Response to Nate Silver on my 11 dimensional chess strategy

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 14:54


Yesterday, I argued that most of the House Democrats in danger of losing in 2010 were relatively conservative compared to the House Democrats who are safe for reelection.  As such, the defeat of these Democrats would have the short-term progressive benefit of moving the overall House Democratic caucus to the left.  Further, in 2012 and beyond, it would have the long-term benefit of creating more opportunities to replace Republicans with more progressive Democrats.  This is a benefit, because taking Republican-held seats has consistently proven much easier for progressive Democrats than defeating conservative, incumbent Democrats in primary challenges.

Nate Silver disagreed with my argument.  Focusing on the stimulus, climate change and health care votes, Nate noted that among the Democrats who are endangered (according to the Cook Political Report), a majority voted in favor of all three bills.  Thus the endangered Democrats are not, as I claim, conservative:

On all three issues, the vulnerable Democrats were more likely than average ones to have voted against their party. Nevertheless, solid majorities were in support of each of these agenda items. The Most Vulnerable Democrats (MVDs) voted for the health care bill 22-17, the climate bill 24-14, and the stimulus package 34-4. Only 12 of the 39 voted against at least two out of the three initiatives, and only three of the 39 (Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith of Alabama, and Walt Minnick of Idaho) completely struck out.(...)

Unless there's some 11-dimensional chess angle that I'm not seeing, it seems to me that randomly wiping out, I don't know, two-thirds of the members listed above and replacing them with Republicans would be extremely injurious to the progressive agenda.

I like Nate a lot myself, and return all of the kind words he sent my way.  Still, I think he is missing the big picture here.  As such, I am more than happy to try and elucidate my 11-dimensional chess angle on the 2010 House elections.

First, we need a broader measurement of progressivism than just three votes.  Beyond the stimulus, climate change and final health care vote, there are many other key votes such as cramdown, Stupak, Afghanistan, and the budget.  As such, I prefer the 2009-2010 "crucial votes" score on Progressive Punch as an effective measurement of progressivism for the 111th Congress.  This score measures the entire House caucus against its most progressive members on a few dozen, particularly close votes.

With this new measurement, we can quickly identify a big difference between the "endangered" and "safe" Democrats in terms progressivism.  In fact, the endangered Democrats actually vote against progressives more often than they vote with them:

Progressive Punch mean scores for select groups, crucial votes for 2009-2010

  • The 215 "safe" Democrats seeking re-election: 72.2%
  • All 258 Democrats: 68.3%
  • The 35 endangered Democrats: 47.3%
  • All 435 House members: 42.0%
  • All 177 Republicans: 3.5%
Note: Eight House Democrats are not seeking re-election in the House, and as such are not included in either the group of 215 "safe" or the group of 35 "endangered" Democrats.

The differences are even greater between the endangered and safe Dems, if the median is used instead of the mean:

  • The 215 safer Dems seeking re-election: 76.5%
  • The 35 endangered Democrats: 47.1%
  • All 177 Republicans: 2.0%
The stated goal of Open Left since our inception has been a progressive governing majority.  In the House of Representatives, that means a minimum mean of 50.1% on crucial votes for the chamber as a whole.  Right now, we are at 42.0%.  To reach 50.1%, we are going to need some unorthodox tactics.

More in the extended entry.
Chris Bowers :: Response to Nate Silver on my 11 dimensional chess strategy
My 11-dimensional chess strategy does not involve abandoning all endangered Democrats.  Instead, I argue that we should be very selective, and focus on saving the very few endangered members of the Progressive Caucus, as well as the equally rare, endangered, unaffiliated progressives.

So, let's tweak the list of 35 endangered Democrats to remove the three members of the Progressive caucus who we will work to save (Grayson, Hall, Massa), and at least three of the endangered, unaligned, and progressive Democrats who are worth saving (Kagen, Kilroy, Shea-Porter).  Let's also remove Bill Owens, whose 100% score is not representative of how he will vote during the rest of 2009-2010.  These changes result in:

  • The 28 endangered Dems I suggest cutting loose: 41.8%
With those 7 Democrats removed from the endangered list, the mean Progressive Punch crucial votes score for the group is slightly below the current average for the entire House.

We are never going to reach 50.1% if we are defending members who are themselves well below 50.1%, and even slightly below the current House average of 42.0%.  We have to replace those members, not defend them.  What's more, we need some Republican help to replace them.

Now, will replacing these conservative Democrats with Republicans result in an overall loss of progressive votes?  Yes, but hopefully only in the short-term.  The idea is that these conservative Democrats lose to Republicans, and that those Republicans are in turn replaced with progressive Democrats in future elections.

This route is risky, but it is also necessary, because primary challenges are simply not enough.  Of all the progressive primary challenges we have run, only Donna Edwards has succeeded.  A couple of others, Mark Pera and Ed Fallon, succeeded in pushing their incumbents to the left.

