in non-progressive majority seats: AL-07, CA-36, DE-AL, and LA-02.

    This means that the Progressive Caucus could very well gain seats in 2010.  Combined with overall Democratic losses, this would make the Progressive Caucus a much larger percentage of the overall caucus. This would in turn give Democrats more control over institutions such as the DCCC, which would make it easier for 50%+ progressives to win Republican seats in 2012 and beyond.  This greater influence is needed since, of the 50 Democrats who vote with progressives less than 50.00% of the time or less, 41 of them were first elected in 2004 or more recently.  The DCCC is packing the House with non-progressives.

So, why should progressives really care about the dismal electoral situation Democrats face?  The non-progressive majority will stay in place no matter what.  Not many Progressives are in danger.  A lot of non-progressives are going to lose to conservative Republicans, but those losses will actually make it a lot easier to get a 50%+ progressive into those seats in 2012 and beyond.  Demographics remain in favor of progressives over the long-run, as well.

As such, I'm feeling pretty ambivalent about the dismal electoral situation Democrats face.  Those losses do not appear to threaten the goal of a progressive governing majority in the House in either the short-term (it doesn't currently exist) or the long-term (in fact, the losses might make it easier over the long-term).  It just isn't enough for progressives to be a junior partner in a centrist majority governing coalition.  We need to be the dominant partner, and that probably requires the current dominant partner--Blue Dogs and New Dems--to suffer heavy losses.

Chris Bowers :: Democrats are in electoral trouble; Progressives are not

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Democrats are in electoral trouble; Progressives are not | 86 comments
I wish I could '4' a front page post (4.00 / 10)
Because this is pitch perfect
Same questions as before (4.00 / 6)
a) What is to guarantee that the progressives  there now will lead when they have better percentages?

b) Why do you assume demographic shifts favor progressives rather than Democrats?

c) Why would the Democrats not use the narrative of next years loses as "We need to move further right, and this proves it."

Responses (4.00 / 9)
a) Nothing.  However, Progressive organizing has been on the upswing lately.

b) Because the demographics of Progressive districts look a lot like the future demographics of the country.

c) Of course some of them will.  There are many--along with their enablers in the media--who will use any result to make that argument.  However, a narrative is one thing, and an actual, more left-leaning Democratic caucus is another.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the responses (4.00 / 4)
a) Organizing does not equal leadership or better negotiation skills. As I said before, the problem is the willingness to let the house burn down in order to accomplish a goal. Ultimately, to me, the problem is that progressives lack the killer instinct. I link to Big Tent Democrats discussion of the "Mad Man Theory" of negotiation:

"I do not think Matt, or Ezra Klein, or Kevin Drum, or Paul Starr are closet Blue Dogs, but I DO think, in terms of political bargaining, they DO represent well why Democrats and progressives are the worst political bargainers I have ever seen. "

http://www.talkleft.com/story/...

He wrote earlier in the first of the 4 part series- defining the "Mad Man Theory" as thus:

"During the Cold War, Richard Nixon employed what was known as the Madman Theory. It posited that demonstrating a willingness to consider "madness" in action would provide you with negotiating leverage. It is not much different than any negotiating strategy really in that a party may demonstrate that it is willing to scorch the rhetorical Earth in order to gain concessions from your negotiation opponents. "

So long as you are always going to be the "reasonable ones" you will always lose.  This is a flaw of your ideological bent, or, at least as progressives have defined their ideological beliefs in recent history.

You have enough numbers now to influence outcomes significantly more than you do. What is lacking is a willingness to go for all or nothing. It is the reason a small number of conservatives can have a greater impact than you do.  That was the lesson of the Gang of 14.

b) Could you not have a demographic shift in which the demographics may shift, but the underlying ideological beliefs do not? In other words, more conservative blacks in more conservative districts rather than progressive blacks in conservative districts. Thus, while you increase Democrats, that does not equal increase in progressives?

c) The narrative matters because you assume that the caucus will develop (at least from my read of your posts) a backbone that they have yet to exhibit. As I said, they  have a great deal of power now. The problem is not power. It is willingness to burn the house down.  

[ Parent ]
How do we progressives that are not members of congress play hardball (0.00 / 0)
I'm developing a plan that I think is doable, effective, and will evoke outrage from those who should know better.

http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

The question is how we get it off the ground.  We have a tendency to put out the call, but don't grapple with the organizational steps needed to make it happen.  Feedback welcome.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Seems like an alternative party without the party (0.00 / 0)
If you could organize across the nation to influence that many local races, why not just start a new national party?

Perception, maybe?

One problem is this:

This requires no money at all, just a willingness to make some phone calls and show up.

That is simply not true. If you don't have some kind of financing arm to the organization, you'll only get "candidates" that either don't need money (self-financed) or can raise $ through their own, local, networks. Either way, why should they stick to the pledge points? Campaigns need money. I wish it were not so, but it is.

Easier to stage a vote boycott, I think. Publically withhold support ($, volunteering, and voting) for select corporoDems across the nation. Make it clear from the outset that it does not matter to you if the seat goes GOP. The point to to unseat the Moles and break their DINO hold on the seats. Get folks to WRITE-IN some code word, or organization name INSTEAD of voting for Blue Dogs/Red Moles.

But, get ready, because "Naderite" is the least of the names you will be called.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
As I understand it (0.00 / 0)
Most of the 'campaigns' would be mostly symbolic, and so the support required is just the legal minimums (plus, I would argue, a web presence). The benefit would accrue due to the fact that there are so many of these candidates, embracing all (or most) of the listed points. Hence, a) the message would be reinforced/amplified to the deaf inside-the-beltway types  b) (from my perspective) a light bulb goes on inside the heads of dispirited Democrats that ultimately, to make democracy work, they need to go to the next level and actually succeed in primarying incumbents who represent $$ more than their constituents and c) disprited voters will attain some confidence that their actions can make a difference. Despair, after all, is sort of natural when you make repeated efforts and/or show loyalty over a long period of time, with payback mostly in the form of betrayal. Despair is very disempowering, and even just the perception that one's efforts are making a difference will prevent people from dropping out, and becoming political deadwood.

We can thus understand jeffroby's plan as the first stage of a boostrapping, take over the party from below process. The second stage is better coordinated effort, where citizens intelligently pool their resources and match them to the most deserving races, using some sort of instant runoff vote for resources, guerilla candidates, guerilla workers, etc. (By a "deserving" race, I mean the races where the incumbents are the "worst of the worst"). The goal is definitely a win at both the primary and general election levels. The third, and most efficient stage would be an IVCS, where the policy options are being determined by the voters, themselves, and online elections preceding the real-world votes can tell the participants what they can realistically achieve at the real-world ballot box, and thus deploy both their $$ and real-world votes most effectively.

