From yesterday’s posts and comments I see that some of you aren’t happy that Bob Kerrey is going to run for the Nebraska Senate. My take is we’re lucky he’s running and we’ll be lucky if he wins, and I say that as someone who can’t stand the guy, personally.
If Democrats are going to control the Senate, we need Senators from marginal states, like the Plains states. A decade ago, the Dakotas and Nebraska had Conrad, Daschle, Dorgan, Johnson and Nelson. In the next session, we’ll have Johnson, Conrad’s replacement (probably a Republican) and Nelson’s replacement (Kerrey if we’re lucky). That’s a loss of up to 4 seats in a decade.
The theory that demographics will be the Democratic Party’s savior might pan out in the House, if we can get some decent redistricting, but the Senate math is brutal. We’re going to solidify most of the Northeast in the next few cycles, except perhaps for the Kentucky of New England, New Hampshire, but we should have those seats as a buffer against electoral mishap anyway. That leaves us with the purple fringe of the South, the Plains and the Rocky Mountain States. None of these states will elect a “real progressive”, and anyone who thinks they’ve found one in the wild (as Kos did with Tester) will soon be disappointed.
Finally, on the ground, it’s hard to overstate the importance of Democrat holding federal office in red or purple states. Without at least one Democrat driving media coverage, GOTV and party enthusiasm, it’s really hard for Democrats to win other offices or generate much party excitement. For example, take Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, the Blue Dog everyone here hated. My relatives in South Dakota thought she was great. She was a young, energetic and exciting presence on TV and in the newspaper, representing progressive ideals and demonstrating that Democrats can serve everyone in the state. Her loss to a Palin doppelganger was really disheartening for South Dakota Democrats, even if it was a meh event for the rest of us.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there’s a way to hold the Senate without the likes of Bob Kerrey. Here’s the map, you tell me how we get a decent Senate majority without guys like him.
Elizabelle
Agree with you, mistermix.
Kerrey, Manchin (is he on lists of “moderate” superstars?) … what it takes.
Although was not sad when Congresscritter Heath Schuler packed it in.
Mino
I think we’ll have a lock on Senators from the upper midwest after what Republican governors have been pulling. Wisconsin, for sure.
But 2010 has also given us a look at the damage a one-party Republican govt can do in a very short time. I think they’ll pay, but it will take time. Citizen’s United had a very profitable roll out in 2010 but 99:1 is taking hold. Folks aren’t buying the “job creators” argument and the social issues aren’t the wedge they once were. All they are left with is racism, which isn’t very attractive to indies.
Dave
You don’t. At least not for another 10-15 years. Then the tide of demographics will begin to tell.
Baud
Agreed. It’s one thing to complain about Lieberman because we can do better in Connecticut. Nebraska is a whole other animal.
jibeaux
Agree with both of you. Heath was above and beyond blue dog to be pretty much indistinguishable from Republican. There’s not much point in electing indistinguishable from Republican. But halfway distinguishable from Republican, if it’s the best you can do, is halfway there. I see it as a work in progress.
Mino
I will say that oligarchs are getting wily. If they can’t elect Republicans, a Blue Dog will do. They care more about the tax/subsidy issues than the social ones for the most part.
Valdivia
yes never a fan of the man, but you are completely right.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
If you don’t believe that, come to Texas, where Democrats don’t get much money to run for anything, school board or governor.
BrklynLibrul
Agree with your argument here, mister mix. Digby, for instance, really pushed the Grayson notion that a smart, full-throated defense of progressive policies would win the hearts and minds of purple and red-tinged districts. She was wrong, alas: Grayson went down to a bloody defeat in ’10.
It’s really, really important that Left Blogistan keeps this idea in mind.
Mino
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): I can’t believe how laughable our party has become in Texas. Even our newer Dems are Blue Dogs.
c u n d gulag
RED Dog Democrats – not BLUE Dogs!
‘Cause there ain’t nothin’ blue ’bout ’em.
Oy! Kerrey…
Being a Republican means getting to vote for people who are as ideological as you are – most of the time.
Being a Democrats means holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils – most of the time.
On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t stand a chance in NE.
go kerrey…
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
Bob Kerrey, who I do not like personally either, voted with democrats, of his party, 90% of the time as senator in the 105th congress. That ain’t too shabby, and a sight better than Ben Nelson. If you take politics too personal, you will end up in the shithouse with your thumb up your ass. I doubt there is a better candidate than Kerrey for dems in NE, in a state that is so bright red, you need shades to walk around in.
One of the SCOTUS wingnuts croaks or retires, it would be nice to have a dem run senate. High stakes are high. Talk about your Overton Windows
Suffern ACE
Bob Kerrey is a big ole press whore and one of their baby dolls. He will have plenty of opportunities to make me excited that he is in the senate and speechifying on the talk shows. He’ll blow those Opportunities every time. Thank God someone will remind me that at least senator whatever would be chair of the fuckuover committee if it werent for the precious war hero.
geg6
No, there isn’t. There’s a reason Bob Casey easily wins my state and Joe Sestak can’t.
Bizono
Hopefully, Toomey can be unseated in 2016. Any year other than 2010, he would have lost that election to Sestak.
Frank
@Mino:
I doubt it although I hope you are right. Romney has shown what money can do and he has plenty of it. The Republican senate candidates will also dwarf the Democrats when it comes to money due to the Super PACs. It is amazing how easy it is to sway TV viewers with deceptive negative ads.
And it is highly unlikely to ever change. Why would the Republicans voluntarily agree to legislation that will hamper their financial advantage?
It is going to be tough…
currants
OT– Do any of you read Pro Publica? Fed Shrugged, or, why aren’t these folks in jail? Oh wait, I remember now. Sorry.
negative 1
On another site (alicublog) someone pointed out that the outgoing Snowe’s record isn’t as moderate as believed (around a 76% rethug vote line). The same could be said of the Blue Dogs, though. Yes, they will cower at progressive actions, but Ben votes with the Dems about 60% of the time. People will scream that it’s not 100% of the time or even close, but it’s sure a lot more than so called ‘moderate’ republicans, which is the next best you could hope for in the plains. The thing is, although far from perfect (and often far from the headlines) you need party line votes to pass small environmental, transportation and labor regs. Having a majority, no matter how it’s made up, allows you to a.) be the one who proposes those actions and b.) get them enacted.
Remember, the minority is only ever playing defense, no matter how pure of ideology they are.
(Source for Ben Nelson statistics: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Nebraska/Ben_Nelson/VotingStatistics/)
Frank
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
I read somewhere that Joe Lieberman voted more often with the Democrats than Dennis Kucinich did, yet Kucinich never gets even close to the same criticism as Lieberman does.
Davis X. Machina
Electing Kerreys is not the way forward.
A cold, hard, small, disciplined, real Democratic party is the only thing that will save the country.
Oh, sure, some people will carp, and point out that during the decade or so that it might take for things to get bad enough to cause America to turn to that cold, hard, small, disciplined, real Democratic party a few people will probably suffer real pain that could otherwise have been averted.
I am sure, however, that when the historical necessity of their sacrifice is explained to them properly they will come around.
Some day, when real progressives finally take power, we can recognize that sacrifice. A memorial, something tasteful, and not too grandiose, on the Mall? Or a commemorative stamp — if there’s still a Post Office.
Brian R.
@Davis X. Machina:
That’s some pure, uncut snark right there.
Kerrey’s the best we can get there, and I’ll take it.
amk
site formatting fucked up.
debit
@amk: Looks fine for me on Firefox.
Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.)
You couldn’t be more right about this. I don’t like Kerrey. I’d love to see somebody like Sherrod Brown or Al Franken holding that seat. But it doesn’t mean anything. I can wish all I want. If horses were beggars then riders would wish, and all that, don’t you know. And that’s because Al Franken and Sherrod Brown will never win in Nebraska, and I’ll be stuck with some dickhead instead. And if I’m going to get the dickhead either way, I’d rather have the one who votes the way I like 7 or 8 times out of 10 than the one who votes the way I like 0 times out of 10.
I’ve beaten this drum before, but I’ll beat it again: 0, 8 and 10. These are your choices. A few people are doing well enough that they can live through a senate run by 0’s, but most people in the U.S. today need that 8. Sure, 10 would be better than 8, but 8 is a whole shitload better than 0.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Frank:
To be fair to Lieberman, which I hate to do, he was the 60th vote for HCR last congress, and is a complete jackass on anything to do with national security, pure neo con winger on that issue. Most other things he is a solid liberal vote. But always a preening smarmy asshole. Kucinich is but one vote in a much larger body. Though he can sniff out a camera to get in front of with the best of them.
@negative 1:
Cool site link, thanks.
jonas
@Frank: dissenting votes in the House usually don’t threaten to derail key pieces of legislation that your party has fought for ages to get passed. That’s why Lieberman is a huge jackass and Kuchinich is allowed some wiggle room.
Kanamit
The filibuster makes a “decent majority” nearly meaningless. Bob Kerrey in the Senate just means he gets to piss all over the President and the Democratic Party as a Democratic Senator again.
mcd410x
As Charles Pierce said, here, let me Google Thanh Phong for you.
@BrklynLibrul: One should never draw conclusions from a sample size of one.
Davis X. Machina
@Brian R.: I’m havering over whether to cut and paste it into the comments at Digby’s or not….
Percysowner
@amk: Try flushing cookies. I’ve had the site look wonky several times recently. I flush my cookies and all is well.
Raven
@mcd410x: So the fuck what?
Brian R.
@Davis X. Machina:
Do it.
Raven
Since we have to do this again:
The thing that went “terribly wrong” didn’t happen on the night of February 25, 1969 in Thanh Phong. The thing that went terribly wrong happened from the time the first advisors were sent to South Vietnam by Kennedy. The thing that went terribly wrong happened again in 1964, when the Pentagon and the President decided it was so important to indiscriminately destroy Asians for no reason that they had to fabricate a Tonkin Gulf “incident’” to justify escalating the war. It happened again under Nixon. But it was really one long happening, one long disregard for the dignity and the lives of both American soldiers and Asian civilians. “
zach
Totally agree (except I think that Rocky Mountain states further South such as Colorado can/will/do elect reliably progressive Senators).
Democrats are going to continue losing Senate seats in the plains and also in the midwest; especially in years without Presidential elections. Look at Wisconsin in 2010; ouch. The only obvious pickup chance in 2014 is if Collins retires in Maine (or she has an indy challenger on the right). In a very good, 2006/8-type year maybe you can have a chance in Texas, Nebraska, Tennessee, Kentucky and Georgia. Other than that, it’s hoping for retirements and scandals. There aren’t many really old Republicans in gettable states in the Senate… Grassley, Harkin and McCain are the only ones over 70. I’d bet McCain retires soon, though.
magurakurin
@Kanamit: this is absolutely wrong. And borders on ignorant. If you don’t think the Senate would be different under Senate Majority Leader McConnell than under Senate Majority Leader Reid, then you are a dumbass. The majority party sets the agenda and controls committee chairs. Holding the majority is, as JB would say, a big fucking deal.
Pathman
As if electing democrats with change a fucking thing. The corporations own all these assholes. Let’s vote for the guy that’s somewhat less bad. Yeah, that will get it. Anyone else been paying attention?
Decided Fence Sitter
@Frank: If it is true that Lieberman gets more grief it is because 1) Lieberman gets press coverage so he’s more visual; 2) Lieberman gives cover to the Republicans, versus, I’m assuming (and thus willing to be proven wrong), Kucinich who is generally coming from, I presume “More Progressive Please”; and 3)The criticality of what they vote contra to party with.
If I vote 95% against my party on the minor issues to make a statistical point, but 5% when the chips are down on critical major legislation I’m a good soldier, that’s better than the guy who 95% will go along to get along, but on the 5% of critical issues will ratfuck you in the back.
Steve
Mistermix is 100% right. Without competitive Democratic candidates, you literally never even find out who your voters are! You don’t get to have a mailing list or a database or anything else that can serve as a basis to make your party viable. This whole “conservadems step on the party’s message” is just so much blah blah blah compared to the stuff that really matters, like having a majority and getting to control every committee in the Senate.
Didn’t we think the Republicans were idiots when they let Christine O’Donnell screw them out of a Senate seat by defeating the kind of moderate Republican who could win (and probably would have won) in Delaware? Well, didn’t we?
amk
@Percysowner: Thanks. Did it. (though FF does it automatically). seems to work for now.
magurakurin
@Pathman: so what’s your plan? fertilizer bombs and AR-15’s? Just wondering.
dave
Go Kerrey, even the worst Democrat is far better then the most liberal republican in congress. Here in Wisconsin I’m just hoping not to end up with ! TOMMY ! the former governor was well liked (not by me) and is polling far too well for my sense of well being.
magurakurin
@Decided Fence Sitter: I hate Holy Joe Lieberman, but he did come through on DODT. Every gollum has his place in the tale.
Marc
@magurakurin:
He won’t be one of the people hurt by the Republicans, and he gets to feel good about himself. What other plan do you need?
Steve
@geg6: Because his dad was governor? I mean, your point is well-taken, but Joe Sestak strikes me as perfectly electable in anything other than a Republican wave year.
I mean, if we were having this discussion about Pennsylvania rather than Nebraska in the first place, it actually would be a discussion worth having (although the discussion about Bob Casey vs. netroots darling Chuck Pennacchio really wasn’t worth having). But this is Nebraska, where a Democrat has won the presidential vote exactly once since 1936. Any sort of Democratic Senator we can get from a state like that is a total freebie.
amk
@dave: liberal republican is an oxymoron.
@magurakurin: don’t forget his vote against that blunt fucker y’day.
jonas
Part of the problem with Democratic prospects in these “red” states is not just that the general population votes conservative, it’s that the Republican party completely dominates local and state politics. Even in red states where *all* candidates have to have some “conservative” credentials (i.e. avid hunter, active religious life, etc.), that doesn’t necessarily mean there can’t be Democrats. What that does is create a weak bench of future candidates for the party who have held statewide office and thus have name recognition. Dems often have to start from scratch running some minor county commissioner in a statewide race against a Republican governor or AG.
We’re never going to get a real progressive senator out of these places. The best we can hope for is one that, though they may not vote the party line all the time, 1. doesn’t bash the president or the party in front of the media and 2. can at least justify their votes as really representing the sentiment of their state. Tester usually meets that standard. Nelson’s gotten worse at this over the years. Lieberman never did.
Bulworth
I don’t mind that Kerrey’s running, but I have to wonder how Nebraskans will take to him, his having been out of their state for so many years. I assume he owns property there and is qualified to run, but in some ways I would rather a Democrat who actually lives in the state would represent the party.
Scott P.
I was born in Nebraska. Kerrey was a great governor and Senator. I voted for him for President in 1992. He was the first candidate to make health care reform the centerpiece of his campaign. Clinton’s plan was in part a response to Kerrey’s pushing the issue. So I’m a Kerrey fan, yeah.
Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity
SCREW THE SENATE!! PURITY IS EVERYTHING!
I’d rather be a loser who is right than a winner who is wrong.
Nader/Kucinich 2012!
Villago Delenda Est
I agree with mistermix, but not without reservations. Senators will always diverge from the ideal (all politics are local, after all, and you’ve got to please your own constituents to stay in office) but half a glass is better than an empty one.
Soonergrunt
Hell, Bob Kerrey, Medal of Honor and all, still couldn’t win in Oklahoma. He’s too liberal for this state. I keep hoping that Governor Brad Henry will run for Inhofe’s seat, but he seems pretty happy in his law practice and has shown no overt interest in re-entering politics.
Shut up, that's who
@BrklynLibrul
It would’ve been interesting to watch Grayson’s career progress if he had been elected in a truly purple district rather than an R+4, or whatever it is. He was obviously doomed when he hired Matt Stoller as his policy adviser, though. Why the two of them thought his district would respond well to the public equivalent of a lefty blogger/commenter I’ll never understand.
Phil Perspective
@geg6: You are goof. If you paid any attention, which apparently, you didn’t, you’d know that Sestak outperformed all other statewide Democrats by at least 4 points. In a super-crappy year!!!
Emma Anne
Colorado has senators who are actually moderate. They will vote with the party on important stuff, but they will add some amendments to sooth other constituencies. They won’t trash their own party to get on TV. They will not vote for symbolic stuff like stopping the Patriot Act or especially filibustering it. This is the best we can do here, and it is pretty good.
geg6
@Pathman:
People like you are the exact reason that we Dems cannot have nice things.
Jeebus the stupid is powerful in this one.
geg6
@Steve:
Because his dad was governor? I mean, your point is well-taken, but Joe Sestak strikes me as perfectly electable in anything other than a Republican wave year.
Gretchen
I lived in Omaha when Kerrey was governor, and he was pretty popular there. He even brought a little glamor: he was dating Debra Winger when she was at the top of her game.
I now live in Kansas. It makes me crazy when Kos-types think you can primary the Blue Dogs and get a progressive in – they’d complain about my Blue Dog rep who was doing the very best he could with the constituents he had. He retired and now we have a full-on tea-partier representing us, and so far he doen’t even have a challenger.
Phil Perspective
@Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.): Why wouldn’t Sherrod Brown win in Nebraska? You’ll never know when you always run rich right-wing assholes(Kerrey, Ben Nelson) all the damn time.
Phil Perspective
@Gretchen: Doesn’t that tell you more about the Democratic Party in general, in those states? That’s it’s decayed so far that the party really doesn’t even exist.
geg6
@Phil Perspective:
Oh, okay. You obviously know better than I do about a race I was heavily involved in, in a state I’ve lived in all my life.
Sestak did well in the places a Dem always does well. He got some votes in some places that he shouldn’t have (and I know because I spent time in those places and talked to the people and saw the signs in their yards) simply by virtue of his status as a veteran. Toomey was not the GOP’s best possible candidate (shady business dealings, lack of any sort of charisma, just to name a few of his problems), but he still won.
But, well, I’m a goof and have no idea what I’m talking about.
Phil Perspective
@geg6: You obviously have no clue. If the Sestak/Toomey race had taken place this year, Sestak would kick Toomey’s ass. What does that tell you? That way more people vote in Presidential election years!!!!!!
lamh35
Question: with the health trouble of Senator Kirk
what happens to Obama’s seat
Phil Perspective
@geg6: So why did Sestak out-perform every other Democrat(by at least 4 points) in a completely shitty year? And remember something. The state party didn’t help Sestak worth a damn. I know. I worked on his campaign in my area.
Dan
@geg6: Yeah, pretty much. I think Ed Rendell could win a senate seat, though.
CaseyL
Whoever has the majority in the Senate sets the agenda, decides which bills and which nominations get through committee.
It’s a no-brainer. You vote for the best Democratic candidate available. A bad Dem is better than any GOP. Period. (Lieberman is sui generis.)
Plus, I confess, I’ve had a soft spot for Kerrey ever since he shacked up with Debra Winger in the governor’s mansion.
cintibud
As I keep telling some of my “Pure” friends, you can’t move the Overton window until you, er, start moving the freaking Overton window!
TK-421
I love the conflation of strategy and tactics here and in countless other posts that defend blue dogs. Yes in the short term, it’s a wise tactic to elect a blue dog instead of a Republican…but on what planet does anyone think it makes sense to make blue dog primacy the long-term strategy for the Democratic Party, and by extension the country at large? How does that accomplish the alleged long-term goals of the Democratic Party? For that matter, what are the long-term goals of the Democratic Party?
At some point, someone’s got to have a plan to actually turn these states around so that “the Senate math” is no longer so brutal. I have yet to hear one from the professionals inside the Party, and I have yet to hear one from the “wise moderate centrists” like Kerrey, Nelson, and yes, Obama and Clinton. Just where are they trying to take us, and how do they envision us getting there? I have yet to hear any good answers to these questions, and the lack of answers tells me that Dems just plain don’t have a long-term vision or a long-term strategy. Yeah well, good luck with that and say hi to Bob Kerrey’s (or Joe Lieberman’s or Ben Nelson’s or Heath Shuler’s) ass while you’re puckering up and kissing it for the 10,000th time.
To me it seems like it would be a good idea to demonstrate to the good people of SD, NE, etc. (I live here in SC) that liberalism can be a good thing. That means the thinking has to shift from “finding a juuuuuuust right compromise” on everything to “occasionally ‘overreach’ in an effort to be the most liberal possible.” No, that’s not specific because this comment is already too long, but IMO if the Dem Party wants to actually accomplish something other than get reelected at a reasonably high rate, then they have to begin thinking strategically.
Tactics have their place, but they cannot completely override strategy.
gwangung
That attitude is a 35,000 foot attitude. It pretty much ignores the ground level logistics of a specific place.
geg6
@Phil Perspective:
Well, I worked it all over the fucking state, asshole. You really have no clue about politics and, especially, the politics of this state. Sestak would never, ever win even in my home county. He’s a liberal and they are not. But Bob Casey wins here easily. When you’ve spent almost 40 years doing this shit like I have, we can talk about what I don’t know. Until then, I’m just going to point at you and laugh.
geg6
@Dan:
Oh, yeah. Ed would win it. But then, Ed Rendell is no liberal, either.
Dan
@geg6: Nope, but he’d be better on social issues than Casey, and better than Toomey on every conceivable issue. And as much as he’s pissed me off over the years, I still love the big lug.
grandpa john
@Steve: And where do these qualified candidates come from? That aren’t brought to us by magical ponies. I simply can’t understand what is so fucking hard for democrats to understand that you need a 50 states strategy for state and local offices just as much as for national offices, Just like the military you have to bring your leaders up through the ranks, they don’t just magically appear on the scene. It certainly seems to work well enough for the republicans.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@TK-421:
Have you ever considered the possibility that you are much further left than most democrats and liberals in this country, on the whole. Candidates of various stripes are not an initiation to ideology, they are a reflection of it from the voting public. Mostly. And people being people, like their creature comforts of the familiar to their world view. You may well get them to change that worldview, but it won’t be by trying to cram down their throats, a candidate that they cannot relate to. You do it by slowly winning them over with new ideas. WHILE IN OFFICE. This business of run them and they will come, for liberal pol candidates in a red state, is it’s own field a dreams. A good fantasy movie, but not real.
And some folks can’t seem to read, so I will say it again. Bob Kerrey voted with his party 90% of the time while a senator from NE, in his last congress in office. And I don’t remember him being like backstabbing Nelson, to his own party.
HelpThe99ers
The perverse math of the Senate means that Democrats have to get to 60 before they can get to 50.
The choices are pretty limited:
1. Elect a Republican: guarantee that there’s a filibuster on everything in sight.
2. Elect a Blue Dog: lessens (but doesn’t eliminate) the possibility of a filibuster.
3. Elect a Democrat: and get to the 51st vote after the cloture vote.
In a more-perfect world, we’d have a bigger buffer, but 60 and 50 are the numbers we need to shoot for, and defend, today.
Phil Perspective
@geg6: What I find funny is that you think Sestak is some kind of Bernie Sanders. He isn’t. He’s a lot closer to Bob Casey than he is to Bernie Sanders. But then TK-421 is talking about people like you. I notice you don’t have any answer for the PA Democratic Party being butthurt that Sestak kicked Snarlin’ Arlen’s ass. Or why Sestak out-performed every other statewide Democrat in ’10 despite the state party trying to handicap him.
Paul in KY
@Raven: The whole ‘escalating the war’ thing happened (IMO) because at that time Pres. Johnson was thinking re-election & didn’t want to be painted as ‘soft on communism’.
See, all those people died for Pres. Johnson’s glorious 1968 re-election campaign.
cintibud
@TK-421: I can agree with that idea. I rarely hear it stated that well as the folks I discuss this with don’t seem to be thinking either tactically or strategically.
Steve
@TK-421: The New Deal and the Great Society were brought to us by majority Democratic coalitions that included some of the most loathsome racists and segregationists to ever hold public office. Compared to the Southern Democrats of old, the Joe Manchins and Ben Nelsons that we bitch about today are a bunch of pikers. You do not need to turn the entire country liberal to pass liberal legislation.
Paul in KY
@Phil Perspective: Which is one of our main problems. We (the Democratic Party) has to get out more of our voters in the off year elections.
Say we win in 2012. 2014 elections will be CRUCIAL to advancing our agenda.
geg6
@Phil Perspective:
Apparently, you can’t read. I addressed the weakness of his opponent and his advantage among many veterans, which is why there was a lot of support for him in places like Titusville, not exactly a liberal stronghold.
As for the party being butthurt about Sestak beating Spector, again you seem to not understand politics very well. The party backed Spector during the primary because that was the promise made by the party’s leaders to Spector when he flipped and got us the ACA. And during the GE, the state party was very involved in Sestak’s campaign, at least in the places I spent time. I know because I worked with and under the same PA Democratic Party people that I had for every other election I’ve worked on.
And I never said that Sestak was any sort of Bernie Sanders, a politician who I love but would never win an election for dog catcher in the vast majority of Pennsylvania. Sestak, in comparison to almost every elected Democrat in Pennsylvania, was a liberal. Maybe he wouldn’t be called a liberal in Massachussetts, but he’s a liberal for Pennsylvania.
Sawgrass
I’m wondering what’s going to happen down here in Fl. with the Senate race. Bill Nelson is a reliable Dem, but he’s kind of stiff, and I don’t know how well he’ll campaign. He’s been incredibly lucky in drawing challengers up to this point, and the two Repubs who’ve announced are starting to tear at each other. Like I said, Nelson’s no fiery progressive, but he’s no blue dong, and he votes with the rest of the caucus. Cross your fingers and hope for Connie Mack as his opponent.
Ben Franklin
@TK-421:
Well, it’s called pragmatism, and I get weary of it too. Just remember, all those right wing blogs buggering Mitt will vote for him, to avoid the alternative, worst case scenario.
Yutsano
@Sawgrass: Remember that Rubio won a three way race, and only with about 42% of the vote (IIRC). So Nelson may still yet have a chance, plus a lot rides on Obama coattails. Which I think will be longer because the GOP has decided to take on over half the population of the US.
Sawgrass
@Paul in KY: Right on, Paul. We got Tea’d in 2010 because progressives and independents fell out of love with Obama and let the angry, motivated Gopers eat our lunch. Down here, we got RIck Scott and gave the nation Marco Rubio. That alone should be enough to motivate us to GOTV.
Sawgrass
@Yutsano: “Remember” the 2010 Senate race? If only I could forget– I’m in Kendrick Meek’s former district. I liked him until he stayed in the race and gave it to Rubio.
Mnemosyne
@TK-421:
Since we still haven’t managed to even get the short-term problem fixed, I don’t know how much good wanking about the long term is going to do.
There’s a hole in the bottom of the boat. Yes, at some point we need to bail the boat out, but first we need to get the hole closed up, so put the bucket down and start patching the hole instead.
geg6
@TK-421:
I’m sorry but there will never be the liberal wonderland we’d all prefer to see and there never was.
FDR had to embrace the racists and inter American citizens to get done what he accomplished. Truman was pretty much what we’d call a Blue Dog today. JFK was a huge hawk and only cautiously approached any civil rights legislation during his administration. And we all know about LBJ. And if you think Carter or Clinton were some sort of liberal heroes, you are sadly mistaken.
I’m a Democrat, which means I believe in a party of inclusion. I might not like everyone we have to include, but if it means that my preferred policies inch a little bit closer to fruition, that’s okay with me. You can disdain me as a pragmatist, but it’s the pragmatists who actually manage to get things done. If it worked the other way, we’d see a lot more legislation with the names Kucinich and Sanders on it.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
The best long term strategy is winning a lot of short term strategies, usually. Ben Nelson was the exception, Bob Kerrey, based on his past performance in office, is more the rule, siding with his party 90 percent of the time. You move the Overton Window, one progressive legislative victory at a time, over time. And “progressive’ is not defined as the ideal, it is simply moving in the right direction. That’s how change happens in our system, built to make change happen slowly. Don’t like it? get a Ouija Board and contact your local founder.
Shut up, that's who
@TK-421
I love the fact that your plea for a strategic approach from the Democratic Party contains not an ounce of strategic thought. Not that it’s your job or anything but at least share some ideas on strategy when you’re wearing your oh-so-savvy amateur political strategist’s hat.
Anyway, why do liberals who complain that the Democrats aren’t liberal enough have an expectation that the party is somehow going to make the nation more liberal. Yes, “someone’s” going to have to come up with a strategy to make the party more liberal but what kind of fools would expect the people they deride as centrists to do that for them? At what point does the left in America take some responsibility for turning the electorate towards their ideas, thereby pushing the Democratic establishment to the left. Will the left ever grow up and take responsibility for its own failure in this country? Or are we just going to whine about hippie punching for the rest of our lives?
John S.
@Sawgrass:
Don’t worry about the other Nelson. He’ll do just fine against whichever of the two GOP bozos run against him. Obviously, Mack would be much easier to beat, but Lemieux isn’t exactly a strong candidate either.
I still think that the Rick Scott factor is going to drag down any statewide races here until 2012 when any human with a (D) next to their name will put that miserable fuck out of our politics for good.
gene108
@Dan: Rendell was pretty unpopular in PA, at the end of his tenure. He’s still popular in Philadelphia, but no where else.
It’s sad that we’d have to pick a retread like Bob Kerrey to have a shot at winning a Senate seat in Nebraska.
We could do a lot worse, as far as Democrats go, than Kerrey.
Anyway, the Founding Fathers “rigged” the system so small states get disproportionate representation and power by having equal representation in the Senate.
For whatever reasons small states are trending right-wing-crazy, with the exception of New England states.
If you want to advance a national agenda, you need to have your Party win these small state statewide elections.
The 50 state strategy was good, because Democrats contested elections in Republican states. You may not like “Blue Dogs”, but without them things like HCR and DADT-repeal would never have seen the light of day.
A Republican controlled legislature would never have brought them up for a vote. That’s important to remember.
Ben Franklin
You have heard of ‘Occupy’, no? And, in spite of reports of it’s untimely death, is still extant, and moving the American Needle.
eemom
@Davis X. Machina:
late to the par-tay, but that, sir, is worthy of framing.
eemom
@Ben Franklin:
Did you know that Ben & Jerry are funding Occupy now? Talk about a reason to eat ice cream!
Ben Franklin
@eemom:
Definitely, a worthy, long term strategy.
Steve
Nebraska and Kansas are historically Republican, but Oklahoma is historically Democratic. I’ve always wondered why that is.
Shut up, that's who
@Ben Franklin:
Yes, dickhead, I’ve heard of Occupy but I’ve been disappointed to learn that the leadership is kind of on the stupid side when it comes to strategy so I’m not very hopeful for its future. And there’s the fact that the usual grifters are “extant” and have leeched onto the movement on TV and the internet. I don’t know if it was the leadership’s idea to have Jane Hamsher selling t-shirts on their behalf but it’s a shame that’s happening either way.
Catsy
This kind of discredited canard gets really tiresome. The problem is not having a Senate majority. We can do that with a minimal number of net-liabilities like Nelson. Some years it’ll be close, and stuff can always happen, but it doesn’t require eating a shit sandwich from a gaggle of these DINO clowns. If the GOP keeps imploding the way it has, it will get even easier.
The problem, as our recent period with a so-called supermajority clearly demonstrated, is having an effective majority.
This means that just having 51 Senators, or 55, or 60, or even 70 doesn’t mean shit if the actual number of those Senators willing to vote with the party on procedural matters like cloture (whether or not they plan on voting their conscience on the actual passage of the legislation) is less than 60. As long as you have 51 Senators willing to vote for a Dem as Majority Leader, there is little point to padding the numbers further by widening the tent to include people who won’t support the party when it really counts.
If you have 70 seats in the Senate, and 12 of them are held by assclowns like Nelson or Lieberman, you do not have a supermajority–you have 58 Senators you can count on, and a dozen who have to be negotiated with and appealed to the same way you would a Republican, just to get them to not stab their own party in the back on an important vote.
If you have 51 seats in the Senate, and two of them are held by that kind of DINO, you do not have a working majority, regardless of who holds what committee assignment or who is Majority Leader. You have 49 Democrats and a pair of assholes you have to appease in order to get them to not vote with the Republicans.
In the meantime, these jackholes go on TV and give the Republicans free sound bites, block procedural votes in order to extort changes that are antithetical to the party, and give the GOP a veneer of faux bipartisan cover for their shenanigans. They feed the public’s perception that there’s no real difference between the parties.
I don’t know why this isn’t blisteringly obvious to people who are otherwise sharp and informed about politics.
Ben Franklin
@Shut up, that’s who:
Well, you asked what the Left was doing, so I assumed you were thinking with that little head.
feebog
This. We are fighting an uphill battle. That is why Snowe’s retirement in Maine and Kerrey’s announcement that he is running in Nebraska is such a big deal. The folks who pointed out the importance of holding the Senate in Dem hands are absolutely right. One only has to look at the House, and the Clown Car show that Darrell Issa put on a couple weeks ago to appreciate what holding the majority means. Lets see, Henry Waxman or Darrell Issa, who would I rather see in charge of oversight in the House?
We now have an honest to Dog chance of picking up three seats in the Senate (MA, ME and NV). Kerrey getting in the Nebraska race means we at least have a shot at holding a seat (and getting a marginaly better Senator to boot) that we would otherwise lose for sure. If Tester and McCaskill can hold on to their seats, Dems actually have a shot at PICKING UP a seat or two. A couple of months ago this notion would have been laughable, now not so much.
Auldblackjack
As we have learned:
Technical Democratic Party control of the levers of government + Republican obstruction of government ability to function, aided by ‘moderate’ members of the Democratic coalition and a media qualified to referee a Harlem Globetrotters Washington Generals game = The perception that Democrats suck at this game.
DougJarvus Green-Ellis
Kerrey is such a douche though. We’re not talking about Daschle or Conrad here. Those guys are okay with me.
gene108
@eemom:
Ben & Jerry’s sold out to Bryers a long time ago and I think Bryers got bought by a bigger company.
If Ben & Jerry are funding OWS, it’s not out of ice cream money.
eemom
@gene108:
sheesh. I had myself convinced that it was my civic duty to consume a pint of Chunky Monkey.
What else do you do in your spare time — tell little children there is no Santa Claus? : )
Soonergrunt
@Ben Franklin: You don’t seem to have been around those Occupy events much–the most organized subgroup within that “movement” are the Ron Paul followers.
Ben Franklin
@Soonergrunt:
Wanna ask me about ‘dirty fucking hippies’ while you’re at it?
Linnaeus
You have to elect the Kerreys when and where that’s best choice. In the meantime, elect “better” Democrats in the districts & states where you can, build up a bench of better Democrats at the local and state level, and with respect to the big picture, organize to promote progressive policy and win voters over. None of that is easy, but it’s all part of the same effort.
Ben Franklin
@Linnaeus:
It is futile, unless you reform the current process, which discourages good people from entering the race.
PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS
kindness
Shorter –
All hail Bob Kerry who will screw us worse than Lieberman.
realnrh
@zach: Harkin is a Democrat, so just Grassley and McCain as Republicans in winnable seats?
TK-421
Well, I freely admit that I probably don’t have the answers, at least not now. But I at least want to find the answers. Can we really honestly say the same about the Dem Party leadership (e.g. van Hollen, Reid, Obama)?
Besides, you already admit your own point is invalid- it’s not my job to do this. My plea for a strategic approach is to the people who do have that responsibility and power. If you want me to start developing a long-term strategy, then fine, where do I sign up? Oh, you wanted me to do that for free, and with no authority to actually implement the strategy? To what end?
Actually, the meat of my critique of the Democratic is not that they don’t have a “liberal enough” long-term strategy, it’s that they don’t seem to have a long-term strategy at all. No, “let’s keep getting reelected” does not count as a long-term strategy- you have to want to do something as a result of getting reelected.
If Dems want to say “our long-term strategy is to accomplish X, Y, and Z and here’s how we plan to do it,” then and only then can we discuss whether X, Y, and Z are “liberal enough” and whether the plan is realistic. But we’re not there yet, because again, it seems that the Democratic Party hasn’t really begun to think about X, Y, and Z.
I’m fine with the Democratic Party explicitly saying that they want to be center-moderate, and “the left” should shut up and be glad that Dems aren’t Republicans. Really, I’d find that bit of honesty a breath of fresh air. But that’s not what the Party is doing, and we all know it (feel free to refute me with real examples). Instead we get this endless rhetorical kowtowing to liberal goals with little policy/political effort to actually achieve them.
And maybe it’s politically smart to eschew liberalism, but again that’s not my point. We could argue all day long whether the Party should pursue liberal goals, and we wouldn’t accomplish anything with that argument. My point is that, at the very least, if the Party is not going to pursue liberal goals, then they should both explicitly say so and also explicitly state what goals they are pursuing.
Defining yourself by saying what you’re not (e.g. we’re not liberal) is inadequate over the long-term. Just ask conservatives how that’s worked out for them. If you want to build up political support over the long-term (i.e. an effective strategy), then you have to affirmatively identify what you are for, and then demonstrate it with supporting action.
I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request, regardless of how liberal I am, and I don’t think Democrats over the last 20-30+ years have done this.
TK-421
@Catsy:
I think you’ve adequately identified the problem associated with someone like a Bob Kerrey. I’d also add that A) this is not a problem that just suddenly appeared and can only be dealt with on an ad-hoc/short-term basis, and B) this problem has a root cause and IMO the Democratic Party is either unwilling or unable to address that root cause.
If we assume that we must over the long-term embrace and cater to the Bob Kerreys of the world, then I think the question needs to be asked and answered: just where is the Democratic Party going, and how is it going to get there?
Again, I have heard no good answers to these questions.
wrb
@TK-421:
It is a Party. It contain leftists, moderates and conservatives who regularly disagree. There is no one with authority to say where the party stands now or where it will stand tomorrow. What to do will be fought over issue by issue.
realnrh
So, for starters: Yes, I’m on the side of Kerrey. Get the organizational vote, get the local backing, etc. But I’d much rather have a world where him deciding to buck the party doesn’t have much in the way of negative implications, so I went ahead and played with the map. Here’s how I get a decent-sized majority without a lot of red-state help. These are based on states, not on current office-holders, so Kent Conrad and Tim Johnson are more reliable than their state would indicate, while Bob Casey is less so.
Solidly blue: Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii.
Blue, but might be ‘cautious’ (likely not first to champion progressive causes, but also not usually first to vote against them): Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Nevada.
That gets us to 54, with no seriously red states at the federal level involved, and where Democratic senators would be able to comfortably side with the party at least most of the time.
Mostly Blue (generally good, but have to fit the state well and sometimes buck the party): West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri, Montana. That gets us to 62 without getting into states that today are just plain inhospitable.
Blue Dogs (always worried about showing off independence): Everywhere else.
Demographics is working in our favor, so Georgia and Texas (for example) might make like Colorado did from 2000 to 2008 – a sudden but sharp swing, going from ‘off the table’ to ‘pretty reliable’ in a heartbeat. Indiana and Arizona seem to be on the verge of making that transition, too.
TK-421
@wrb:
And that Party is going where, precisely? And that Party is going to get there how, precisely? These are not unreasonable questions. “We don’t have an answer because we have too many diverse factions” is an answer in and of itself, and it’s a pretty damning one. That is my point, and that is why the Bob Kerreys and Joe Liebermans of the world are able to wield so much influence.
I’m pretty sure you could line up a bunch of Republicans, ask them what they want the country to look like in 20 years, and their answers would all look pretty similar. No matter how destructive and cruel I may find their goals, they at least have them.
If a non-political junkie came to me and asked what the Democratic Party stands for, what they want to do, etc., I would think that’s a reasonable request for information about the Democratic Party. I don’t know what the answer is, because whatever rhetoric I might want to use wouldn’t really be supported with real world action. This is true regardless of how liberal or moderate I personally am. IMO that’s a problem for the Party, and I don’t see the leadership addressing this.
pseudonymous in nc
@realnrh:
Georgia? You’re kidding, right?
Ten years ago, Georgia had a Dem governor (Roy Barnes) and two Dem senators (Miller, Cleland). Now it has a birther as governor and two second-term GOP senators. We can joke about Miller going batshit when he went up to DC, but the demographic shifts in Georgia over the past decade mean that it’s not going to snap back for a while — too many people entrenched in the Atlanta exurbs, scared of Those People, with politics like that of Erik ben Erik, the voice of the gated community.
Shut up, that's who
@Ben Franklin:
I was asking for an example of an effective long term strategy. Sorry I was not more explicit.
BTW, what does that nonsense you typed as a response to Soonergrunt mean?
@TK-421:
Yeah, that’s why I admitted it. I’m just asking you to be more interesting, dammit, a la Homer Simpson and TV.
I do expect and even want Democrats to have as their strategy to keep getting elected. They’re a fucking political party for fucks sake! I want them to employ tactics such as expanding access to health insurance, beginning to re-regulate Wall Street and expanding rights for gay people as part of that strategy because those things are politically effective in the medium term and are also the right things to do. As long as they keep doing things like that I’ll keep supporting them. Again, I do not expect them to be the source of any kind of long term strategy for making the country more liberal because that’s not what political parties do. The Republican party, per se, did not come up with the various strategies that turned the country right in the last half of the last century. They just took advantage of and won elections with the strategies that think tanks and other such organizations developed. For the left it’s going to have to come from different sorts of organizations but the idea is the same. Bitching that the Democrats don’t have a long term strategy for the country is stupid because it’s not their job.
Ben Franklin
@Shut up, that’s who:
FOAD
Shut up, that's who
@TK-421:
They might give you an answer but it would be some bullshit they made up on the spot and you’d be a sucker to believe them. Do you think if you’d lined up a bunch of Republicans 20 years ago they’d have said, “what we’re planning to do is transfer as much wealth upwards as we possibly can, using whatever bullshit arguments about economic freedom and whatever social issues we can latch onto to help us git er done.” Those are the tactics that they’ve employed election after election. Not because they had a 20 year plan, but because they believed it would help them win the next election. Newt Gingrich didn’t give a fuck about 2012 in 1992. He had his eyes on 1994.
Mnemosyne
@TK-421:
You can now, sure. Ask them 30 years ago, when Reagan had just gotten into office, and you would have gotten very different answers from many different Republicans.
You shouldn’t look at a party that’s been whittled down by 30 years of purges and purity tests and say, “Gosh, why aren’t we more like them?”
Ben Franklin
@Shut up, that’s who:
You talk like a Republican; or an asshole. Same smell.
Shut up, that's who
@Ben Franklin:
I accept your surrender. Go now and make shallow political arguments no more.
22state
Great. It’s all great. Sure, a Blue-Dog is better than a Republican etc…..
But, looking at all of the above comments, it’s identity/future/message/outreach that is necessary to reach the goal of enacting liberal good government practices. And Kerrey has a record of voting against those things.
How the F*)%$ do you get old fashioned audits, sensible practices and fairness with a demonstrated ratf*)%$er like Kerrey? You can be a Blue-Dog without being a national advertisement against the Democratic Party.
Jay Noble
A Nebraska Democrat here. Regardless of what you think of Bob Kerrey, you need to look at the two leading contenders on the GOP side – Don Stenberg and Jon Bruning – and then see how quickly you would vote for Kerrey. Bruning is especially frightening. He is one of the Attorney Generals suing over Obamacare. He prosecuted the Matthew Koso statutory rape case when virtualy no one in the state wanted it and so on. Stenberg is a little better but with the tea partiers yelling, he tends to listen.
I was at UNL when Bob was governor and actually ran into him and Debra Winger at the bars on weekend. He did disappoint alot of the university students who voted for him when it came to university issues, but looking back, I think he did what he had to do. Reality bites soemtimes
Davis X. Machina
@Steve: Because Lincoln freed the slaves, and he was a Republican.
Catsy
@22state:
This.
As well, you can be a Blue Dog who follows their conscience and their constituents when legislation comes up for a vote, while still at the very least committing to support the party’s procedural votes like cloture.
Voting against cloture is a stab in the back, no different than telling your own party you’re not going to even allow it bring its own agenda up for a vote.
We don’t have this problem because we have conservative members in our caucus. We have this problem because the party has demonstrated over and over again that there are no consequences for this kind of open betrayal. We shouldn’t expect them to vote for every single bill the party brings up–just stop fucking enabling Republicans to obstruct the ability to even vote on those bills.
It’s not a lot to ask of someone who wants a D beside their name. If they can’t even do that, they might as well be honest about how they intend to vote and run as a Republican, because once we have the minimum number of votes required to make Dems the majority party for a given Congress, the rest of these DINO wingnuts are dead weight at best.
Ben Franklin
@Catsy:
These abandoned threads seem to be the only place to discuss without the
posse riding in……wait……counting down..10,9, 8……..
Catsy
And frankly, the solution to this recurring problem is dead simple–it just requires a spine transfusion for the party leadership. Make it clear that anyone who wants to retain their seniority, committee assignments or other perks needs to support the party on procedural votes. They can vote however they want on the legislation itself, but there is absolutely zero excuse for refusing to allow your own party to vote on the bills it brings up. None.
For anyone who sincerely supports the Democrat Party and wants to work with the rest of his caucus in good faith even if they don’t intend to vote for every bill, this shouldn’t be a tough choice. The only ones it hurts are the people who enjoy having the power to fuck their own party over procedurally and don’t want to give up that leverage.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
LOL, this thread surely maintains the hot air supply that is Balloon Juice. So a little more. In the real world, the one we live in, there is only putting up the best dem candidate in a given state that has the potential to win in any particular election you are facing. And that is as good as it gets, when the smoke clears in all 50 states.
If you don’t do that, you are losing, and there are no 2nd place ribbons in this game. Nobody cares about your fine liberal message. It is winner take all in our system. And controlling the senate business is zero sum, in that the GOP will control it if your side does not. AND that is your first ‘effective majority’ anything after that will be determined by the voters for what extra effective majorities you may receive.
Now there is a problem with folks like Nelson, and now Manchin, who consistently vote against dems on procedural votes, ie cloture. And who actively message against their party in the media. It is tough to stomach for both personal and actual damage to your party brand. But still falls under the first thing is to not let the wingers control the messaging even more by them controlling the Senate.
Nelson will be gone, and Kerrey is not him, and once again was a loyal vote for dems when he was in the senate prior. Not only for final passage votes, but procedural as well. To the tune of 90% loyalty. And that is pretty good from a state like NE. If you don’t like Kerrey, then grab a fainting hanky and retire from the debate, because you are depressing everyone with losing spirit.
geg6
@Catsy:
That’s all fine and dandy, but you know who picks that leadership that you say are so spineless? Perhaps you ought to talk to the darlings in the progressive caucus (gawd, I so hate that word!) and tell them to challenge the leadership, most effectively by building relationships with other congresscritters in ways that will lead them to choose their members as leaders. Of course, once they do that, they will no longer be progressive darlings, will they?
Jeebus, has no one here ever understood one of the cardinal rules of politics is that it is better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in?
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
I am kidding of course. But at least mop the tears.
NR
@Davis X. Machina: Yeah, shut the fuck up, progressives! We have right-wing policy to enact! And it is very, very important that the Democratic party be the party to enact that right-wing policy. Because without ConservaDems like Kerrey, the Republicans will be the ones enacting right-wing policy. And we all know that right-wing policy is better when it’s enacted by Democrats. It’s so much more pragmatic! Damn it, progressives, why can’t you be as pragmatic as me??
Catsy
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero): Once you clear away the unearned smugness, false dichotomies and straw men that constitute the majority of your comment, I don’t really see anything you wrote that is in contradiction to what I wrote.
You appear to have skimmed right past the parts where I pointed out that securing the votes for a Dem Majority Leader is the first order of business. My issue is with the notion that we gain more than we lose by padding the numbers beyond that with Fox News Democrats who can’t be relied upon to overcome lockstep Republican obstructionism. Should we compete in those more conservative states and put up the best candidate possible? Absolutely. But the Dem leadership needs to nut up and make it clear to those freshmen that while voting your conscience is fine, making a habit of fucking your caucus over procedurally will make you a one-term Senator with no influence or help from the party.
If Kerrey can cope with that, I’ve got not problem with him.
He starts acting like Nelson, and he becomes an object lesson for exactly the problem I’m talking about.
There is little meaningful difference between a Senate with 51 loyal Dems (conservative or otherwise) and a Senate with 51 real Dems and 9 Nelsons or Liebermans: both have a Dem majority, both can pass legislation that comes up for a simple majority vote, and both have to negotiate with 49 other Senators in order to persuade a fifth of those to break with Republican obstruction so that there is even a vote in the first place.
Ben Franklin
We have a pyramidical system in which the most unprincipled, but ambitious, rise to the top of the cauldron, like slag at a steel plant.
Those persons with an ethical core, cannot compete. Worse still, good people don’t want to run.
Publicly-Funded Elections
Catsy
@geg6:
The last decade should have disabused anyone still clinging to the notion that that “cardinal rule” has any merit in this context. Blue dogs and Fox News Democrats like Nelson aren’t on the inside pissing out, they’re on the inside pissing on everyone who’s in there with them. And every time they piss on their own caucus like that, they give bipartisan cover to Republicans, sound bites and quotes for anti-Dem campaign ads, and reinforce the (false but dangerous) public perception that there’s no meaningful difference between the parties.
They do far more damage with a “D” beside their name than they would with an “R”. When we’re fighting to get a simple majority like we are now, we need anyone who will get us to 51 Senators willing to vote for a Dem for majority leader. But when it comes to growing the Democratic caucus beyond that and pushing towards a supermajority, the Nelsons of the Senate are worse than worthless, because in addition to all the damage they do to the Democratic brand, we still have to appease them the same way we would court any moderate Republican in order to get them to not uphold Republican obstruction.
Shut up, that's who
One half of the time you’re arguing that the Democrats need to make sure they have 51 senators, but then you shift to asserting that they can afford to so without a douche like Nelson. As though how many senators they’ll have is something the Democrats can control in advance, or at least predict with certainty. Of course they can’t so unlike you they have to operate as though a douche like Manchin could be the 51st senator in their caucus. If you’re going to disagree with yourself in the space of one comment, could you please flame yourself in an amusing fashion? Thanks.
Scott P.
Oklahoma = slave territory
Nebraska, Kansas = free territory (though not easily in the case of Kansas).
Lots of yellow dog Democrats in Oklahoma, like the rest of the South.
Also note taht Nebraska was reliably Democratic in the early 20th century (remember William Jennings Bryan was a Nebraskan).
TK-421
@Shut up, that’s who:
IMO “keep getting elected” has to be a result of “our long-term strategy to do X, Y, and Z.” Otherwise you’re just endlessly chasing votes without a clear message (sound familiar?). People will stop electing you if they either don’t like what you’re doing, or don’t think you’re doing anything other than wasting time, space, air, etc. Without a long-term vision that is clearly and consistently expressed, whatever winning coalition you build during any given election will be short-lived and fragile (sound familiar?).
You mention a whole bunch of things that sound like a nice strategy, but…during the past 20 years, is there evidence that the Democratic Party overall believes in accomplishing those things? Note that many Democrats, some in leadership positions, oppose the very things you just mentioned. Many Dems voted against ACA (and many more opposed the early iterations of it), many Dems were the architects of Wall Street deregulation (and opposed recent attempts to roll it back). Maybe Dems overall support equal rights for gays, in theory, but full support for gay marriage? Eh, maybe, I don’t know. Even if I do, is that what they’re trumpeting as the foundation for their long-term vision for the country? I think that’s an obvious “no.”
And again for emphasis, there may or may not be good reason for Dems to be diverse on those things. I am not arguing that Dems should be dramatically in favor of all those things, I am simply pointing that they are in fact not. This diversity of opinion IMO is evidence of a lack of unity on these things, i.e. it is not in fact a long-term strategy the Party is rallying round.
Regardless of how much Rah Rah Dems personally want to believe the Party is wholeheartedly in support of these things, there is plenty of evidence (e.g. votes, policy development) to suggest that the Party is, at the very least, divided on these issues.
So we’re back to the original questions: where does the Democratic Party want the country to go, and how do they want to get us there?
NR
@geg6:
Problem is, they’re on the inside pissing in.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Catsy:
You want smugness?
@Catsy:
No we don’t agree. I swallow my pride and emo when it came to Nelson, because without him there would be no HCR, that is just a fact of life. The rest of your comments on this thread seem to me a good example of dichotomous thinking and offering straw men with the smugness. Every one knows Nelson is an ass and often votes no on dem cloture votes. He is leaving, and any way you cut it, if dems keep the senate, it will be razor close and Kerrey is one of our best chances to keep it in dem hands. And pre deciding who is pure enough or not before an election happens is kinda getting the cart before the horse. What’s the point telling the rest of us we don’t see the ‘blithering obvious”
When mister mixes post is spot on. What straw man are you arguing with.
Catsy
@Shut up, that’s who: Reading comprehension: it’s what’s for dinner.
Try again, please.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@geg6:
Absolutely correct.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Shut up, that’s who:
Thank you. also correct.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Catsy:
Why are so many folks not understanding what you are saying, or not saying? Maybe it’s writing cogency that is for dinner.
Ben Franklin
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
I’m not sure you should peddle that when your backup is; Shut up, that’s who.
jefft452
@BrklynLibrul: “Grayson went down to a bloody defeat in ‘10.”
but so did Blanche Lincon
Maybe I’m wrong,
But my gut feeling is that if a state is so red that ONLY the bluest of blue dogs CAN win, then EVEN the bluest of blue dogs CAN NOT win
Catsy
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero): So let’s try again. And this time I will try to keep it to simple words and sentences with no dependent clauses so that the two of you can follow along without having to rely on your imaginations to fill in the blanks.
Dems need 51 Senators for a majority. If we have less than that, we should take whatever we can get as long as they promise to vote for a Dem as Majority Leader. That is because until we have a majority, the only vote that matters is a vote for Harry Reid or whoever as Majority Leader.
Once we have at least 51, then it is more important to have better Dems who will allow votes to happen than to have more Dems. The most important votes for Senator #52 through Senator #60 are cloture votes. That is because even if we have a majority, we cannot pass any legislation without 60 cloture votes.
Even if we have a supermajority of 60 Democrats in the Senate, we might as well have only 51 if those extra 9 Democrats are going to behave like Republicans when it comes to cloture votes. Whether we have 51 Democrats plus 49 Republicans who block cloture, or 51 Democrats plus 40 Republicans and 9 Democrats who all block cloture, the outcome is the same.
Therefore, once we have a majority, our focus should become adding Democrats who will commit to always voting for cloture even if they intend to vote against the bill’s passage. And conservadems who can’t or won’t do that are, at that point, worse than dead weight.
Catsy
Let me put it another way. The two of you (who incidentally, Stuck, do not exactly qualify as “so many”) are arguing as if flipping a seat blue with a conservadem gets us closer to our goal whether that goal is 51 or 60. This is not necessarily true. The criteria are different.
If you are in the minority trying to get to 51, all that matters is that those 51 Senators vote for a Dem majority. That is where we are now. We take what we can get as long as they will do that much. It is nice if they will vote for our agenda, too. But the most important thing is reclaiming the majority.
But once you have 51 and are trying to get to 60, adding a new Dem really doesn’t count for much if they are going to behave like a Nelson or Lieberman when it comes to cloture. It is nice to have the breathing room for retaining the majority if a seat is lost in the future, but they don’t get you any closer to 60. At that point you need to start focusing on party discipline on procedural votes and taking chances on running better Dems who might have less chance of getting elected than a Nelson, but who will actually get us closer to 60 cloture votes if they win.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Catsy:
Oh, just fuck you arrogant ass. Go suck on GOS for awhile with your idiocy. You can’t write where folks can understand you, and it’s our fault. Shithead.
Shut up, that's who
@TK-421:
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
If you have something of substance to say, then say it. Otherwise you can eat shit like legend in his own mind Catsy.
edit – and try and make it in more than a sentence or two of stupid.
moonmullins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerrey#Thanh_Phong_Massacre
While I’m normally sympathetic to the argument that its acceptable to elect someone who will vote against many party priorities but for the party leadership because I am terrified of the Republicans getting to set the agenda in the Senate and rubber stamp every crazy teahadist bill from the house. Having said that, this is a man who has murdered women and children. I don’t think his remorse justifies electing him let alone nominating him.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Catsy:
Fucking mental masturbation gibberish. You need fifty or fifty one in the senate to be the one who controls the body, and floor. It really isn’t that complicated. Projecting what the oppo does, is their agenda and right now, that is you need 60 votes to pass anything. The wingnuts have obstructed everything and that is their strategy. Maybe they will suffer for that this election, maybe not, but sooner or later they will, BUT YOUR SIDE HAS TO CONTROL THE FLOOR AND SENATE BUSINESS.
And my smugness, earned or not, is from stating in plain clear english the reality of numbers and elections, where the only strategy is to fucking win as many seats as you can by putting up the best candidate in each state. THAT CAN WIN. And in deep red states, that means impure conservadems, that are just prog enough to get by. anything else is losing. It is what dems have championed for a couple of decades preferring moral victories over those where they can govern. They are doing much better at that now.
Shut up, that's who
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
Well, I’m actually pretty sure I do understand her. It’s just that I also understand that she is in fact arguing with herself while she doesn’t. It’s confusing at first but once you realize that it’s all predicated on the idea that the Democrats can predict in advance of elections how many senators they’ll have after said elections, her comments can be understood. Stupid, but understandable. Made me think of this.
Ben Franklin
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
Publicly Funded Elections—
Which, for the Posse, I’m sure sounds as difficult as finding the Philosopher’s Stone. You guys are like Border Collies herding the cattle with ankle-bites.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Shut up, that’s who:
Yup, and I’m the one with ‘dichotomous thinking”
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
Is you comment supposed to be introduce some new fangled idea that the poor dumb “Border Collies’ haven’t thought of? Publicly Funded elections? That’s like discovering gravity on this blog and about everywhere else. I been preaching it for years here. And as far as Posse, there are as many of you as their are of us on this thread. Is saying such a thing a whine to the FSM to protect you? It won’t.
Are you now going to destroy me, linguistically?
Go fly a kite in a thunderstorm or something.
Catsy
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
Yeah, it really is your fucking fault if you can’t grasp the difference between “when we are in the minority it’s most important to have more Dems” and “when we are at 51 trying to get 60 it’s most important to have Dems who will vote for cloture”, and think that somehow there’s a contradiction there. The fact that someone with the eponysterical name of “Shut up, that’s who” shares your inability to grasp this distinction until it’s broken down into bite-size blocks doesn’t change that, especially when no one else seems to be having trouble with it.
As for your butthurt over being talked down to, cry me a fucking river of tears. You complaining about arrogance is like matoko_chan complaining about word salad.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Catsy:
There is no contradiction on my part, only you, a stupid motherfucker talking out both sides of his mouth and ass at the same time. Thinking it is some shitty brilliant.
It’s not possible for you to talk down to me or anyone else on this thread. The reason should be blitheringly obvious.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Catsy:
When it comes to spanking dipshits like you, absolutely goddam right. Now, your move Einstein. I got all night.
Ben Franklin
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
Specious muleshit. Your Condors descend the minute an imagined critique of Obama is inferred. You are like the locusts who insist the humans have a level corn field to play in.
Really? Was it years ago that you last discussed it? I had a discussion with Omnes about it, but he seemed more like a captive audience who was a little uncomfortable with the subject. I would like to hear more, but all I see is traffic-inducing red-meat for the Circus Maximus crowd, totally avoiding anything which might upset the locals.
Shut up, that's who
My nym is a play on “Shut up, that’s why” and anyone with half a brain would understand that and find it funny. And nobody with half a brain would suggest that someone’s nym is indicative of the quality of his/her arguments anyway. Unless that person’s name was something really stupid. Like “Catsy.” Pfft.
ETA: Like for instance, following Catsy’s nym theory, “Ben Franklin” should be clever, brilliant, in fact. But he doesn’t even have the ability to define what he meant by that “dirty hippy” comment up there. He has no idea either.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
Obama? has nothing to do with this thread. Pathetic comeback.
Nothing you say after can be taken seriously.
All the time, regulars here for awhile know this, we talk about Citizens United and the remedy. The archives are full of such talk, do yourself a favor, instead of wimpering nonsense about “Posses”, read the archives to figure out what’s been going on here over time. Do us a favor too.
Catsy
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
Perhaps I spoke too soon. Maybe you and m_chan should compare notes on word salad, because that paragraph would be a lot more digestible drenched in bacon ranch.
It is really not complicated, you’re just making it so. You have been arguing, in a nutshell, that the most important thing no matter what is to flip seats blue. I am pointing out that while this is true when you are trying to regain or retain the majority, it is not true when your majority is safe and you are trying to get to 60 so that you have a supermajority–at which point it is more important to add Dems who will commit to voting for cloture, since otherwise they don’t get you any closer to 60.
This you and your fellow traveler have variously described as talking out of both sides of my mouth and ass, arguing with myself, disagreeing with myself, and contradicting myself.
To me it seems as if the two of you are having great difficulty holding two ideas in your head at the same time and grasping that one set of priorities applies to one set of circumstances while another set of priorities applies to the other, and see this as somehow contradictory.
Sort of speaks for itself, really. Cheers.
Catsy
@Shut up, that’s who: Oh, I understand the reference. It is funny. But it is funny in a very eponysterical way.
Ben Franklin
You have no idea, how revealing that is…..
I think I understand the Posse.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Catsy:
yea, right. And it shows your bullshit is that, using someones nym to attack their commentary. And bringing Matako into the thread is an act that shows your childish style. You don’t sound very old, maybe that’s it.
You responded to my comment with a smartass quip, and then doubled down when it was pointed out you were talking about two things that were apparent contradictions in practice. Or stupid, if you will. Then getting more and more condescending, when all you had to say from the beginning, was this is what I meant, or was trying to say. But I have never seen you do that on this blog, so here we are. Grow up some, maybe that will make a difference.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
More lame nonsense. Those comments are perfectly logical. You make up something that didn’t happen, and completely false, and I say you can’t be taken seriously.
Ride on then.
NobodySpecial
@Catsy: You cannot make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it.
Now, Stuck doesn’t make any money (I don’t think) off of the stuff he does here, but it certainly is invested in his perceived persona of Balloon Juice Sheriff that he invented for himself back in the days of the public option. Therefore, he will never get what you’re saying and will never agree with you.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
OOOh, big word, very impressive. guess that puts us dweebs in the passenger seat.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@NobodySpecial:
LOL, look what crawled out of the woodwork. You have no idea how that swells my heart.
Ben Franklin
Intuition Fail. But then, that’s not logical.
NobodySpecial
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero): That’s not me, that’s the Moon Pies.
Ben Franklin
@NobodySpecial:
There aren’t any deputies working for Arapaio?
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
So, is now when you destroy me, linguistically?
Obama is behind it all, I am sure.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
I’m here by my lonesome, for the most part. There are no posses, except Nobody Special showing up riding the usual sway back nag, and he ain’t on my side. Or, maybe the posse is on your side of things in this thread.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
I surrender to you, and basically like you, as opposed to the smart ass Catsy. Let’s shake hands and say this didn’t happen?
Ben Franklin
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
You haven’t given me the inspiration. But, you must notice burnsie doesn’t get in my face any longer. My eviscerations don’t have your signature logic, but they do act like insect repellent.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@NobodySpecial:
I get a regular insult from the blog owner as payment. It isn’t much, but something. It’s been a while since collecting that salary, and I don’t know why.
Ben Franklin
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
I prefer alliances. Being attacked for my views makes me a little crazy.
Peace.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
original comment deleted as was
Catsy
Alright Sparky, fuckit, let’s do this.
Except that not one whit of my argument’s substance actually rests on the shot I took at his nym. I did that because it was funny.
Does it now. Kindly describe how Matoko or my style bears on the substance of my argument. I’ll wait while you think something up.
Distance between whining about an irrelevant ad hom attack and engaging in one yourself: 78 characters, including leading and trailing whitespace. That may be a new record.
But which one? There were so many.
Apparent only to a pair of chuckleheads who think there’s a contradiction between “do this stuff when this thing is true” and “do this other stuff when that other thing is true”. In your zero-sum world, there can only be “do stuff”.
Yeah, you know what, jackass? That tends to happen when your first reply out of the gate includes gems of civility like this:
And you know what? That’s okay. Fly your douche flag all you like. I got a thick skin, I just respond in kind.
It’s WATB bullies like you who get bent out of shape when someone serves you a helping of what you dish out all the time.
TK-421
@Shut up, that’s who:
Remember that my questions are: where does the Democratic Party want to take the country, and how do they want to get us there? These are reasonable questions, I have pretty consistently and repeatedly asked them in this thread, and I (still!) don’t have any good answers.
I assume unity towards certain policy goals would be evidence of where the Party wants to go, which means diversity on a given policy would be evidence that the given policy is NOT part of the Party’s long-term strategy. That’s why I took apart your implication that increased access to health care, re-regulation of Wall Street, and equality for gays represented the Democratic Party’s long-term intent. If they’re not united on those policies, then how can those policies be evidence of a long-term strategy?
I guess you disagree, which means we have to back up even further: how we would define evidence of the Democratic Party’s long-term intent and/or strategy? Or perhaps more pointedly, what policy positions does the Party require of its membership over the long-term? I don’t have good answers to these questions either.
I find it amazing that some people are not troubled by the fact that no one can, with any ease and/or clarity, define what the Democratic Party is actually all about. It’s almost as if people don’t even want to answer that question. If you want to argue that the Republican Party is no better, uh ok, and that makes it ok for Democrats because…?
This ideological/policy/principle/etc. void is *exactly* how the Joe Liebermans and Bob Kerreys of the world get to wield so much power inside the Party, IMO. If you don’t know what your Party is about, then how can you know when a fellow member is leading your Party astray?
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
I’m pretty sure it was you who first attacked me for my writings on this thread. Simply writing an unaddressed comment that you don’t agree with is not attacking you. That goes for Catsy as well. And peace. for now.
It takes time to grow the needed layers of thick skin for this place, you will do okay, maybe.
Ben Franklin
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
It was shut up who attacked, then your volley followed. I have seen this tag-team before with different players. It pisses me off. Allow the free flow of commentary or GTFO.
But..peace.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Catsy:
Put up a goddam link with your quotes so I don’t have to search for them. You used his nym to discredit his commentary in your comment to me, you lying sack of shit@Catsy:
I see no joking around in your comment. You used his implied nym to impeach his statements. You lying sack of shit. You used Matako as a weapon as well. Now you can do such things, but I will point out the douchebag you are for doing so.
And I’m not going to waste my time with the rest of your quoted by me bullshit without you making the links available.
Let’s make this simple. I don’t like you, and got tired of your smartass mouth, but still didn’t attack you personally. If you think I’m a bully? You are correct, to other bullies, like you, Now piss off shit for branes. Or keep on. Your choice.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
I just scanned the thread, and this statement appears false. Unless I missed something, it was you who first smarted off about Shut up’s commentary about the occupy movement. Then my volley was unaddressed. Take some time, get your facts straight.
Ben Franklin
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
You’re right.
Shut up commented on TK, wherein I posted a response about ‘Occupy’.
Then Soonergrunt chimed in, and the reflexive response ensued.
I have a thick skin, but I’ve found the attacks here are venomous. Not that I’m excusing myself; but it is easy to hit back.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Ben Franklin:
It used to be a lot worse. peace :-)
Keith G
@TK-421: There is so much good and important to the process that you are advocating for. Many people realize this. It is hinted at when folks talk about the unwieldy factions and the messaging problems that have often plagued Democrats.
Part of the problem is our nature. We are not top down, and we (over?) value the role of the rebel and the anti-iconoclast. But, alas, you raise a good point.
Times are changing and the conditions that allowed Democrats to continually pull together large and diverse coalitions may be gone for good. In other words, this pony may need another trick. I just don’t see how the needed changes that you highlight can be brought about, yet. Necessary as they are, it is not our nature. The responses your are getting here are illustrative of this.
Obama is a fantastic campaigner, a better than average administrator, but he has (to this point) not decided to be a leader who changes his party. So, at least on this front, we must muddle through.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
So maybe we can drive a stake through this sorry thread. Let me do the honors.