By way of comparison, both progressives and Progressives have had far more success in elections without a Democratic incumbent.  The three victories (one total and two partial) we have notched in primary challenges pale in comparison to the twenty members of the Progressive Caucus, plus the more than one dozen unaffiliated progressives, who were all first elected to Congress in the last five years.  Most of those 30-odd new P/progressives replaced either a Republican or a more conservative Democrat.  Only one of them, Donna Edwards, defeated an incumbent Democrat.

Since recent elections have shown that it is much easier to for progressive Democrats to enter the House when they are not facing incumbent Democrats, we need more chances to win seats that do not involve progressive Democrats facing incumbent Democrats.  In order for that to happen, some conservative Democrats are going to have to lose to Republicans in general elections, because most incumbent, conservative Democrats are simply too difficult to dislodge in primary elections.

Here is an overall summary of the strategy I am proposing:

  1. We need to keep running progressive primary challenges, as is currently happening in CA-36 and GA-12.  

  2. We need to defend progressive incumbents, as I intend to do in at least FL-08, NH-01, NY-19, and NY-29.  

  3. We need to keep supporting progressive challenges to open, Democratic-held seats like KS-03, NH-02, PA-07, and especially in deep blue seats like AL-07, FL-17, FL-19, and HI-01.

  4. We need to keep supporting progressive challenges to Republican held-seats, which either have emerged, or might emerge, in places like DE-AL, FL-12, IL-10, LA-02 and PA-06.  

  5. But we are also going to need some Republicans to do the dirty work of removing conservative Democrats for us.  As just two examples, it will be a lot easier for Representatives like Mike Arcuri and Dana Titus to be replaced by Republicans, and subsequently replaced by progressive Democrats, than for primary challenges to just replace either of those two outright.  Further, the defeat of conservative Democrats can also potentially result in more progressive control over the DCCC, which will give us a better chance of running progressive and Progressive Democrats against Republicans in the future.
This is not a strategy predicated on defending what we have, or upon attempting to maximize the progressive-ness of Congress at all times.  It is, instead, a long-term strategy designed to create a progressive governing majority.

With long-term demographics still in our favor, with new congressional maps appearing in 2012, and with much stronger progressive electoral infrastructure (just to name a few: PCCC, DFA, Blue America, Democrats.com, Accountability Now, Open Left, and a revitalized Progressive Caucus leadership), I think we can pull it off.  However, we are going to need a little help from Republicans, just as we helped the teabaggers by wiping out nearly the entire moderate wing of the Republican House caucus over the past four years.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Response to Nate Silver on my 11 dimensional chess strategy | 49 comments
what if things change? (4.00 / 1)
As things stand I agree with the approach outlined. Here's the controversial part:

5. But we are also going to need some Republicans to do the dirty work of removing conservative Democrats for us.  As just two examples, it will be a lot easier for Representatives like Mike Arcuri and Dana Titus to be replaced by Republicans, and then replaced by progressive Democrats, then for primary challenges to just replace them outright.  Further, the defeat of conservative Democrats can also potentially result in more progressive control over the DCCC.

What if, in say May of 2010, the outlook for Democrats starts looking better nationally? Not that Open Left should or would advocate keeping these blue dogs, but we are assuming, based on current polls, that losses are coming. What if it starts to look like losses may be minimal? Is there a point where it makes little sense to advocate for R victories against blue dogs? In that scenario I wouldn't want to give Republicans the appearance of credibility or momentum going into 2012.

"...advocate for R victories?...." (4.00 / 2)
Failing to support blue dog Democrats isn't the same as advocating for Republican victories. I understand the point is that whether Democrats in the House will lose many or only a few seats, there's little reason to support the candidacies of blue dog incumbents. Whatever the overall prospects are for Democrats, let blue dogs (doubtless with the DCCC's, DNC's and Rahmie's strong support) fend for themselves. It could cut the other way, of course, if more progressives Democrats lose than conservative ones, but Chris's theory, supported by his numbers here, is that even a much smaller Democratic majority in the house will likely end up more progressive. Not just more progressive, but possibly stronger because it would be more united.

[ Parent ]
If Democratic Reps want election help, they have to satisfy the base (4.00 / 2)
not piss us off. The biggest payoff of this strategy is that if we stick with it, politicians will notice and will adjust accordingly.

Right now, too many are of the mindset that all they need is corporate $. They are in for a rude awakening in 2010. I'm okay with clearing out the deadwood, especially in the House where we don't need supermajorities to pass legislation.

"We are are the change we have been waiting for" --Barack Obama reminding us we have to hold him accountable.

[ Parent ]
I kind of like what you are saying (4.00 / 2)
Where I differ is that it still focuses on individual seats, methodologically.

The teabaggers operate as a national force, pressuring the entire Republican Party.  Their involvement in individual races is a subset of that.

Our approach needs to move to a national-to-national level, and figure out individual races from there.

Think globablly, act locally (4.00 / 2)
If Democratic Pols see that their moderate brethren are getting knocked out by Republicans, while the more progressive ones are holding their seats... the pressure will soon spread nationally.