Perhaps the most exciting part of jeffroby's idea is that is you did get hundreds of candidates running on a unified agenda, this could generate so much excitement even for the 2010 races that crowd-sourced funding could appear, sufficient to make some of the reform campaigns competitive, leading to a win. Of course, that's assuming that he can pull it off quickly.

This idea should also be posted at FireDogLake.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
The "web presence" is a neccessity (0.00 / 0)
Given that the initial idea is basically "symbolic".

Although I have a gut level dislike of laundry list agendas and signing pledges, I have seen the GOP use those tactics to great effect in MN. (Getting candidates to sign "no tax increase" pledges, so example) But that tactic often turns the discussions away from the policy and toward things like whether a "fee" is the same as a "tax". Jeffroby's list (or any list) is fraught with words that can be debated over and over again.

Of course, in a political system where the issues on jeffroby's list hardly get spoken of at all, making them the center of the debate is a step in the right direction.

My point about money is that, unless you threaten the corporo- and conservo-Dems campaign funding, or to disrupt (end) their ready access to the public coffers, I fear they will just smile and book their return flight to DC. If the HRC debate has taught us one thing, it is that the Blue Dogs don't care about the issues (other than that they not disturb the status quo) and pay attention to their bottom line. IF they could see dollars flowing by signing your pledge, they'd walk over each other to get in line for the signing.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
The problem playing scorched earth with centrists (4.00 / 3)
is that, if you take them seriously as advocating what they say they advocate, it is in their interest for the Democrats to weaken. If you are a centrist, you want a balance between the parties, not for your own party to be as strong as possible. With a Dem president, you might even prefer a Repub congress, although here personal considerations like the desire to chair committees will probably override. But the centrists are wishing the Repubs could still filibuster, so they wouldn't have to do it.
[ Parent ]
I don't take them seriously (0.00 / 0)
I think they know we will fold precisely because you take them seriously and afraid to risk it. So long as you have your mind set, they need never do anything differently because they know what you are going to do. See how you create a self realizing prophesy here?  
[ Parent ]
I've heard that argument a thousand times (0.00 / 0)
Do you really think I haven't heard it before?  It doesn't address my point, because it has no salience if they prefer to lose, which is what I'm arguing.
[ Parent ]
more questions (4.00 / 2)
1. How do we know that there are progressives who could win in the ex Blue Dog districts that Republicans will have won?  I see no guarentee that such a seat could be won back at all or that a progressive would arise who could win that seat.

2.  You are assuming that the Dems keep the majority.  That didn't happen in 1994.  I always said Obama just reminded me too much of both the worst of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.....but once you go under you may not get back.

In 1996 for 10 years I heard from one Dem strategist after another how we just needed to win 13plus or so seats to get back the majority.  And if the 94 Republicans were nuts, the new version is nuttier.  And I just don't see Barack Obama staring down another right wing fruitcake as Clinton did when they shut down the government.

Frankly....I would rather try a little harder at this point to convince the powers that be that if Blue Dogs voted more like progressives that they have a better shot at winning and less of a shot if they have to pick between a fake Republican and a real one.

At least for now....Let's see how health care plays out.

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

[ Parent ]
2009 is not 1994 (0.00 / 0)
 What you are asking is like asking what if 2009 will look like 1964. We are in a completely different political environment.

You do not need progressives to win blue dog districts. You simply need the existing progressives to be willing to take risks when it comes to legislative battles. Percentages, if this other factor were reality, would help. The problem here is that Chris ignores that half of the equation regarding progressive risk taking.  

[ Parent ]
it's not like I am planning on helping Blue Dogs (0.00 / 0)
but I am not sure that I am ready to write off the rest of 2010 in terms of trying to pass decent legislation....because in the lives of real people a jobs bill, more funding to the states, mortgage foreclosure relief and a better credit card reform.

Financial reform as well.

Maybe we have leverage in terms of legislation if we tell them we're going to let them drown.  Or maybe that just sends them ever more tightly into the smothering arms of the Masters of the Universe.

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

[ Parent ]
finishing my sentence (0.00 / 0)
because in the lives of real people a jobs bill, more funding to the states, mortgage foreclosure relief and a better credit card reform.
Financial reform as well.

WILL MATTER

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

[ Parent ]
Excellent Chris. (4.00 / 6)
This seems the only way.  They pissed on the left and expect us to work our asses off to elect blue dogs.

Let them lose.  In fact, it may even be worth helping them lose.  I have not decided yet, but would not be surprised to see primary challenges and third parties arise.  

pretty much (0.00 / 0)
it seems that the only real downside is losing chairmanships and the Speakershipness. do seniority rules lock in the current chairs to take them back if the House changes hands to the Loony Party and then back again?

i do have a small voice worrying about what kind of tremendous foolishness they could push through in even just two years. everytime i've thought, "how much worse can it be?", they answer me quite thoroughly.

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

Fewer and Better Dems? (4.00 / 4)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
Try this on for size (0.00 / 0)
We argue for what would be the better course, but what is consistently lacking is a specific plan for making it happen, who does what, etc.  I'm trying to develop something here.

http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

No, I can't do this myself, and thus am also calling on others to act.  I'm 61, unemployed, and sick.  If I were 40 and healthy, I'd be pounding the pavements for this.  I do plan to have this fleshed out a little more by the end of the week.  Feedback welcome.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
More *progressives.* (4.00 / 4)
Having a D tacked on doesn't make one progressive.  It doesn't take much to be a D.  The bar is pretty low.  Look at Specter.

Being a big-tent party is one thing.  Being a big-tent-with-lots-of-holes party is an entirely different matter.

We need more progressives.  Losing a bunch of conservatives with a D for conservatives with an R doesn't hurt us.  We don't lose anything in that trade-off.  We're just closing the holes in the tent.

All we should really be careful about is not losing so many seats that the Dems lose control of Congress.  But if push comes to shove, so be it.  We have a little more power with the Dems in control, but not enough to be worth sacrificing our own over.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
An interesting topic for discussion (4.00 / 2)
Would be do progressive have more to gain by passing a mediocre health care bill, or by killing it because it is too watered down?  After all, more blue dog losses due to health care failure increases that progressive caucus concentration even more, knocks Obama on his hells (and keeps him down if he doesn't bring progressives back to the table ASAP), and actually gives progressives more to run on than either republicans or blue dogs (ie - they are not afraid to stand up against the prez and blue dogs, but they are also not pure obstructionists.)

