We can't have it both ways about "DINO's." If we want to have

[pnwmom]

more Dems elected in swing states, then some of them will be moderates or have mixed records.

But every moderate or even conservative with a D after his name gets us one vote closer to a majority -- and with that, leadership in Congress.

We were better off with our DINO's than we are without them, and we were stupid to stop supporting them because they didn't meet our purity standards.

We need more Dems who are ELECTABLE in swing and even red states, even if they don't look perfect to those of us living in NY and California.

[RedWedge]

1. K&R

[TeamPooka]

2. or maybe we find people who can make a solid case for democratic principles instead of being

middle of the road pretend republicans.
Moderate and conservative Democrats bail on us when we need them most, like now.
As demographics change the make up of all states we need to fight for real Democrats and turn the state blue.
A strong 50 state strategy for local, state and federal elections.
California was a solid Red State only one generation ago.
We need to fight Republicans the way republicans fight Democrats.
Democrats need to go full "Tea Party" like the GOP did.

It sure looks like political purity wins since we are not in control of anything right now.

[mythology]

3. The most conservative Democratic Senator voted with the party 75% of the time

That's not really middle of the road. People like to invent this concept of DINOs or just this side of a Republican, but the evidence is clear that doesn't happen.

[TeamPooka]

4. So it's cool if people only remain faithful 75% of the time? Tell your spouse that.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. False comparison and you know it

[Hekate]

11. I thought "principle over party" was the glorious mantra. Who's to say what the One True Principle

...is in a democracy? Or what the One True Principle is in the Democratic Party? And anyway, people are supposed to vote their principles over their party, or so many here have averred.

Finally -- since when do any of us take an oath of fidelity to our political party as if it were a marriage? When talking about millions of people, an oath like that sounds downright fascistic, not something to be taken up by a free-thinking citizenry.

Something is deeply wrong with your point of view as expressed in this post, TeamPooka.

[pnwmom]

14. Yes, definitely. We aren't marrying Congress -- this isn't a one-to-one

relationship.

Each Senator and Congressperson represents many diverse people. They are not our individual spouses.

[TeamPooka]

17. Would your boss like it if you worked for his competition 25% of the time?

[pnwmom]

19. Again, another failed analogy. If you had hundreds of thousands

or millions of bosses -- as people in Congress do -- your bosses would have to accept that sometimes you seemed to be working for "the competition."

[TeamPooka]

20. here's the applied reality then - Opposing Trump and this GOP Congress only 75% of the time will

destroy this country.
Is that good enough for you?
Argue against that.

[pnwmom]

21. If DT proposes Medicare for all, I won't oppose him. I don't expect that in the slightest,

but I won't agree a priori that everything he might do should be opposed 100% of the time.

Or that it's better to have no Democratic Senator or Congressman in a red or purple state than one who might vote with the R's some of the time.

[TeamPooka]

23. So now we get to debate stuff we just make up and pull out of our butts? No. Go to Trump's website

and show me the 25% of the things he said he wants to do that you're cool with Democrats in Congress suporting.
Or Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell's agendas and stated policies
Show me the "good" 25% of all that.
Otherwise take your fantasy back to Middle Earth

[Stonepounder]

29. So, who gets to decide what the 'Democratic Agenda' is? You?

Nancy Pelosi? Elizabeth Warren? You sound like you want every single Democrat in Congress to vote exactly the same way every time.

Government doesn't work like that. There is give and take and sometimes even the staunchest Democrat may have to vote against the Party for whatever reason. I would take a Congressman who had a (D) after his name who voted the Party line 75% of the time, over a Congressman who had a (R) after his name who voted Democrat 25% of the time.

[angrychair]

43. We both know that doesn't happen

Republicans vote in lockstep with each other. It is exceptionally rare when a republican votes for a bill based on a Democratic Party plank.
The same is not true for DINOs. They only vote with their "fellow" Democrats 75% of the time.

A fellow with a "D" after his name in the Kentucky state legislature put forth a transgender bathroom discrimination bill and anti-LGBTQ religious discrimination bill just last week. Should we be proud to have him as a Democrat? Is he better than a republican? I would argue that no matter what else he supports that the answer is "no".