The teabaggers have such sway because they have shown that they are able and willing to defend conservatives and let moderates twist in the wind.

[ Parent ]
Tea-Bagging worked, perhaps, in a negative way (0.00 / 0)
the effort was, apparently, effective in getting people to slow down on the HCR effort.

But is there any evidence that these astro-turfers can actually get people to the polls to cast votes?

Tea baggers may have some influence in terms of stopping debates and bills, but is that enough to win elected office?

I'm not completely convinced that tea-baggers have as much "sway" as you attribute to them.  

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

[ Parent ]
Possibly (4.00 / 2)
There's been blogging about the enthusiasm gap between Republican and Democratic voters as determined by the dKos poll.  There's been a desire to cast that as Democratic voters not being activated (and to blame that on Obama), but I think at least part of that gap can be attributed to the Tea Party movement and similar attempts to whip conservatives in a frenzy.  I haven't seen anyone present any evidence that Democratic voters are much less enthusiastic than they have been in past mid-term elections (but I haven't looked into it much myself, either).

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Getting people to the polls is not the bottom line (4.00 / 4)
A solid militant bloc can move the political spectrum to the right, and they have done so.

Likewise, the militancy of the left movement in the 60s moved the country left, DESPITE the election of Richard Nixon.  Who would be a flaming leftist by today's standards.  (18 year olds the vote, end the war, end the draft, continue the welfare state)

Health care was only the target of the moment.  After Obama's bill is dead and buried, the teabaggers will be moving on to their next.

[ Parent ]
So you attribute the watering down of HCR (0.00 / 0)
to the tea-baggers? I hadn't thought about that possibility.

Votes are important in the context of the 2010 election. Maybe that's not the subject, though.

Seems to me that a "solid militant bloc" on the left would be able to deliver the 2010 vote to the left, regardless of whether HCR passes, or not. In fact, the failure of the bill - because of non-productive compromising to the right - might actually provide a foundation for such a bloc to come together.

What better rallying point than true healthcare reform? Especially after it has so recently been denied by those Conservatives - some within the Dem caucus - who have denied it for decades.  

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

[ Parent ]
I don't think we have the necessary organization nor monitary backing (4.00 / 5)
to make that happen, right now.  The teabaggers are organized and funded by the corporations and corporate-run organizations.  If it weren't for that backing, the teabaggers wouldn't be doing any better than we are.

So, we need to lay the groundwork first, before we start trying anything on nation-wide scale.

Never give up. Never Surrender.

[ Parent ]
This cannot be too emphasized. (4.00 / 5)
They own the television broadcasting systems, the radio systems and a plurality of most legislatures and elected executives. They own all but a handful of the magazines, all but but a few entertainment weekend newspapers. They have access to completely unlimited amounts of money.

We have a few internet pages. If we have any hope at all however, it is because of the few internet pages we have.

Gabriel D is completely correct on the smallness of our resources, but we have the numbers, and the support (despite all the resources reigned against us as above, because reality has a progressive/liberal bias) of the majority on all major issues.

What we need is confidence, organization and discipline. (I once stopped a redacted until they found a different solution, because I wouldn't cross a picket line. People hoped I would cross, but there was no surprise that I wouldn't, and no retribution. You never cross a picket line. Never. Imagine being called a scab by Woody Guthrie, or Tom Morello or whoever if you need.)

We need production of materials and we need it spread wide, linked often and sent places it normally isn't seen. ("You people may not have seen this story," you could write, "I found it openleft.com and it talks about how...") and we need discipline. When an action is called, its a responsibility, not an opportunity for example.

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

[ Parent ]
au contraire (4.00 / 1)
My idea is to lay a national groundwork.  Thin, weak, perhaps, but national.  A national effort is qualitatively different from building local strength (though not incompatible, I add to your immediate objection).

Taking a bold approach with what we have will draw the resources.  Otherwise we will never have the "necessary organization nor monitary backing."

[ Parent ]
And you need the money to do that. (0.00 / 0)
A) By saying we need to lay the national groundwork, you've just admitted we lack the organization and monetary backing, so "au contraire" is a rather hubristic (yes, FireFox, I know that's not in your dictionary) assertion, don't you think?  Dean's 50 State strategy was a success because he had the Democratic party's infrastructure and resources (both monetary and human) to make it happen.  Without that foundation, he would have had to lay it down, first.

B) Before I go further, I want to say that I think you've got a good idea.  But that's as far as you've really gotten.

What you're arguing is for a plan that would address the lack of foundation which I brought up.  That's all well and fine, but you don't really have a plan, yet.  It's more of an outline than anything else.  Granted, you have to start somewhere, but still, I think I'd want to see something far more fleshed out before I got excited about it.  Ideas are a dime a dozen.

Get specific.  Plan it out.  Break it down from the national level to the local levels.  Show us how you plan to promote the effort so that it gains support.  Show us who's going to donate the necessary money to make it happen.  You cannot rely on wealthy individuals to self-fund the campaigns.  That's only good for going after a few seats, and we don't need your idea to do that.

Make some realistic time assessments/guesstimates.  How long will it take to get noticed?  How long will it take before we can expect an electoral win?  How long before we should expect "critical mass," and the organization heading the effort starts to see constant and continuous success?

I'm not expecting you to answer these right away.  These sorts of issues take time to consider and find useful answers.  But I hope you'll address them when you next write about your idea.  And remember, be specific.  Ask for help finding information, if you need it.  (I, personally, wouldn't be much help with that, but there should be others who can at least point you in the right direction.)

If you've never been to a DFA Training Academy (or you've never been near the top of a campaign), I suggest you go.  You'll learn that there's a lot more to running a successful campaign than you might think, and your idea requires that the organization be able to help run hundreds of these across the entire nation.

C) Like you said, your idea is not incompatible with our more immediate concerns.  But it's important to recognize that what you are talking about is a long-term strategy which cannot realistically expect to show any success in the near term.  This is something which people can be working on while others focus on the more immediate efforts.

Never give up. Never Surrender.

[ Parent ]
Have you checked this out? (4.00 / 1)
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

It doesn't answer all your questions, but maybe some of them.  And I will be fleshing this out more in the coming week.  The name will have to change, of course.

To answer the question of how long it will take to get noticed:

If the plan is announced and people start filing and putting the question to incumbents, it'll get noticed damned quick.  Elected officials are very touchy about this kind of thing.

Electoral win?  At this point, the plan doesn't care.  Good people are working on electoral wins already.  Hopefully, this would dovetail with those.  But its purpose is to put principles first, and confront the fetishization of winning which is fundamentally conservative.  I like Bowers' post for this reason.

I have some disagreements with your methodology, as the initial step is to win a core of people who would be in a better position to address your more blueprint-like concerns than I am.  I could draw up such a detailed plan, but I believe it would be wrong to do so at this moment.

I deeply appreciate your response, however.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I saw that post. (0.00 / 0)
And that is, in part, what I was responding to.  Like I said, I think it's a good outline.  A necessary starting point.  But more work needs to go into it.

I think we disagree, at least to a certain extent, on the need for winning.  Or perhaps we agree, but we have different ways of viewing the issue?  My main thrust is that the end result of all this work has to be taking control of congress.  Without control of congress, our agenda doesn't get passed, and passing our agenda through congress and into law is the ultimate goal of electoral politics.

For that to happen, progressives have to win elections.  That also means that progressives have to win elections.  Focusing solely on progressives to the exclusion of winning doesn't get us any farther than focusing on winning to the exclusion of progressives.  We need both, or we get neither.

If the plan is announced and people start filing and putting the question to incumbents, it'll get noticed damned quick.

That's an "if" statement.  You need to be able to show, "here's how we're going to make that happen."  How are you going to get people to believe in the plan to even be willing to support it, let alone get people willing to file to run for office?  And you want to do this nation wide.  How?

I have some disagreements with your methodology, as the initial step is to win a core of people who would be in a better position to address your more blueprint-like concerns than I am.  I could draw up such a detailed plan, but I believe it would be wrong to do so at this moment.

It's your idea.  No one else is likely to lead the effort but you.  At least in the short term.  So right now, it's your baby.  Run with it.  Post your plans as you come up with them.  Ask for input.  As people see you fleshing it out and moving forward with it, you'll likely get more people participating.  (Well, it's more likely, though by no means a sure thing.)  You have to be the one to start the ball rolling.

And it should go without saying, but I'll say it just in case.  Be prepared to fail.  You may not get anyone to go along with you, or you may screw up somewhere along the way.  Happens to the best of us.

Never give up. Never Surrender.

[ Parent ]
you're right (0.00 / 0)
It's your idea.  No one else is likely to lead the effort but you.  At least in the short term.  So right now, it's your baby.  Run with it.  Post your plans as you come up with them.  Ask for input.  As people see you fleshing it out and moving forward with it, you'll likely get more people participating.  (Well, it's more likely, though by no means a sure thing.)  You have to be the one to start the ball rolling.

And it should go without saying, but I'll say it just in case.  Be prepared to fail.  You may not get anyone to go along with you, or you may screw up somewhere along the way.  Happens to the best of us.

I will and I am.  I didn't want to be in this position, I wanted someone else to do it.  Serves me right for  shooting off my mouth, I guess.

Again, I appreciate your comments.

[ Parent ]
Additionally, (0.00 / 0)
I'm reccing up your comments here to help promote discussion on this topic.  Even though I think the short-term impact is limited at best, I think your long-term goal is well worth more studied consideration.

Never give up. Never Surrender.
[ Parent ]
Personalities rather than structure.... (4.00 / 4)
My biggest concern here is that the principle remains our focus on personalities rather than political structure. I'm all for recruiting good candidates, but wouldn't it be more productive - and make a lot more sense of politicians - if we demanded some specific policy commitments that address the underlying political dynamics that frustrate progressive politics, i.e. campaign finance reform, EFCA, etc.?
there will certainly be such demands (4.00 / 9)
The era of just endorsing Democrats without even talking to them, or demanding position statements on a variety of issues, is over.
[ Parent ]
That's good (4.00 / 3)
But I really do think we need to spend some time thinking over which policies have to be at the top. It can't just be a liberal laundry list - it has to be what I think you've described as "positive feedback loop" policies.  
[ Parent ]
Changing underlying assumptions, changing behavior and branding (4.00 / 4)
a)  How can you change underlying assumptions?

The way the other side wins is to limit the things you see on the table, and to tell you to choose from those things because all of the things listed are still following the underlying assumptions that they follow.

For example, neoliberalism has many underlying assumptions, but one of the most important is that the markets are always rational. You want to get to a point where you are including policy regardless of the specifics of the policies that challenges this assumption of rationality.

b) The other thing you want to do is not just focus on policy but also who is willing to go to bet for it and burn the house down to get it. If we had 2 or 3 Senators willing to torpedo the HRC bill who were liberal, this would fundamental reshape the landscape of the bill.

Thus my two underlying principles are- what can change underlying assumptions and what can change behavioral expectations. Those are the two ways in which the status quo wins because both are the tools that they use to game the system so that even when you win you lose.

it is not enough to believe in a policy. What are you willing to risk for it?

c) finally, there is branding. Progressives obsess too much over literal truths without understanding emotional truth.

The public option should have been called "Medicare for all because we care about all Americans." This is an emotional truth. The rest would have been the other side fighting this emotional truth. I m sure the more risk adverse here will disagree, but ultimately, I think we all know that emotional reality trumps other forms of reality. If are you not going to include this in your toolbox , you are going to limit your options.

These are the 3 criteria that I would use for prioritizing policy. For example- industrial policy hits on all three. I would not call it industrial policy. I would call it "Jobs for America." I would focus on the emotional impact, but also challenge the underlying assumptions of neoliberalism by giving several choices all of which challenge the idea that the markets are rational. Finally, I would be willing to have people who are willing to burn the house down to obtain the outcome of challenging the assumption that markets are rational.

[ Parent ]
What will you talk about (0.00 / 0)
if not their positions on a variety of issues?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
See what I wrote above (4.00 / 1)
3 things- challenge underlying assumptions (markets are always rational), brand for emotions (Medicare for all because we care about Americans) and c) willingness to burn the house down to get these things (because of the character issue and the predictability factor). None of these things are per se issues, but they are what determines what happens to issues.
[ Parent ]
Affirmative reach-out and recruitment (4.00 / 3)
I think an important plan element to add would be early identification of possible progressive replacements that can be recruited, groomed and enabled with funds and infrastructure for 2012 runs -- both primary and general -- against presumed first-term GOPers in critical, targeted districts. We're going to have two fights -- first to win a primary against the Rahm-machine hand-picked conservawanker choice and then the general. It's not too early to start finding and equipping our 'horses' for 2012.

Health care reform = Employer payroll savings = More hiring and more jobs!
[ Parent ]
Do you realize that this what the "full court press" is all about? (4.00 / 1)
The shade of difference is that WE must have OUR OWN points to thrust upon THEM, and we do it to every Democratic congressional candidate in every district.  The full court press is designed to systematize this.  Filing for all primaries is an enforcement mechanism.

If you have a better way to make it happen, I'm all ears.  My concern is that you say, "there will certainly be such demands" while I am demanding of you that you say, I am now going to organize starting now so that there will be such demands.

[ Parent ]
why now? (0.00 / 0)
Chris, I really despise "now is the historic moment to storm the barricades" arguments.  If it's always the moment, then it's also never the moment.

I risk violating my own sense of good taste because I fear that we are in a deteriorating situation.  As opposed to looking forward to steady, incremental progress, we are seeing the base drop away in disgust and disappointment.

I hear calls that the Democratic Party must do something to appeal to the base lest it be lost.  My problem with that is that they are in the process of becoming more chicken-shit, not less.  Jane Hamsher's shift from "we must have a ROBUST public option" to "we must have SOME public option" is a perfect example of the progressive slide.

The question is what are WE going to do about it.  The full court press is a plan to keep the progressive base in the party with an accessible plan of action not dependent on the party's so-called leadership.

If you have a better plan, I bow to you.  But it can't be some version of more of the same but with greater fervor.  Hasn't worked yet, won't work tomorrow, won't convince me to lift a finger.  And so far, all I'm seeing is refinements of more of the same.

[ Parent ]
those demands are coming (4.00 / 1)
If the HCR bill does not contain a public option or a progressive funding mechanism, there is going to be a major backlash among activists and these demands will start coming.  And with today's announcement on Afghanistan I'd anticipate voters of all parties wanting to know precisely where candidates stand on these issues.  So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with Chris :-)
[ Parent ]
So what you would like (0.00 / 0)
Is something like a ten-point litmus test?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
There is no enforcement mechanism except for... (4.00 / 1)
...helping them lose, which is what is proposed.
[ Parent ]
I dont know why this is said like this, (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
a closer look at the votes (4.00 / 4)
Rather than just looking at whether or not a member of congress voted for legislation, it probably makes more sense to look at what they voted for in that legislation.  In other words, did they offer amendments that watered it down significantly and only then did they vote for it?  I'm thinking of the Stimulus here and the wasted 300 billion in tax cuts that should have gone to something useful like investing in mass transit and state aid.  That 300 was added at the blue dogs and conservadems behest as a precondition to voting for the stimulus bill.  That type of behavior should be taken into account when calculating "support" for progressive legislation.  I would make the same measurement for support of HCR and climate change legislation.  If these so-called "moderates" are stripping bills of the most progressive parts, and then reaping the public cynicism when they don't work very well and paying for it at the polls, then what is the point of keeping these blue dogs around?  
I agree that votes are not the end-all be-all (4.00 / 1)
especially when you have really strong liberals like Dennis Kucinich and Eric Massa voting against the health care bill because it isn't strong enough.  In a purely vote-based metric this would be counted against them.

On the other end of the spectrum there's people like Joe Lieberman who tried to pass themselves off as "voting with Democrats 90 percent of the time" but are clearly anti-liberal/progressive in their rhetoric and actions.  These qualitative measures of being non-progressive are not accounted for in roll-call votes.

I think that qualitative measures of liberalism need to be included along with quantitative roll-call vote measurements, both to include people who are liberal but voted against certain bills because they weren't good enough and to exclude people who try to masquerade as having a liberal voting record but work against liberals outside of the Capitol.

I also think there's a valid case, in strongly Democratic/liberal districts, of running against people who are mildly liberal with people who are even better.  Al Wynn, for example, was by many measures "good enough", but we demanded someone better and we got her.  Same with Jane Harman in CA-36.  We don't have to confine ourselves to the worst offenders - if there's a real, reliable liberal leader running against someone who votes well enough but doesn't use their position to really advocate or lead, that's worthwhile too.

[ Parent ]
Which brings up another metric. (4.00 / 1)
There's more to being a congressperson than passing legislation.  There's committee hearings and other things of the "daily grind" variety that we should also pay attention to.  Al Franken's questions over the KBR rape case is a perfect, if obvious, example of this.  Kucinich goes out on TV and constantly unabashedly fights from the liberal/progressive stance (though he does go on FOX, which I'm opposed to).

These things might not be as important as passing good legislation, but that doesn't mean they don't matter, and I think we should be taking them into account.

Never give up. Never Surrender.

[ Parent ]
The risk in risky (4.00 / 1)
I think that the biggest risk in question is losing the Democratic House majority entirely, which has been out of the range of possibility for most of this election cycle, but is always looming, especially with the Republicans motivated by dreams of '94. I hope you will agree that if somehow the election of '10 turns into a wave and sweeps the Republicans back into power with a majority fueled by teabagger rage, it would be a complete disaster for the progressive agenda and would seriously endanger Obama's chances at reelection in '12 by stopping his agenda in its tracks and tying up the Executive branch with endless hearings and wackness.

So it is a bit of a tightrope you're suggesting, Chris -- we cut loose some of the conservadems, but not so many that we risk losing the majority entirely. Then the agenda continues to roll forward, Obama has accomplishments to run on, and we win back those lost districts in '12 with the big man on the ticket. Definitely a plausible scenario, but as Steve Singiser has been sounding the alarm over at Kos, it's not the only possible outcome. We need to accomplish something that will energize the Democratic base -- if the enthusiasm gap continues to widen, we'll need to cling to every single House seat with white knuckles.

not in a vacuum (4.00 / 4)
the normal national Democratic Party apparatus is going to be defending those endangered conservative seats. they won't lack for help. the question is where should we focus our efforts. we aren't so big that the lack of our active support automatically spells doom for anybody.

also, this doesn't really change the basic argument, but isn't Donna Edwards also somewhat at risk, from a primary challenge from the right?

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

[ Parent ]
Good work with numbers (4.00 / 3)
I think your analysis of the voting record, 41.8%, is a very compelling argument. Given that record, these congresspersons are at best dead weight, and at worst do a lot of damage by forcing bad compromises within the caucus.

I assume that your practical recommendations will be something like:

(1) Withhold contributions from the "undesirable" set of endangered Democrats.

(2) Do not do any volunteer work for them either.

And the same will apply to organizations that support this set, like the DCCC.

On the other hand, we should NEVER help a Republican directly (including help by amplifying their talking points.)

And, importantly, ANY and ALL help withheld from this set must be passed on to real progressives, as opposed to being lost from the election cycle.

Sounds all good (4.00 / 1)
Never, ever, ever reinforce rethublican or conservative framing even if it would help defeat a turncoat blue dog like Lieberman. The point is always to end the blockade against Americas natural progressive nature.

Dont as stated here, merely stop contributing. If you are engry to consider that, raise extra money, and donate both amounts to a progressive, and let EVERYONE know, the progressive candidates, the general public, the proggy bloggies and the candidate or organization that you have stiffed.

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

[ Parent ]
It would be helpful if we can pinpoint (0.00 / 0)
which districts, once gained by a Republican, can be recovered by a genuine liberal.

Sure, districts will change in 2012 but the fact remains that most Blue Dogs, ConservaDems etc. are representing conservative areas that are already hard-pressed to elect any Democrat, let alone a liberal one.

Republicans always call Dems "liberal" no matter how conservative the Dem is. (0.00 / 0)
If you're going to be accused of the crime, tried for the crime, and sentenced for the crime, might as well actually do the crime.

Never give up. Never Surrender.
[ Parent ]
Well, I meant in the context of "which districts to lose so we can gain later" (0.00 / 0)
because even hopeless idealists like myself can admit that we'll most likely never elect a Dennis Kucinich-type liberal in a Chet Edwards-style R+34 district.  So if we're gonna be hoping for Republican victories so we can hopefully have liberal victories there later, we should be hoping selectively.
[ Parent ]
I dunno. (4.00 / 2)
I'll grant you your realistic assessment, and thanks for clarifying your first comment.

In the short term, I think you're correct that trying to run the most liberal candidates we can find in heavily conservative districts is a non-starter.  As a long term strategy, however, I think there's merit to the idea.

I think that's one of those things where we can crib a bit from the 50 State strategy.  Run liberal candidates (as liberal as we can find) in those districts, assuming we find any and can afford to back them.  Be unapologetic about it.  Fight for our case.  Since a liberal isn't holding the seat, anyway, we have nothing to lose by trying.

Half of winning in a conservative district is showing the conservatives that you aren't some wishy-washy namby-pamby effete snob.  Get down in the mud and wrestle with them (metaphorically speaking, of course).  Even if you don't win, they respect you more for it.  (Naturally, I'm not talking about the teabaggers or the Republican party in general.  They'll never vote for a Dem.)  Do that often enough, and that translates into respect for liberal ideas, which can eventually lead to wins.

Again, it's a long term strategy, so I don't know if it's really worth following at this point.  It might even fail.  Success is not guaranteed.  But I think it's worth consideration as an addition to what we're already trying to do.  If nothing else, we'll end up with the infrastructure in place when we want to do other big things.

Never give up. Never Surrender.

[ Parent ]
I agree about the need to run everywhere and build up infrastructure over the long term (4.00 / 1)
but my concern is in the short-term, where I think we badly need a victory to keep our spirits up and galvanize our efforts.  Let's face it, for all the complaining about Bad Democrats, there aren't many liberal success stories that involve actually beating them in recent memory - there's Donna Edwards, and I guess you could sorta count Ned Lamont.  Even more galling is all the heavily Democratic districts with moderate or conservative Democrats sitting in them - Jane Harman, Dan Lipinski, Artur Davis, etc.  That is completely unacceptable.

This dismal record is even more noticeable in the Senate.  How many really dependable liberals can we count in the Senate, besides the usual responses of Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin and a few others?  And Senators are locked in for six years; we don't have the luxury of running liberals against them every two years, and when they are up for reelection they're often much harder to dislodge by anyone, especially liberals.

And right now there are good liberals running like Marcy Winograd and Jonathan Tasini, both of whom ran and lost before and will likely lose again because they're not getting much attention or support.  And I'm gonna be sadly watching them (along with Jennifer Brunner in Ohio) get crushed, and there's not really anything I can do about it.  There doesn't seem to be much Open Left can do about it either.

All this is dispiriting.  It's demoralizing.  It makes people not want to get involved or want to look the other way.  And it discourages potential candidates from running.  What we badly need in this election cycle or the next is a real victory; someone's political scalp we can hold up along with Al Wynn's and say "look! we can do it, and we'll do it again!"  We need this victory to get the snowball rolling and let success build on itself.

I guess where I'm going with this is that this kind of victory is only likely to happen if we concentrate all our firepower on a few targets, rather than spreading them out everywhere.  We can do the spreading out and running everywhere thing in the long-term, but right now we really need to kick some ass, for our sanity's sake.

[ Parent ]
I hope I'm not coming off as disagreeing with you. (0.00 / 0)
I'm not really.  I'm just trying to point out that we should also consider a long term strategy to go along with the short term one.  That is, in those districts where we aren't focusing our attention, we should still try to run strongly liberal candidates, even if they haven't a prayer of winning.  How we go about doing that is another matter entirely, and I really don't have any answers along those lines other than to make the general point that we need to better organize ourselves and find the necessary resources to make it happen.  But I think the general idea has merit.

As for being demoralized, I'm not sure what to tell you.  I was depressed for nearly half my life.  Came this close to suicide once.  I finally got myself out of it, relatively recently I might add, but I hope you'll forgive me if I choose not to talk about it further, here.  Suffice to say, compared to what I've gone through, losing a few elections is nothing.  I've never given up in my entire life, and I'm not about to start now.

The best advice I can give you is this.  When things look like they're just too much for you to bear, take a break.  When you've had a chance to recover yourself, get back in the fight.  The only way you lose is when you give up.

Never give up. Never Surrender.

[ Parent ]
Of course (0.00 / 0)
electoral politics will never be as important or impacting as one's personal life, and I didn't mean to say that I was personally depressed over the outcome of certain elections.  What I meant to say was that repeated losses might have the effect of discouraging candidates from mounting challenges and activists from donating and helping them.  If that happens, there will be no long-term anything.

I'm all for running liberals everywhere, but we need to have a few "marquee" races where we're really throwing in everything and aiming our sights at the incumbent, so that we can claim a political scalp or two and bolster our efforts for the future.

This is what's happening with the teabaggers, whom we can actually learn a lot from in terms of political organizing and campaigning.  They might have (narrowly) lost NY-23, but they claimed the political scalp of Dede Scozzafava.  And of course Club for Growth has knocked out quite a few centrist Republicans.

[ Parent ]
If you're serious about this (0.00 / 0)
If you are serious about this, particularly point 5, then why not go all the way?  That is, point 6: figure out which conservative Democrats are being challenged by weak Republicans, and then a) actively help those Republicans to win, while b) actively building up a progressive candidate in the wings who will be ready to go in 2 years.  If dirty work needs doing, don't just wait for Republicans to do it for you; have the courage of your (strategic) convictions and actually help to make it happen.

Now, it may be that this is simply a too-high risk strategy, that the chance of replacing a new Republican with a more progressive Democrat is outweighed by the likelihood of that Republican (who is surely worse than even a highly conservative Democrat, these days) staying in place.  But if that is true, then it rules out strategy #5 as well.  But if you do decide the gamble is worth it, there's no reason not to go all the way, and actively help the Republican challenger -- particularly since, if your help actually does bump him/her over, then he/she is all the more likely to lose once your help switches back to the Democratic challenger.

uhhh... really? (0.00 / 0)
We have scarce resources. We're better off using scarce resources to protect progressives. It doesn't mean we should divide our resource commitment towards helping progressives, let alone commit to helping Republicans.

I think you missed an important part of the argument.

[ Parent ]
Resources (0.00 / 0)
If it were just a question of resources, Nate wouldn't be arguing with Chris.  Everyone agrees that if you can only support X people, and there are more than X progressives along with some number of conservative Democrats, you might as well focus on the progressives.  The debate was slightly more theoretical: might we in fact be better off, in the long run, if some conservative Democrats were to lose to Republicans.  Perhaps yes, perhaps no; but if you believe yes, and have the resources to do something about it (two big ifs), then it seems rational to not just hope that an R defeats a conservative D, but to actually work to make it happen.  Obviously, if that weakens your overall impact by diminishing urgently needed resources, then don't do it.  But more generally, if you do believe it might be for the better, and you could do something about it, why not?  It seems worthwhile to carefully think about when, if ever, resources might be spent on helping weak R's defeat entrenched conservative D's -- once you posit that such a thing could, in some circumstances, be of long-term benefit.
[ Parent ]
A few things Chris... (0.00 / 0)
I like the approach. I really do. This, of course, won't happen because the DCCC will aim to protect Democrats, not progressives. I have heard enough of that from the party insiders to make me sick, but I suppose it is their job. I just find it shameful that when they want netroots work done, they come to progressives. After all, when was the last time you heard of a Blue Dog blogger?

Being that my area of expertise is New York, I will say this. If we lose Arcuri in NY-24, we lose the district. Arcuri, in my eyes, was a surprise vote for health care reform. I didn't think he would. He is our resident Blue Dog here. We only have one left - Arcuri - and he voted for health care reform. Scott Murphy, who we worked hard for not too long ago, voted against it. I know that we focus on Blue Dogs, but seeing how Gillibrand won that district in 2006 and 2008 and Murphy was able to win in 2009, I think it would be easier to target Murphy and bring a better Democrat to NY-20 than it would NY-24.

I would also give Owens some rope and not write him off just yet. His health care vote was a surprise AND his vote against Stupak was considered a huge vote for him. I know that during the campaign, there were many questions about his stance on choice. So when he voted against Stupak, that was a huge vote for him. Then the health care bill vote came and it was a double victory. So I'm willing to see where he goes from here. He has been in office for just under a month. I will let him show us where he stands. If he is willing to be a moderate instead of a conservative (which I think he can be a moderate), then I say we support him.


There's no such thing as illegal immigration. But there are illegal wars...

Response to Nate Silver on my 11 dimensional chess strategy | 49 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

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

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

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox