If Scott Brown can win Ted Kennedy's seat - why are so many taking

[BR_Parkway]

it for granted that we can't win in Blue Dog areas based on Progressive ideals? Our message, our platform is on behalf of the little guy - not the corporations - so how is it that we consistently either can't get the messages that matter most out to the voters or we keep getting trumped by terrible ideology that has proven itself a failure every time it's been tried?

We're certainly quick enough to yell and scream loudly the moment Sen Reid tosses in the towel on negotiations before they even begin. And yet, the "conventional wisdom" instantly pops up that a truly progressive ideas won't fly in that blue dog district. Why the hell not? Either our values and platforms suck - or the messaging does. When do we start to change the one we can change? Like clockwork, within moments of Evan Bayh announcement, came the cries of "oh, we'll never hold that seat unless we go with a conserva-dem"

I recall a certain 50 state strategy that was doomed to failure as well - better not to waste our resources in some areas. This isn't about party purity - it's about offering the people a real choice. It's about not quitting before we even get started. It's about being a Democrat with an actual spine and saying "this is what I believe in, and here's why you should as well" over and over again until the message gets through.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Because Republicans are less likely to break ranks. nt

[ChicagoSuz219]

14. Have you somehow missed all the Tea Party talk?!? n/t

[Captain Hilts]

15. Tuff talk. Come November, a lot will come back to the fold, especially if they see a Dem ahead. nt

[ChicagoSuz219]

16. Maybe some of the less-crazy ones...

...I think some of them are waaaaaaaaay out there!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. It may not be totally impossible

If we have a really good candidate, however that's a REALLY big "if" at least someplace here in Indiana. I also tend to believe that Scott Brown's win was somewhat of an aberration that should hopefully be corrected in a couple of years. Depending on how/what he does in the Senate between now and 2012, he may be easy to defeat if we can recruit a better candidate than Coakley and, additionally, President Obama will be back on the ballot as well, so that should help.

[msongs]

3. dems top leadership are NOT progressive they are center-right so it is up to us to

find and elect true progressives to push obama and his crowd to the center if possible. that is what we are doing in our congressional district, networking to elect a congressman who will fight against appeasing republicans for PR purposes and TV photo-ops. Our guy believes the democratic party values are good and true. Almost pulled it off last year, working to get it done this year.

Msongs

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. You will hear, of course, that the 50 state strategy elected blue dogs

not progressives, as an excuse for not putting up progressives, but the fact is those who were elected in red districts were MORE LIBERAL that the republicans that ran against them. How do we know that blue dogs is the most we can expect unless we offer progressive challenges to the blue dogs?

If the electorate went with the more liberal candidate to elect the blue dog, who is to say it won't elect a real progressive who has a clear message beyond 'I am not a republican'?

[theothersnippywshrub]

5. Brown ran unopposed for most of the campaign. n/t

[cali]

6. because perfect storms are rare.

and that's what happened in MA. The dem was a jaw droppingly bad candidate who all but handed the seat away. Brown was a good campaigner who worked his ass off and came off as a moderate.

Furthermore, it's not that our values or platform sucks as it is that there are a shitload of people in red districts who are evidently more concerned with so-called social issues than economic ones and when they are concerned with economic ones it's all about cutting taxes.

That said, I think we should run progressives every where we can. At least we'll lose supporting decent candidates.

[BR_Parkway]

8. Perhaps the economic reality facing some of these folks will take that

focus off of the social issues.

[cali]

9. maybe, but judging from the teabaggers and other wingnuts it doesn't

seem like it.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Come on, you know the answer. Why does NC still have a Republican representing the

3rd., 5th., 6th., 9th., and 10th. districts? Whey was it that the last time NC had two Democratic Senators was in 1973? And why do you have Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), as Blue Dog Whip and McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)?

[BR_Parkway]

10. Because we were convinced that true progressives couldn't make it

in this state and all we've run our repulicult lite candidates for the most part? And yet at the state level, we put Democrats into all branches - because they actually act like Democrats.

[galileoreloaded]

11. I have yet to see "little guy" policies brought forward from the majority in Congress.

I see corporate shills feathering their nests.

[Canuckistanian]

12. I think the upcoming midterms will be bad for incumbents

I think the dissatisfaction with Congress and the Senate in general will present more opportunities for upsets. On BOTH sides.

[BR_Parkway]

13. I hope you're right - for too long they've ignored their constituents in favor

of the corporations - and historically had a Cheney-esqe approval rating to show for it.

[theothersnippywshrub]

17. It is going to be bad for the incumbent majority party. A bloodbath in fact.

When voters are mad at Congress they are mad at the party controlling Congress, not the party fighting Congress.

[Canuckistanian]

18. You're right

Incumbents of the ruling party always do worse than their challengers in times of distress.

See "Germany, Nazi Party" and "Italy, Fascisti" for examples.