Sorry, just having a "D" after your name is not the best answer.
The measure is how tightly you cling to Democratic Party planks and that your core values are to act in the greatest good for the least of us. To be the best of us in success and failure. To drive that not as Democratic Party values but American values. That is how we succeed going forward.

[TeamPooka]

65. Show me the 25% of Trump, Ryan, and McConnell's plans you're cool with. Details please

[SlimJimmy]

55. Let me try to bring you back to political reality.

West Virginia is a great example. If we, for example, primary Manchin and put in a very staunch progressive for the general election, we will CERTAINLY lose that seat to a far right Republican. Then, WV will have two Republican senators rather than one. What would you rather have?

[TeamPooka]

64. Your political reality is what we have now. Plenty of Blue Dogs and GOP control of all of Washington

Congrats!

[SlimJimmy]

91. I didn't create the political landscape, I'm just reminding you of it.

[mercuryblues]

92. I would much

rather a Democrat that votes with the party 75% of the time than a republican that votes against us 100% of the time. Ideal, no. Reality has a way of not being perfect.

[onenote]

33. and how will replacing him with someone who never opposes Trump and the GOP Congress

make things better?

[TeamPooka]

70. You automatically assume the Democrat will lose? What a negative attitude. Why don't you believe

a Democrat can win in Red States?
Sad that you don't believe well communicated Democratic ideals and goals can win anywhere in this country.

[onenote]

74. I live in the real world. Show me some evidence a liberal Democrat can win in W. VA.

I think Obama and before him Kerry articulated and communicated Democratic ideals and goals. I think Clinton did as well. They did quite well in some parts of the country -- parts that are ethnically and religiously diverse, better educated, economically secure. In W. VA, a state that is none of those things, they got their heads handed to them. And that's not changing soon. Our message may be that these people are better off under our policies, but they're not buying it and no amount of communicating is likely to change that in the near term.

[TeamPooka]

76. We're living in the real world that you want now. How's it working out? GOP owns everything because

Democrats settle for less.

[onenote]

83. so explain how we reach these people and change their minds.

A couple of concrete examples of how a Democratic candidate is gong to win over West VA on a statewide basis.

[TeamPooka]

85. Why should I explain how to change it if you don't want to be a part of it?

The thing I really hate about this strategy is that it is a tacit acceptance of the theory that America is a "conservative" country.
I do not accept that.
I think we are a liberal country that doesn't realize it.
Our history proves it.
Democrats need to provide the self-actualization process in our arguments, marketing and debates to help them understand and realize it.
Saying what you stand for is how you win everywhere.

[onenote]

90. That's a cop out. I want to be part of it. If you have ideas why won't you share them?

Sounds like you're the one who hasn't any ideas how to effectuate change among those who have resisted the message of Obama and other Democrats in recent years.

[christx30]

42. If the only other choice was someone that worked

100% for the competition, I'm sure he would.

[delisen]

28. If a married couple gets along well 75% of the time, I call that doing fine n/t

[Feeling the Bern]

45. We hae to bend to conservative but roll over for them? Screw that!

Vote even once with the enemy, you are the enemy! No more party over principle!

[humbled_opinion]

38. Exactly stand by our principles

first and foremost, no give, ever. That's how Pubs did it, they demonized the left and went full bore rightwing nutz.

[TeamPooka]

66. Democrats need to start fighting Republicans the way Republicans fight Democrats.

[Dustlawyer]

54. +1!!! So true!

No more corporate Democrats. Many of the Republican base are looking to stop the corruption and be willing to vote for those sincere in not owing quid pro quo's to corporate Donors!

[TeamPooka]

67. A lot of Democrats in this thread seem to be willing to take only 75% from their elected reps.

[n2doc]

6. We of course need a broad umbrella But- It is about who drives the agenda

What are our core principles? Do we consider the right to Privacy one of those or do we allow Democrats who oppose Abortion to be a part of the party? Protect Unions or support 'right to work'? Public Schools or vouchers? Lots of other areas of contention.

Frankly the one thing I think the party has gotten away from is really listening to their constituents. Too much "This is what we want to do, follow us" and not enough listening and discussing. That has to take place at the local and state levels the most.

[pnwmom]

10. Many Dems supported Bernie even though he violated one of our "core principles"

by his support of the gun rights people.

We need to be strategic in all our states, just as he was in Vermont.

[Ligyron]

41. The whole gun thing is a totally lost cause.

We'd be lucky to even get needed background checks in place to keep mentally ill people like the Lauderdale airport shooter from buying them. It's just not worth the crap brought down on us D's we'd get from a too large section of the population of this country.

Really going to be a hopeless cause with Cheeto in plus the Congress we're getting.

Many citizens vote against anything with a D by their name just because some in the party even tried to bring common sense gun regulation up. .

I'll even bet that if Hills had gone to a gun range in, say ... Ohio and fired off a few rounds during the campaign she might have won the election

[BlueMTexpat]

7. Unfortunately, such logic

is much too pragmatic for the purists, I see.

They'd apparently rather have a GOP majority.

Screw that!

[X_Digger]

9. But they'd be pure in thought and deed!

Nothing actually done, mind you, but if they ever got to do something, it'd be pure!

[BlueMTexpat]

12. I wonder if they

even realize how silly they are.

Even after we are saddled with Our Worst Nightmare and a Congress comprising majorities of thugs, bullies and hypocrites, the penny has still not dropped.

[TeamPooka]

16. Did you notice? This current strategy has given us a GOP majority, both Houses and the White House.

[BlueMTexpat]

22. What do you mean by

"this current strategy?"

Supporting Democrats who vote with their party most of the time but who, on certain issues, opt to reflect the will of their constituents?

OR

Allowing GOPers to be elected because the Dems who oppose them do not meet your particular standards of political purity?

IMO, it is the second strategy that got us in the mess we are now in. It certainly was the strategy of BOBers (NOT a majority of SBS supporters, I realize) and to me, they are worse than the Trumpers. THEY know better. Or should. Trumpers are terminally and willfully ignorant.

Manchin is, IMO, a POS. He is, however, a Dem from WV and WVA was VERY red in 2016. To me, he is another Dem in the Senate and, right now, that is numerically meaningful, which is the point of the OP.

I would love to have the state and local Dem parties built up so that realistic challengers to people like Manchin can be groomed to replace them. Since the departure of Howard Dean in 2009, however, that has not been the case and I, for one, am STILL pissed that Dean was told to back off from the DNC this time around.

[TeamPooka]

24. The strategy and tactics you support are in place now. We are where we are now because this is what

we do.
Right now.
So there is nothing to change according to you folks.
Keep going the way we have and are.
More Manchins are needed in Red States according to you.
Okay. I know what you want and you already have it.

[BlueMTexpat]

25. My words went right

over your head.

I didn't say anything like that. But buh-bye. No more time wasted on you.

[rpannier]

51. Actually the refusal to be pragmatic publickly

has gotten the Republicans where they are now
People deride the Republicans for being purists and yet, they control the Presidency, the House, the Senate, most governorships, most state legislatures, etc

It started with people like Richard Viguerie pushing for message discipline
They jettisoned people like Lowell Weicker because they muddied the message
People do know what Republicans stand for and in a crisis most of the public probably prefer the certainty of that to watching a few people try and save themselves at the expense of the group they supposedly belong to in an obvious attempt to save themselves:
See Senator I am Really an Independent Manchin

I for one, am perfectly fine with Democrats who have differing positions, I am not fine when they say and do things that undermine the leadership, the message and the voice to the public of the Party

[BlueMTexpat]

93. I certainly agree with

your last sentence wholeheartedly.

But I have even less patience with people who only "belong" to the Democratic Party when it suits them and then use as many opportunities as they can to undermine the party, etc. before the public for some private agenda - like selling a book, etc.

[Rex]

8. lulz

[Turn CO Blue]

13. Except that smug Lieberman hurt the party more than the Repubs of the time did. n/t

[pnwmom]

15. Except smug Lieberman did that AFTER he left the party and became an Independent. n/t

[Turn CO Blue]

62. Except for the times he broke our own filibuster, betraying the leadership and voters, you mean.

All of those were BEFORE he became an independent in 2006.

And don't get me started on his betrayals during the Al Gore campaign. What about that crap he pulled in public and in backrooms to help kill Hillary's healthcare initiative in 93?

No I will NEVER forgive him. He was ALWAYS rightwing ideologue. A snake in our own basket. DEPLORABLE.

[humbled_opinion]

44. After Bushco there should

Have been a Democratic majority for decades, problem is the media covered for his bad wars and crashing the economy, IMO he was much worse than Herbert Hoover and like Hoover, Bush should have made room for 4 terms of Democratic House, Senate, and Presidency but that never happened. Had Obama championed Immigration reform instead of healthcare reform generations of migrants would be voting Democratic and the Repubs would be gone as a major party for good. Healthcare reform could easily have passed with his 2012 win and super majorities in House and Senate thanks to voting rights for Migrants. Ah C'est la vie.

[Trust Buster]

18. If we throw around the phrase DINO like far Right wingers throw around the phrase RINO,

then we have essentially become them.

[TeamPooka]

27. You means winners? The thing I really hate about this strategy is that it is a tacit acceptance

of the theory that America is a "conservative" country.
I do not accept that.
I think we are a liberal country that doesn't realize it.
Our history proves it.
Democrats need to provide the self-actualization process in our arguments marketing and debates to help them understand and realize it.

[HopeAgain]

58. thank you

[MineralMan]

26. Well said. Thanks.

[TheBlackAdder]

30. A political reality! And, to extend this, same day Primary voter registration to prevent turnaways.

.


In many states, people tried to vote in the Primaries, only to be turned away and disillusioned.


.

[NanceGreggs]

31. Precisely.

Over my years on DU, I have seen people insisting that we should only run/support "progressives", regardless of their chances of winning in areas where Dems tend to be more conservative.

ELECTABILITY should be first and foremost, and that electability is going to be different in NYC than it is Montana or South Dakota.

A conservative Democrat elected to office can be persuaded to vote with his more progressive colleagues on many issues. A progressive Democrat who isn't elected can't do anything.

[DonCoquixote]

32. okay, how would you answer this?

it's one thing to accept the fact that Democrats in "red states" what different opinions on things like guns for example. But when they do things like what Joe Manchin has done and actively tried to cripple The Democratic agenda, do you just give them a license? I remember very well when Mary Landrieu tried to go ahead and hold many things hostage so that Obama would authorize drilling in the Gulf Coast, despite the fact that the Deepwater Horizon investigation was not complete, nor was to clean up even halfway done.

That would be one thing to talk about slack and leeway, but the truth is at least some of the blue dogs have actively tried to cripple the Democrat agenda.. There is no way about that, and we have hurt because of that. We cannot just sit back and say oh" Joe mansion has to go ahead and fight us on call and he has to fight us on medical care, because his daughter works in the medical industry and he comes from West Virginia.." Oh yes that is the same state that brought us Robert Byrd, the person the Republicans love to bring up, but at least Robert Byrd made sincere attempts to repent from and to counter racism.. Mary Landrieu, despite the sheer amount of carnage oil industry left in Louisiana, both in Deepwater Horizon, and Katrina (were many of the wetlands that would've absorbed that storm surge were taken out by the oil companies) still was treated like a servant, and acted like a servant, to the oil barons.

I understand this is a numbers game, but if we consistently have to worry about getting shot in the back, we are not going to get anywhere either. At the very least there has to be a standard, where this candidate wants our money, and our time, they at the very least have to agree not to do certain things that will stab us in the back. Granted, that conversation may be a long one, and indeed it probably has been a long time coming. However that does not mean that we cannot define our brand, to define what we stand for, and what we stand against, and if some politician thinks that they need slack because of their state, at the very least we need to define how that slack will eventually be tightened.

[Ligyron]

47. We've allowed the GOP and RW media to define what we stand for.

That's the problem right there.

And even if we have a unified message on issues that most Americans would agree with, the way most people do when the D is taken off the label, there doesn't seem to be an effective way to deliver it.

[TeamPooka]

72. This times 1000

[radical noodle]

34. Yes!

This is more important than anything.

[guillaumeb]

35. I can see both sides.

Joe Manchin is no one's idea of a progressive, but he is better than Mitch McConnell. The problem comes when these moderates cannot be relied on to support the Democratic Party. Joe Manchin is lukewarm at best and could have been a Republican 40 years ago. As could be my Representative, Dan Lipinski of Illinois. Lipinski opposed the ACA and I could see him co-operating with the GOP if they actually propose an improvement to the ACA.

[humbled_opinion]

36. So are you saying it is OK

for Democrats to go along with Trumps GOP agenda and support it like Joe Manchin seems to be doing? That will wind up getting us more seat loses because it will allow Trump to accomplish his goals and even as they fail he will claim them as bipartisan. Did you learn nothing from the AUMF Iraq?

[onenote]

39. Or we can have one more Republican in the Senate

explain to me how that helps defeat Trump's agenda.

Manchin is not a reliable vote for the Democrats. But if he's gone, his replacement will be another Shelley Capito. Manchin voted opposite of her over 120 times in 2015, so you're basically proposing that we give the Repubs another vote half the time if not more.

[humbled_opinion]

46. Not at all, I am proposing that

we stick to our principles and win on the merits of the arguments.

[onenote]

52. How has that worked out the last few elections in W.VA

Which of the following candidates failed to stick to their principles and lost W.VA for that reason: Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama again, and Clinton?

[rpannier]

49. Manchin's voting record is not really the issue

It's that he trumpets his opposition every chance he gets
Mr. I Am Really an Independent does the Party no favors when he's the first one out there bad undermining leadership to save his own ass
30 years ago the Republicans began their culling with Sen Weiker and other like-minded types
The Republicans have party discipline. The public knows where they stand on just about every issue.
For many people, willing to be wrong, but at least fighting for it is worth a lot more than watching a group of people flail around, some trying to accomplish something while a few others harp and whine trying to save themselves at the expense of the group

[rgbecker]

37. I have a great idea too!

Why don't we as a party just present a bunch of bills to ban abortion under all circumstances? We would gain the evangelical vote which would have won probably 7 of the trump's states, the House and Senate. It would shut the fuckers up and the worse outcome would be several hundred thousand unwanted babies would be carried to term. Seems like a good idea, like yours? Oh and we could loosen up a few of the gun bans here and there across the country and pick up another 4 million votes. Oh no, not in all the states, just where the gun nuts live.

[vi5]

40. Yeah! That's what Republicans do and look where that has gotten them.

Oh wait. That's right. It's gotten them control of the whole goddamned country and most of the states.

Look what that "We go high when they go low!" and "We have to be better than that!" has gotten us. Royally fucked, and almost completely powerless thats where. It's about goddamned time that we started drawing some hard lines in the sand. If Republicans can motivate their base to come out and still manage to elect hardcore republicans in blue states then we should be able to do the same thing in red states. The problem is our leadership wants to buy into the Republican narrative that America is a conservative country and that's not true except at the most superficial "brand name" top line level. Which unfortunately is where most of our highly paid people in charge of the party want to work. As long as we stay at that level without getting our hands dirty we will continue to lose.

[rpannier]

48. I'm okay with mod and conservative dems until

they decide to undermine the party on key positions... see Sen Manchin (according to what he said, he's really an independent)
Part of the success the Republicans have had in becoming the majority party as far as Governorships, statehouses, US House and Senate has been message discipline
Sen Collins does not go out to the press and undermine the leadership on key votes and key positions, whether she disagrees or not

[mcar]

50. This is what a 50 state strategy means

I don't think some here get that. Electing more Dems means some of them will be moderate, even conservative. But they get us back in charge and vote with us the majority of the time.

I'd welcome a moderate or even conservative Dem as my rep instead of the RWNJs I end up with.

[LisaM]

53. Totally agree.

I think it would lead to more moderate Republicans, too.

[napi21]

60. You're absolutely right. Sometimes it gets very frustrating, like when Mary Landrew from La.

would vote with the Pubs to save her own seat in a pretty red State. Some of those voted were critical to get one of our main positions passed, but I'd sure rather contend with some frustration than be in the minority!

[mcar]

63. It does get frustrating

But I'd take a Landrieu right now over the Rs we have. Anything that gets us to a Democratic majority again.

[Kath2]

56. Exactly.

Let's get back to basics, people.

We have to.

[HassleCat]

57. Of course we can have it both ways.

That's what the whole DINO thing is all about, candidates who tell us they're more electable because they support the death penalty, want to expel immigrants, cut off food stamps, get rid of environmental regulations, relax financial rules, give tax breaks to corporations, etc. We have had it both ways since we welcomed Dixiecrats into the party, so this is nothing new. The current debate involves whether or not we should shift our national focus in a more progressive direction, and what impact it would have on Democrats who drift back and forth on the right edge of the party, as well as who would be attracted to the left margins.

[hrmjustin]

59. I understand the anger at red state elected Democrats who vote with the GOP but

left leaning candidates in many of these red state have very little chance getting elected statewide.

Purity primaries against them only hurt them and our party's chances to hold these seats.

[TeamPooka]

71. Then why bother even being a Democrat? Wave that white flag.

[hrmjustin]

73. Politics. The party is a big tent.

As much as we don't like how they vote the alternative is a fire breathing Republican. I rather have a Democrat.

[TeamPooka]

75. I'd rather have a rep with strong Democratic principles but I don't buy knockoff brands either. nt

[hrmjustin]

77. You do understand a liberal will not be elected in most red states statewide?

[TeamPooka]

81. Not if we run blue dogs they won't.

[hrmjustin]

84. Liberals and blue dogs have been running for years and losing in red states.

Not for a lack of trying but political reality on the ground. Sure state parties can try harder but going left is not going to win you a Senate seat in a state like West Virginia.

[TeamPooka]

88. How bad does it need to get before you think a Democratic message should be used in a Red State?

Hunger Games bad?
Terminator bad?

[hrmjustin]

89. What is your suggestion? What would you like to see happen?

And then tell me how realistic you think it IS.

[Maru Kitteh]

61. K&R

[Fiendish Thingy]

68. Shouldn't there be more actual liberals and progressive than DINO's (or more accurately RISC's)

in the Democratic Party?

RISC= Republican In Sheep's Clothing

When the DINO's are in charge of the party, is it really the Democratic Party that most of us grew up with?

[pnwmom]

69. There are. If you can't tell the difference between the Dems and the Rethugs

in Congress, you're not paying attention.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Patty Murray, etc are strong progressives.

Look at the records of D's and R's -- there's very little overlap anywhere.


ontheissues.org

[Fiendish Thingy]

78. We agree, it's just that your OP seemed to suggest that we need to accept DINO's

as long as they are party members, and will help us get a majority- there must be a limit to that tolerance, don't you think, or the Democratic Party risks being diluted to the point of extinction.

[pnwmom]

79. We were far better off when we had majorities in the House and Senate

even though some of the people were from Red states and didn't pass our purity test. They were critical in giving us the leadership, even if they didn't always vote in perfect lockstep with us on every issue. We are NOT better off when DINO's get replaced by Rethugs, which is what happened in every case.

[Tactical Peek]

82. I liked it better when we had some moderates and conservatives in the mix,

and we also had the House committee chairs and the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader and the Senate committee chairs and so on and so forth.

Not to the point of co-opting the party. However, the positions of the Democratic party are widely popular and candidates can win by appealing to progressive sentiment, even when it comes with some moderate and conservative marbling.

Bring back the Big Tent.

[pnwmom]

86. I agree. I don't think we're better off being so polarized. nt

[relayerbob]

80. Stop with bullshit labeling

and start considering that our "inclusiveness" isn't really all that inclusive right now, or we'd be running things.

[pnwmom]

87. True. If we still had significant numbers of Democrats from the red states in Congress,

we'd be running things -- even if they didn't always vote on every issue in lockstep with liberals on the coasts.