Personally, I'm sick of playing any sort of ball with the DSCC, the DNC, or the moderates.  Progressives always get the shaft in the end and it makes all democrats look bad thus increasing the chances of another republican election fiasco.

Egotistical Democrats in the Senate and Obama.... (0.00 / 0)
...have already killed health care reform, whether they pass a bill with that label on it or not. If a bill finally passes the Senate but what comes out of conference is so watered down (individual mandates but no public option) that it is little more than a new, regressive tax on the poorest in the country, then I hope progressive Democrats unite to defeat it. If progressives join Republicans to kill the crappy bill that's likely to pass in the Senate, it certainly changes the dynamic of next year's elections.

Contrary to conventional wisdom in Democratic circles, I think that if progressive Democrats help to defeat health care reform, more Democratic voters will show up at the polls next November, not fewer. If the story is "progressive Democrats join conservative Republican minority to kill health care reform," I think it will force all midterm voters to really think who they're going to vote for. But the most important effect it could have for all Democratic candidates is getting many more progressive voters to the polls. Progressives make up a large portion of the 44% of Democratic voters who say they won't or may not vote in the midterms next year. If health care reform is defeated, I think many of them may regain some enthusiasm and choose to vote rather than sit it out in disgust.

And for those that say that health care reform will be a dead issue for another generation, the facts simply don't support it. Because of the looming financial disaster until real health care reform is passed, health care reform will be on Congress's agenda every session until it's done.

[ Parent ]
Tricky point (0.00 / 0)
Contrary to conventional wisdom in Democratic circles, I think that if progressive Democrats help to defeat health care reform, more Democratic voters will show up at the polls next November, not fewer.

This scenario depends upon how the defeat is couched. If progressive Dems can make the case that they prevented passage of a badly watered down bill and that the bill was made unacceptable because of the relentless negotiating with conservatives (in the GOP and the Democratic Party) that didn't end up supporting the bill in great enough numbers to pass it, then progressives might have a chance from this perspective.

Can the progressives control the messaging well enough to make this point? Don't forget, they will have pissed off the President by denying him a "victory", so the push back will be solid.

Its a risk, but one that may be worth taking. I completely agree on this point:

And for those that say that health care reform will be a dead issue for another generation, the facts simply don't support it. Because of the looming financial disaster until real health care reform is passed, health care reform will be on Congress's agenda every session until it's done.

The need for reform is pressing - and unlike the fear-mongering that pushed the US into Iraq, is based on actual problems that will not evaporate, even if no Health Insurance bill is passed before 2010. If a bad bill passes, on the other hand, the public pressure will recede.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
the DCCC will always protect non-progressives (4.00 / 2)
because more of the threatened incumbents are non-progressives. I don't see how changing the relative strength of the CPC within the House Democratic Caucus will change how the DCCC operates.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
the DCCC is run by the House Dem Caucus (4.00 / 1)
The DCCC will change because the DCCC is run by the House Democratic Caucus.  Change the caucus, change the DCCC.
[ Parent ]
But isn't the chair of the DCCC appointed by the speaker of the House? (0.00 / 0)
And Pelosi appointed Van Hollen. Doesn't he have influence on the course of the DCCC? Or is he one of the effing centrists?
[ Parent ]
Van Hollen represents an affluent area of Maryland (4.00 / 1)
I know someone who works for him, the best description I could give of his outlook is "limousine liberal".  Not one of us.
[ Parent ]
IIRC the chair of the DCCC is elected (4.00 / 2)
and desmoinesdem is correct: since the DCCC's explicit purpose is to protect vulnerable Democratic incumbents, and most vulnerable Democrats are conservative, most of the protection will go to conservative Democrats.

This will not likely change with the DCCC chair, unless the chair is a total bombthrower; such a person would probably not get elected in the first place.

The DCCC might vary its policies on who to put up for open and Republican-held seats.  The prevailing attitude is that moderates/conservatives are the "safer" choice.  For that to change, we have to consistently elect/reelect liberals to swing seats and show that their liberalism is not a detriment or a net plus.  I don't know how easy that is; my feeling is that liberals are hard to come by in swing areas regardless of what institutional support or opposition is in place.

[ Parent ]
But the DCCC is hurting for money, (0.00 / 0)
and I ain't giving!
[ Parent ]
Even if you're right (4.00 / 1)
incumbent protection isn't the only issue - recruitment is the other one.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Just landed on the DCCC website (mistakenly, wanted Wiki instead) (0.00 / 0)
http://www.dccc.org/
Yeah, VERY impressive! Sure, the most urgent question people have now that will make them check the DCCC for guidance is how to spend the holiday money they don't have! Yup, mydemocraticstore.com is the answer to all their problems. Great idea, Congress idiots!

Really, are they totally NUTS? What the eff are they doing there? Do they think this will leave liberals so impressed that they will vote in 2010???

[ Parent ]
This is the problem. Dem leaders need to give us reason... (4.00 / 4)
To support them. If the progressive base votes, Dems win. If we don't, they lose. Simple as that.

They still haven't really learned the lessons of 2000/2002/2004 vs. 2006/2008. People want a real choice, not the usual "GOP vs. GOP-lite". If given the choice of the real thing or fakers, they'll go for the real thing.

There's still time for Democrats to turn around, but they absolutely need to turn around ASAP.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

I'm not really sure any more... (4.00 / 3)
Given that horrible Dkos poll and some other analysis I've seen, I actually don't think this is as big of a problem as progressives would like to think.  I think the bigger issue is simply that a lot of people hated Bush, were glad to finally vote him and his party out of power, and now think that their job is done.  At the same time, the economy is still shit (which, yes, the Dems could've probably done more with, but to be honest even if a bigger stimulus had passed it probably still would've been pretty bad today... Bush dug quite the hole for us), and a lot of these people that voted Dem in 2008 probably just don't care about politics (after getting rid of Bush) and just want jobs.  If they got jobs, maybe they'd be more likely to vote, but it doesn't even seem all that likely to me.

I think the best hope we have is simply that an election year starts motivating people to get involved again and we can start taking over that likely voter number again.

[ Parent ]
Bigger stimulus? That's not what people want imo. (4.00 / 4)
They want an industrial policy and tax code rewritten to stop rewarding companies that offshore our jobs.    They want trade deals renegotiated and enforced.  They want to quit spending money on wars so they can use it to rebuild the US instead of Iraq and Afghanistan.  They want the banks held accountable, and they want the financial sector regulated.  They want Bush gone, and they wanted the whole place scoured, aired out, and exterminated.  

People voted for a 180 degree change in direction, and instead, they are getting more of the same.  Money for war (and banks) but Main Street can file for bankruptcy and live in the car.  He is so clueless that they are still talking about more "construction" jobs.  Yep, those are such a lifesaver.  Lose a high skill job worth 80K and take a job digging ditches for $9/hr. Makes that 100K student loan a real bargain.   If this isn't a Wall Street solution for the great unwashed, I don't know what is.  

We are so broke and broken, and Obama and the Dems are giving this country Bush's third term.  In November, I vote Republican or Third Party.  

[ Parent ]
The 19-14 ratio is a lot worse (4.00 / 4)
than I had assumed. I would hardly call that a very lopsided ratio. The way I would characterize this data is that progressives are almost in as much danger as non-progressives. Face it, losing 14 more progressive votes in the House would be simply horrible. We barely passed relatively-weak climate change and healthcare bills as it is. Lose 14 more votes and you'll be able to smell the suck from that island in Alaska you can see Russia from. We were within striking range for a robust public option, and could get there with a few more votes; if instead we lose 14 then you can kiss any hope of that and all similar things goodbye.

Your premise is that Democrats who don't actually vote with the Democrats don't matter, only progressive votes matter. Okay: that sounds reasonable enough. But the very data you cite shows that a lot of progressive seats are in danger! It would be a major setback. I genuinely don't see how you can be ambivalent about this, if you care about passing the best legislation possible.

(50% of crucial votes is a somewhat arbitrary distinction by which to call members progressive or anti-progressive, but that's the one you used so I went with it. I think a more useful metric would be looking at specific votes: how many of the people who voted in favor of ACES and/or healthcare, and/or would've voted for the robust public option, are in danger?)

Your other premise (4.00 / 1)
is that (a) the balance of power within the caucus is influenced by the makeup of the caucus, (b) the balance of power within the caucus is important, and (c) Blue Dogs and friends currently have the upper hand within the caucus over the progressives, or at the least, progressives don't have enough of an advantage over conservatives.

(a) and (b) are probably correct.

I think (c) is wrong.

The main thing that internal caucus politics influences is what kind of legislation is on the agenda, what bills and amendments get brought to the floor. And the fact is that in this area, progressives -- probably in large part thanks to Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco being Speaker of the House -- already have their way on basically everything. I'm sure this is surprising to a lot of you. But think about it. Do you think that if the Blue Dogs really had control of the caucus, climate legislation and healthcare reform are the kind of legislation they would choose to pursue? I highly doubt it.

In fact, our problem is not the kind of legislation which gets put on the agenda, it is the quality of the legislation which ends up emerging. And in this area it is the composition of the full House which matters. And in every case, without exception, the problem is we do not have enough votes to pass stronger versions of the legislation. Replacing Blue Dogs with Republicans will not help with this problem; it may not hurt that much, but it definitely won't help. There is, unfortunately, only one way to solve this problem, and it is more progressive votes. There's no easy way out, that I know of.

(I'm not ignoring your points about general elections and the DCCC. They just seem highly speculative to me. Like, if Democrats suffer massive losses in 2010, but conservatives lose more than progressives, then maybe it will shift the caucus to the left, and then maybe this will result in the DCCC supporting more progressive candidates, and maybe this will let us retake the lost seats with more progressive candidates in the future. Or maybe it'll just lead to another long period of Republican control where everything goes to shit, outweighing any of the marginal benefits we might get from the aforementioned many times over, and forcing us to start all over again from scratch -- that is, if the planet is still inhabitable at that point. It seems to me, frankly, sort of like playing Russian Rulette where the number of live rounds in the gun is itself chosen by a random roll of the dice.)

[ Parent ]
Repeating Chris's first point. (4.00 / 3)
  1. The House currently has a non-progressive majority. According to Progressive Punch, 227 members of the House have voted with Progressives less than 50% of the time on crucial votes in 2009.  That makes for an overall non-progressive majority in the House of Representatives of 227-208. So, we are not even defending a progressive majority.

So just by the numbers, 19 cons vs 14 progs isn't all that terrible.  We have only about 42% of the seats in danger vs. holding 48% of the total seats.  That puts us ahead right out the gate.  Worst case scenario, we lose all 14 progs, putting us at 194 seats, which is about 45%.  It's a loss, sure, but not that big a deal overall.

Considering that Chris looks to be using ProgressivePunch scores and deciding that progressive means a score over 50%, we're actually probably much better off than the raw numbers show (as far as how many seats progs have on the line, that is, though that of course also means we're worse off when counting number of seats currently held).  I mean, are we really going to cry over losing Bart Gordon, who's PPS on crucial votes in 2009 is a measly 52.94%?

That said, I don't agree with using PPSs over 50% as the only method to determine who's progressive, and according to Chris's own chart, it doesn't look like he does, either.  There, he only counts 3 as progs, which seems like a much more realistic assessment to me.  Compare that to the 17 cons on that chart (by my count; there are some Blue Dog/New Dem crossovers), and we're not hurting nearly as badly as you think.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
What gurantees a bigger "progressive" caucus? (4.00 / 2)
It seems like there's always some group of morons willing to fill in the conservative gap as soon as soon as it appears. That is, there's a bunch of people voting progressive under the cover of being powerless. I'd like to know who we can truly count on and get an accurate assemsment of progressive power. That should affect strategy somehow, no? I get the feeling that's what happened in the Senate, "oh our votes matters now? Surprise! I'm gonna kill the bill now."


Once again... (4.00 / 2)
This strategy/mindset seems to be inching ever closer to the "purge" strategy that the tea-baggers are doing right now.  Is this what we want to be doing?

Obviously, I would also love to have progressive rule, but I fail to see how the Democrats losing their majorities advances this at all, considering you'd be replacing a very progressive majority leader with a very conservative one.  Not only that, but we'd pretty much have 2 years where we got absolutely nothing done, or given Obama's penchant for "compromise", probably a bunch of shitty right-wing policies put into place that would only further exacerbate losses in 2012 (and potentially even threaten any kind of progressive dominance, as maybe the economy would be doing a bit better by then, and we'd have all the Broderites coming out of the woodwork to talk about how well bipartisanship and compromise works).

I'm not convinced by this "less is more" (even in the long-run) argument at all.

Your post seems confused (4.00 / 1)
How is saying that we would gain from loses a purge since this would be a product of conservative Democratic inaction rather than progressive action?  How does their inability to pass policy that helps the average voter rest of the shoulders here of Chris Bowers as a purge because the American voters said no to them?  That would seem to be the fault of the conservative Democrat. But, your post reaffirms what I think is the default position: When in doubt, it is the fault of the purists, let's move right. But what is the reality?
[ Parent ]
I don't really see a difference... (4.00 / 1)
Essentially Chris is saying that we shouldn't care about major Democratic losses in 2010 because it wouldn't really be much different than it is now.  And, even moreso, Democratic losses would be mostly from Blue Dogs, and we need to get rid of them anyway (says the post). How is this not a "purge"?  And actually, this is EXACTLY what the tea-bagger wing of the Republican party said after their devastating 2006 and 2008 losses.  I guess we'll have to take the same kind of comfort after the same happens to us in 2010

I don't know what the answer is, but I honestly don't think that massive Democratic losses is necessarily a recipe for Progressive success in the future.  The only thing that seems to be working as far as increasing progressive power/pressure is primaries.  Certainly, I'd love to see more progressives in Congress, but will electoral wipe-out in 2010 make that more likely to happen?  I highly doubt it.

[ Parent ]
"I don't know what the answer is" - more of the same? (4.00 / 2)
Certainly not, right? So, yes, there is a risk to simply letting the Bluedogs die, but realistically, what can be done to save them? They brought this unto themselves. 2010 will be a difficult year, and progressives will have lots of work defending the seats of their lawmakers. There won't be any resources left for helping effing centrists out of their self dug pits. Honestly, what is the alternative?

If nothing very positive happens in the next 11 months, the Obama team averting a terrorist attack or something, it will come as Chris predicts. No matter what we think about that. This isn't really about strategy, this is about coping with an unavoidable development.  

[ Parent ]
"He who defends everything defends nothing" Frederick the Great (4.00 / 6)
More commonly called "the old Fritz". And that guy knew something about strategy! Just to reinforce my point: It won't be possible to defend every single seat. So, progressives have to cut losses, and concentrate on defending their own. Forget about BlueDog districts. Or else the defeat will be even worse.
[ Parent ]
you don't see the difference between action and indifference? I think you are a partisan (4.00 / 2)
Or you think that Democrat equals we must support. Why is that exactly? You don't say but do what all Democrats do try to sound reasonable. I don't consider your position a reasonable one.

A wipe out of conservative Democrats will be because they failed to enact policies to help the great bulk of Americans on economic issues next year.  Considering they failed to help the great bulk of people indifference is an acceptable if not understated response.

Whereas the action with the conservative politicians are seeking ideological purity. Part of the issue here therefore may be your false equivalency between  action and inaction AND policies that 30 percent want versus policies that the bulk of people want.

One quick practical example- the public option is supported by 60-70 percent of the public. If the public says they do not like the health care bill, it is because the bill is not in accord with those desires. The same with neoliberal economic policy. The lesson should be that because unemployment is high (something that neoliberals are okay with) that is the reason that the conservative Dems will lose if they lose next year.

I also sense the "big tent" argument in your statement. This argument is flawed because it does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean being more inclusive of what Americans want. It means moving right. Just like bipartisanship is a code word.

Whereas with the far right purge (again an action rather than an indifference) it will be because they are moving away from that 70 percent of the public to even further right to be with the 30 percent of the population. If you still can not see a difference between policies that the great bulk of the public say they want while another party is pursuing policies out of line with what the public says, and you can not see the difference  am not sure what to say. It seems you are trying to advocate we must put up with plutocrats not matter what.

On that front, I say, I agree with Chris. No we don't. Let the public decide if they want this or not. My only quarrel with him is as I have already described above.  

[ Parent ]
Don't necessarily disagree with everything you're saying here... (0.00 / 0)
And honestly, no, I don't think we want to support every blue-dog out there.  Sometimes it's worth giving up a seat to get rid of someone particularly egregious.  I do think you assume that voters are much more engaged in politics than they actually are, though.

For instance:

"One quick practical example- the public option is supported by 60-70 percent of the public. If the public says they do not like the health care bill, it is because the bill is not in accord with those desires. The same with neoliberal economic policy. The lesson should be that because unemployment is high (something that neoliberals are okay with) that is the reason that the conservative Dems will lose if they lose next year."

That's a load of baloney.  That assumes that the public has perfect information at all times.  The majority of the public probably has no idea whether a public option is included in the current bill or not, and if they've heard it does they've probably also heard things like "government takeover", "penalties", and "death panels".  The reason why the public is divided or slightly against health care is because they're scared of what it could mean for them and their own health insurance (which they are probably sort of ok with), not because they have reasonably thought through everything that's included.

My guess is that if you were to do follow-ups of the original question, there would be a big increase in support for the current plan.  Something like this:

1) Do you support health care reform?
2) Do you support the public option?
3) If health care reform includes a public option, would you support it?

My guess is that "Yes" to the third question would be 10-20% higher than the first question, but again I don't have this kind of information.

I think 2010 will have far more to do with Democratic-leaning voters who simply think their job was finished last year than with disillusioned Democratic voters.  As Chris has pointed out on this site even, Obama still does just fine with self-labeled liberals, and I imagine most of them will still turn out next year.  All of the Democratic-leaning voters who just hated Bush and were glad to see him go, they'll probably stay home.

[ Parent ]
you make up assumptions and run with it (0.00 / 0)
go back and look at the polling data on this subject over time:

http://www.emergingdemocraticm...


[ Parent ]
Allow me to re-phrase (4.00 / 3)
we'd pretty much have 2 years where we got absolutely nothing done

It should read "2 MORE years"!

Actually, to my chagrin, I think the teabaggers are doing rather well.  Their "genius" is to focus on principles to organize around, expecting that the congressional numbers will eventually follow as a consequence of their grassroots organizational strength.

The massive progressive blunder is to consistently equate having more Democrats with more progressive strength.  The lack of a substantive measure of strength is fatal.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Frankly... (4.00 / 1)
Progressives like to crow a lot about this, but there have been plenty of decent progressive successes (Stimulus, Ledbetter, Matthew Shepard act).  Anyone that has any delusions that things will get better or even stay basically the same after Democrats get their asses handed to them is in for a rude awakening, as we probably get much more conservative legislation passing as Obama looks for "compromise".

Oh, and you can forget about getting anyone even as progressive as Sotomayor on to the court.  We'll probably get a Republican the next time around (again, "compromise" being the word of the day after Rs cleanup in 2010).

[ Parent ]
chicken feed (4.00 / 2)
and bailing out Wall Street while ignoring unemployment is nothing to brag about.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
No, it's not... (0.00 / 0)
Though favors to Wall Street will probably just accelerate even more under Republican rule, as they work to cut back the estate and capital gains taxes, as well as push for more and more deregulation.
[ Parent ]
Strategy and Outlook (4.00 / 5)
1. The biggest threat to progressive House members is not the general election but a wave of primary challenges from well-funded right wingers (usually in black districts).

Hank Johnson (GA-4) is being challenged from the right.  Donna Edwards, in a D+31 district is being challenged from a well funded righty.  She's our best vote in the House.
Steve Cohen is being challenged from the right.  Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Charlie Rangel, Ciro Rodriguea and Sander Levin are all being challenged.  I would guess given funding, that at least 2 of the challengers and quite possibly all four are from the right.

Kilpatrick is basically being pushed because of her son's mistakes.  WTF.  I wouldn't be so quick to throw out Rangl or Levin for younger challengers.  I care about ideology, not age.

2.  Some retirements in safe Democratic districts give us a real chance at improvement.  Artur Davis no way represents a D+18 district adequately.  Kendrick Meek is too interested in being cool for a D+34 district.  We need to elect progressives to replace Neil Abercrombie (no return of Ed Case, please) and Robert Wexler. Paul Hodes (D+3) has IIRC a bunch of righties running for the seat.  Win the primary.  Sestak needs to be replaced by a good Democrat.  Melancon is no loss.

3. Primary pickups: Jane Harman and Paul Kanjorski

4.  Open Republican seats: Both PA-6 and IL-6 look good to me.

5.  Other possible primary challenges:  I like 3 of them.  Joe Baca.  This is a 68% Obama district.  Why is it represented by a Blue Dog?  Baca would be a safe switch out.  Jim Cooper.  IIRC it's 58% Obama.  Cooper's finger prints are all over messing with Social Security and health care.  It's Nashville.  He's a leader of the forces of evil.  Oust the bum and oust him hard.  Melissa Bean.  Obama put her in by flooding the district with volunteers (from Chicago) during his Senate race.  She recruits new Reps for the Blue Dog side.  It looks like a semi-safe seat but I'd rather have a Republican in her than her.

Don't forget John Barrow in GA-12 (4.00 / 3)
and open seats in IL-10 and DE-AL.

IMO we should throw all our resources and energy into just a few challenges and actually win them, rather than a scattershot barrage.  We need to hold up a few scalps and say, "Yes we can!"

[ Parent ]
You might have a point (4.00 / 4)
If the Congressional Progressive Caucus showed any ability to throw its weight around and influence the Democratic agenda.  The caucus voted internally to stand for a robust public option rather than try to demand single-payer from the outset, then caved on the public option.  

I'm leaning toward the idea that members of the CPC include a lot of people who are horrible at politics.  There is a clear unwillingness to be Stupak-like and hold a bill that contains things they like hostage in order to insert other things they want.  That sort of risk-averse unwillingness to gamble is why I suspect that progressives gaining seats or a higher proportion of the Democratic caucus won't lead to more influence.

I don't think we'll ever have an outright progressive majority, so the progressive path to power lies in being the dominant player in a center-left coalition and I have doubts about our current crop of progressives being able to step up and seize power.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Of course, the flip side of your comment is that the conservatives (4.00 / 3)
realize that progressives will fold. Thus conservatives know that all negotiations are really just a matter of waiting progressives out. If you can predict the behavior of your opponent, there is no risk to you in such a wait. So the progressive aversion to risk means there is no risk for conservatives.

That will not change with numbers unless conservatives become completely irrelevant to passing legislation . So long as they retain even a small amount of influence over passing legislation, they will always have the ability to leverage it to win  in battles in which progressives are not willing to take any risks.  

[ Parent ]
Can we make them irrelevant then? (4.00 / 1)
If we get 218 solid, dependable liberals (using whatever reasonable metric) in the House and 60 in the Senate, we're good!

How many do we have right now?  We have a lot of good liberals in the House (e.g. the CPC) but I doubt we have more than 10-12 in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
they are only as relevant as progressives make them (0.00 / 0)
The truth is that the progressives have a stronger hand than the conservatives. It is not the hand. It is the player.
[ Parent ]
Not without taking risks (0.00 / 0)
Can we make them irrelevant then?

See the vicious catch-22 cycle?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
between now and then (4.00 / 1)
Let's see, there are about 330 odd days now before the next election....

Gee, I wonder if something might happen between now and then that might change the complexion of the races dramatically?

Nah, probably not. I think we can probably trust what the polls say today.

But it is nice to know that if the Democrats get thumped it will be mostly the "non-progressives" that go down. How comforting that will be with the Republicans controlling Congress.

The real Republicans, not the Blue Dog wannabes and Joe Lieberman.

The only hope for something happening (4.00 / 5)
is for this poll to become well-known and widespread. Versailles Dems think they are safe, that they can piss on the base and suffer no consequences.

But this poll is a wake-up call. They ignore it at their peril.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Small victory (0.00 / 0)
At least the GOPpers won't be able to hide behind the "Democratic Party" label and finance their conservative campaigns from funds in the DCCC.

What good is a ruling majority if a portion of your coalition are more in tune with the opposition?

Root out the Red Moles.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
If we're REALLY lucky Obama will switch parties (0.00 / 0)
So a progressive Democrat can run against him in 2012, and win! Woo, hoo! We'll call it the year of political rope-a-dope!

I nominate Michael Moore!

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

how about the full court press? (4.00 / 1)
Meta,

What did you think of my clarification?

http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

I'm trying to go beyond suggesting it.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
I think you're on to something (0.00 / 0)
But I'm at a disadvantage, I suppose, by not knowing a whole heck of a lot about electoral politics. Even so, I'll try and offer useful criticism.

While it might be thrilling to cajole the national politicos into a response that would be "news", I'm not so sure that that would translate into "scaring" them. The only "scare" that I think any politician ultimately cares about is the loss of power.

But this requires, does it not, that at least some of those candidates must be real threats to win in the general election? I take this as a given. I'll grant you that defeating a bunch of DLC approved candidates in primaries who nevertheless lose in the generals might still be enough to generate lots of publicity and start a movement that could snowball greatly by 2012, but I'd still like to see some wins by candidates who - horrors! - represent their constituents more than Rahm Emmanuel & Co. would like, get into office in 2010.

So, what would the effect be of running up to 435 candidates (I'm going to ignore the issue of fundability, and assume that doing the minimum to get on the ballot is going to be achievable) in terms of pushing some of them into the 'Win' column on election day?

Well, thought of this way, I do think parts of your idea have merit, to the point that it's worth trying. Because if you could get up to 435 primary candidates agreeing on a common agenda, and if some of those 435 candidates won, at that point I think the national party would be "scared". More importantly, it could make a light bulb go off in the dispirited electorates' mind that there is a constructive way to channel their frustrations, that can lead to a government that actually represents them.

In some districts, though, that tend Republican/Blue Dog, requiring a good deal of your list, such as "Absolutely pro-choice on abortion rights." , "Tax the rich to deal with the deficit" and "Rebuild and strengthen the social safety net." may make them unwinnable in the general election. I get that this is a secondary concern, for you, but again, looking at wins as what ultimately makes a difference, and wanting to maximize those wins in 2010, would lead to a different strategy.

So, you might consider a modified version of your requirements, viz., requiring the CPC candidates to embrace at least 4 out of the 7. Which ones they pick depends on their local political realities.

To sum up: I think your idea has real merit, and I encourage you to pursue at least a variation of it. Quite frankly, I've read so many despairing posts, that at the very least, you'd be contributing to many Americans' mental and emotional health. Despair can easily lead to sickness....

While I'm skeptical of the so-called 'Bold Progressives', why don't you float your idea by them, and ask who amongst their members would be willing to run for office? Certainly, if they're not bold enough to relay your request to their members, we'll at least have another data point as to how accurate their name is. Also, you should post and propagandize your idea at DemocraticUnderground. That's a mother lode of dispirited Democrats.

Also, here's some marketing ideas for you:
'The Progressive Wave, 2010'  or
'The Progressive Democrats Wave, 2010'
'The Progressive Democrat Contract with America Wave, 2010'
'The Ignored Democrats Strike Back'
'The democratic Democratic Wave, 2010'
'The Populist Democratic Wave, 2010'
'Dump Rahm Emmanuel Politics'
'Dump Democrats who Dumped You'

(The 'wave' is to suggest something episodic, as opposed to a movement, which is ongoing. So, the progressive Democrat movement is spawning waves in 2010, 2012, ...)

Finally, if you proceed, you should probably study what happened to the Republican's 'Contract with America' in the 1990's. As I understand it, the freshmen Republicans were quickly corrupted by the long-term Republicans. (Don't quote me on this.)

To forestall the corrupting process, you should consider making the 'contract' two-sided. I.e., voters who voted for the CPC candidates will post their names on an online list, and vow to not vote for re-election of the CPC candidate if they break their pledges.

In the real world of politics, things are never so cut and dried, so IMO the CPC candidates should be required to explain any votes which their supporters could consider as having broken any of their pledges. Wouldn't you like to know how the so-called 'Progressive Bloc' explains their support of healthcare legislation which doesn't look too "robust" to me? I sure would.

Another pledge that you should consider adding on to the list (but, unlike the others, making it 100% required) is that the CPC candidates will take 1 weekend every 6 weeks to congregate in some part of the country (other than their home district) to build up the progressive Democrat movements.  

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
You should also add some strong healthcare option to your list (0.00 / 0)
One that would force costs down to European levels within, say, 7 years. The cost computation has to combine individual out of pocket costs and costs via taxation.

I'd be happy to pay another $1,000/year in my household's taxes if my healthcare insurance bills decline by $8,000/year for a family of four.

Here is an example of where you would do well to consult with people involved with transpartisan political solutions. I heard a program James Turner of the progressiveradionetwork.com, a few days ago, where he was talking about health savings accounts. Turner, a former Nader's raider, was positive on the idea. Believe it or not, sometimes Republicans/conservatives have good ideas, too, so talking to Turner, et. al., might lead to some list modifications that make for happier constituents and more electorally successful results in current Blue Dog districts.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Healthcare omission was a gross oversight which I immediately realized (0.00 / 0)
I'll be working to update this during the week.  And your suggestions for people to talk to is immensely helpful.

The points of unity should have a certain vagueness for flexibility.  There is also flexibility in how hard any CPC candidate would run.  They are somewhat up for grabs, as is the name (CPC is the same as the Congressional Progressive Caucus, my bad).

As for winning, I'm not against it.  It's just that it has been so fetishized that my idea fails to be even comprehended.  It should dovetail easily with other progressives who are out to nail specific seats.  Again, the value of vagueness for flexibility.

I also don't want to take things into too much detail because the first step is gather interested people and create a process that involves them as well.

I will follow your suggestions, and others are welcome.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Thanks. One correction of my own (0.00 / 0)
The "take 1 weekend every 6 weeks" option actually should not be a requirement, if you're going to take a more transpartisan (or less purist) strategy, as I suggested.

It's fine to make it required, otherwise.

One intermediate approach is to make it required for CPC candidates in Democratic-leaning districts, and optional, otherwise.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Sources for candidates (0.00 / 0)
In urban areas (at least), Industrial Areas Foundation

http://www.industrialareasfoun...

Districts that have major college towns : Whatever the equivalents may be of Democrats for Change..

One thing you'd have to try and evaluate, and make clear to prospective candidates, is that they're liable to be black-listed by powerful 'pros'. If their political ambitions are limited to local elections, as is probably the case for Democrats for Change, I doubt that that will be a problem. But for those who aspire to office at a higher level, it's something to think about. If the public really does take over the party from below, such concerns will eventually not be there. But, we may be talking about a 30 year process, so people will have to make careful decisions.

If there's no organization in a good-sized college town that is the equivalent of Democrats for Change, you should consider partnering with the New Brunswick Democrats for Change to simultaneously push creating same, along with digging up a candidate for your '435 Districts' strategy, in each such town.

The Democrats for Change were written up on the PDA website: Progressives and Revolutionaries Win 25 Seats in Local Democratic Party

Another marketing idea:
'Democrats for Change Alliance, Wave 2010'.

(The 'Alliance' refers to a coalition of unified town-based efforts that use the New Brunswick effort as a model, and your national-office-based program - which will hopefully help smooth the path to a more efficient IVCS system.)

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Some more ideas (0.00 / 0)
* creating a common web site for all of the candidates, where each candidate's URL is something like

www.democrats-for-change-alliance-2010/NJ-13  for HR candidates and

www.democrats-for-change-alliance-2010/NJ for Senate candidates

* I sent a long email to Gary Null, suggesting that he, Ralph Nader, and a couple of prominent conservatives take off from Paul Rosenberg's idea, and basically create an instant-runoff mechanism (including funding) to narrow down choices for Dems and Reps, respectively, to a viable (fundable) few, for 2010 races. I didn't cc Nader or the conservatives. Not sure he'll bite, but he's often called for "not re-electing anybody", and he's definitely a doer. (In fact, he's an UBER-activist).

So, if you follow through, you should definitely contact his office staff to see if he's doing anything along the lines I suggested. This way, you could co-ordinate your 'full court press' efforts, at least for the Democratic side of things, with whatever he cooks up.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
I think this is a pretty reasonable thought (0.00 / 0)
But not at the current ratio.  If progressives were to be able to influence the ratio to where most progressives actually won their elections and conservatives lost then that would be useful.

Either way though it wont really matter as the senate is the real bottleneck.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

I'm glad prominent bloggers are getting this out of their system now (3.20 / 5)
so that there is a chance sanity will return by August.

And I am confident that sanity will return when necessity forces its return. I saw the same attitude with Health Care Reform: calls from prominent bloggers here at Open Left etc. for Progressives in Congress to torpedo

1) Any bill without single payer

2) Any bill without a robust public option

3) Any bill that symbolically reaffirms the Hyde Amendment

At each phase the bomb-throwers balked and were immediately glad they did.

We have been at this since the election of 2004: the following LONG TERM vision still applies:

1. The world / civilization is in trouble

2. Government, among other things, needs to be a force against the troublesome trends

3. AT THE VERY LEAST the fascists need to be kept out of official government ("lose-to-win" is not a moral option)

4. Due to an error of James Madison, we need to create governing coalitions before the election, whereas civilized countries do so afterwards.

4a. While we fight the long battle for process reform, we continue to fight the periodic and recurring battles known as elections.

4b. We form coalitions with whoever isn't a fascist at heart: that includes blue dogs, new democrats, whoever we can find (libertarians if we really cared to succeed, by the way)

5) While we fight this holding action, we do the REAL WORK of transforming consciousness and building counter-cultural institutions ("grow liberalism")

Even with all this, we still need some techno-miracles to avoid another Dark Age, but from a moral point of view one has to go down swinging, not wish, as Marx did, for a "crisis of Capitalism" to usher in utopia. It doesn't work that way; it ushers in Hell.

See you in August.

Not sure why this was troll rated... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Rated up for troll rate abuse (0.00 / 0)
Please stop it.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Good time for primary challenges to the weakest traitors (4.00 / 4)
An aggressive primary campaign could revive the local Democrats without needing to wait for the national atmosphere to improve. In particular, a successful challenger could go on the attack, distance himself from the loser Dems, and stay in attack mode to got after the Republicans next.

Besides getting rid of Blue Dogs, we want to elect progressives. This sounds like an opportunity.

Nate Silver disagrees (4.00 / 1)
says exact opposite is true;

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

Nate Silver has a very different conception of what progressivism is (4.00 / 4)
Nate thinks voting for healthcare and the climate change bill was enough. Chris thinks that's the absolute minimum, and progressivism was fighting for medicare +5.

It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Yeap (4.00 / 1)
Stimulus is a great example. Everyone admits now that the stimulus passed was insufficient to produce jobs. At time, many progressives argued it needed to be bigger and shaped differently to be effective. The bill that passed was a product of conservative efforts to water the bill down so that it could fail. That's what those Representatives voted on. The lesson there is not that they voted progressive and lost. It is that they thought voting for anything was the same as voting for an effective bill. Yet, Nate ignores effectiveness as part of the criteria. Most progressives are arguing the importance of effective rather than just pass anything as has been the Democratic view this year.
[ Parent ]
Nobody likes a whiner (4.00 / 1)
Wah, wah, wah. Why can no one in government find within themselves the strength of character to give me everything I want, right now? (And screw anyone who doesn't like it.)

People got short memories. That's all I can say.

We need to point out exactly which seats are gettable by liberals (4.00 / 3)
Yes, we hate Blue Dogs, but they have something of an excuse for their behavior - their districts are usually heavily Republican.  In a sense, it's a miracle that a Democrat is even holding that seat at all.

Sure, we could argue that there's a disconnect between the ConservaDem and the supposedly "conservative" district, like Blanche Lincoln's opposition to the PO vs. Arkansas's support of it, but for the most part it's hard to see how a liberal does better than a conservative in a conservative district, all else being equal.

So if people are going to be hoping for a Republican to take a Blue Dog seat so that a liberal/progressive can get it back, they need to point out exactly which seats, because I highly doubt there are more than a handful that qualify.

Instead, I think we should focus on electing liberals and progressives to every seat that voted for Barack Obama (surely that's a majority of seats?) and do so in stages.  Focus first on the ones that gave him 70+% of the vote (e.g. LA-6, AL-5, etc.).  Then 60+%.  Then 55+%.

And, as a matter of priority, focus on liberal/progressive candidates who are already running, e.g. Marcy Winograd, Regina Thomas, etc.  We as the liberal community keep moaning about the lack of good primary challenges while said good challengers run unnoticed, then they lose and we continue moaning about the lack of good primary challenges.  Time to stop the cycle - we need them, they need us.

This would imply (0.00 / 0)
Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is a failure.  
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure it would imply anything about the 50 state strategy (0.00 / 0)
Care to explain?

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
I need to explain this? (0.00 / 0)
We need to point out exactly which seats are gettable by liberals

The 50 State strategy is meant to elect Democrats everywhere, not just where seats are "gettable"

If we only rely on "gettable" seats, we're down to about a 39 state strategy, since there likely aren't any "gettable" seats for liberals in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alaska and Arkansas.  

[ Parent ]
Some of them are gettable (4.00 / 3)
There are different sorts of progressives. Montana loves its populists and the Dakotas have a history of electing bleeding-heart liberals who happen to also be good at retail politics.

NE-02 isn't a dead loss either.

Electing liberals here wouldn't be easy, and certainly wouldn't be doable through a primary. And when they were elected, they'd need constant DCCC support. But those areas are not right-wing enough for a progressive to be incapable of winning. It just becomes more difficult than in, for example, New York.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Yeap, I think the better response is that (4.00 / 1)
what this shows is Rahm's strategy of pushing for Blue Dog corporate Democrats is a dismal failure. The 50 state strategy did not require recruiting the types of Democrats Rahm choose to focus on, but only in DC do people fail up so he gets "credit" for doing what we can now say was a shitty job.  But, then maybe that was the point.
[ Parent ]
Does the 50 states strategy mean that all seats are equally (4.00 / 1)
"gettable"? Or does it allow some room for recognizing that some seats offer easier targets than others?

Compete everywhere, but focus resources where they are likely to have the most benefit.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Nonsense (0.00 / 0)
The 50 State Strategy was a strategy for the DNC for acquiring a majority.  It was not a strategy for all actors to achieve all things. We are not the DNC, and it's not 2006.

As for whether there are gettable progressive seats in most states, I think you underestimate the possibilities for pickups, as Englishlefty said.

Regardless, the netroots has far fewer financial resources than the DNC, and our goal should not be to expand the Democratic Party at all costs. Different institutions, different resources, different goals means different strategies.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
I meant my original comment in the context of (0.00 / 0)
which seats we should hope the Republicans take.  I wasn't advocating pulling out of those districts completely.

Aside from that, what SpitBall said.

[ Parent ]
Democrats are in electoral trouble; Progressives are not | 86 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox