Democrats are out in the fucking desert. STOP with the primarying red state Dems bullshit

[Stinky The Clown]

I used to be there. Primary them! Throw 'em out! Elect someone who will act like a Democrat.

Now?

I will take ANY Dem we can get elected right now. The five "turncoats" who would vote with the GOPee on the shutdown are the quite likely very best you're going to get in their states.

I know. All sorts of theories about who can win in this state or that.

Can we concentrate on ADDING to our numbers of Congress, not in risking what we have?

Eye on the ball, purists. Eye On The Ball.

When we gave a strong majority again, we can have this conversation. Sand it is a worthy one. Just not right now.

Mmmmmkay?

[Gothmog]

1. Agreed

[Squinch]

2. .

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. uh yeah

Here is my simple question to them, lets say we KNOW Manchin can get reelected but your candidate only has a 65% chance of winning. do you risk it?

You see I would never do that given the alternative might be Nazi's running everything. Actual Nazi's.

We take back the government the SAFEST most sure fire way then we worry about purifying our members.


A democratic senator or house member in CA is vastly different than a democratic member in the house or senate in WV. If these people have not learned that yet, we might as well hand the keys to Putin now.

[Sophia4]

32. On the other hand, this may be the best year to move things AWAY FROM THE RIGHT,

not just toward the center-right.

I'm uncertain. Let's see what the voters decide. Let them decide in each state.

A lively primary is a good opportunity to educate voters and create some excitement.

I think it is always good to have more than one candidate and more than one set of ideas in primaries.

As for the money, the primary candidates fund their own campaigns, and the money spent by a challenger is not going to go to a "winner" who didn't really win against a challenger anyway.

[crazycatlady]

4. applause

[Lisa0825]

5. HELL-F'ING-YEAH!!!

[Kirk Lover]

6. Thanks Stink! n/t

[Wounded Bear]

7. My Dem rep is pretty safe. I won't dictate to others what they should do...

I'm more tolerant than many about blue dogs and conservadems, but all politics are local. Candidates have to run on issues that will work in their districts.

[ProudLib72]

8. Personally, I believe in letting each state decide for itself which candidate it wants

I hate Manchin. He's the most conservative Dem there is. However, I do not live in WV, and I really have no idea what the politics are like there.

[Motownman78]

17. The politics there is if

Manchin losses, his Republican replacement would want a coal burning power plant on every street corner.

[Willie Pep]

23. Manchin is probably the best Democrat we can realistically get out of West Virginia.

I am not from WV either but I know that WV has been trending Republican for a long time now and Trump won that state handily. We should be glad to have Manchin just like other red state Democrats. Even the most conservative Democrats are better than the most liberal Republicans these days.

[Sophia4]

34. It does not hurt to have a challenger who introduces some new ideas.

That goes for every state and every primary.

[Willie Pep]

38. It depends on how the challenge is made.

I worry that if a challenger goes too hard on their opponent it will weaken them in the general. This is not as much of a problem in blue or even purple districts/states but in a red district/state it can hurt a Democrat if they get tarred too hard in a ferocious primary.

[Sophia4]

44. We need fighters in red states and districts.

If our incumbents have platforms that attract voters and are strong, they will win.

We need stronger representatives and senators in Congress.

And we need much stronger leaders in state positions, including in state legislatures.

Primaries filter out candidates who no longer serve the needs of constituents or whose ideas and presentation are too weak to survive a challenge.

We need competition in the primaries.

If we don't have it, we will turn into a machine political party -- and have all the corruption that goes with a political machine.

[ProudLib72]

56. Normally I would agree with you, but there is too much at stake

Hey, I was contemplating starting a thread about whether or not it made sense to primary DINOs. There are two possibilities. First, the Dem tide in November is so strong that a more liberal candidate would be preferred to someone like Manchin. Second, we push so hard that the Dem tide breaks upon the shoals of divisiveness and states like WV elect a rethug.

Here is the thing, though. How is it anyone's business besides the voters in that state to decide who should run in the general? And that's why I would rather the Dems in WV do the deciding. I can only hope that they read their state's politics correctly and make wise choices.

[plantwomyn]

62. Sadly, I agree.

As a constituent of Joe Donnelly, I know of what I speak. I have to admit he's bipartisan and it pisses me off sometimes when he goes farther than I think he should. But he's a Democrat who won in INDIANA! I can also say that his positions have evolved since he was in the House. So I say, he won and he could win again and we NEED to WIN.

[stevenleser]

86. No, we need elected Democrats in red states and districts. nt

[stevenleser]

50. Yes it does, if it weakens the eventual nominee. This is not hard. nt

[GulfCoast66]

52. You are not just a little wrong. But so wrong you are sideways

How familiar are you with West Virginia?

Manchin will need every possible resource and every vote possible to win this seat.

If he were to face a challenger from the left I would expect him to do one of 2 things. Say ‘fuck it’ drop out and let a republican win.

Or less likely, and I hate say this cause I kind of think well if the guy, become the most liberal republican in the Senate.

Either way, the Democratic Party and America lose.

I do not care who your liberal hero’s are, if they were successful politicians they thought and acted tactically, not emotionally. And could be very, very cut-throat at times.

This is a race I would expect the national party to do everything possible to squelch a possible challenge from the left.

[Willie Pep]

73. There is a possible benefit to a left-wing challenge to Manchin.

It might allow Manchin to position himself as the moderate in the general. By defeating a challenge from the left he can say "see, I am not like those crazy liberals and I proved it in the primary." This could possibly help him in the general where he can say he is Mr. Moderate between kooks on both the right and left.

I know this makes some people here angry but for a state like West Virginia it is not a bad strategy. If we were talking about California or New York then I could understand the frustration but WV is Trump country and we should be happy to have Manchin in the Senate from that state.

My worry though is that liberals from outside of WV will pour money and effort into Paula Jean Swearengin's campaign and could end up damaging Manchin. She seems very popular with the Internet left most of whom probably live outside of the state. I would hate to see us lose a seat in the Senate because of e-carpetbaggers who for some reason had to target Manchin instead of a moderate in a safer district/state.

[Demsrule86]

79. There is no benefit for Manchin. It will weaken him.

Don't kid a kidder...all those involved in this primary and I took names are dead to me in terms of money or time...never never have anything to do with them again.

[crazycatlady]

55. WV gave Trump the largest margin of victory

The fact that Joe Manchin is even in office is a miracle given the numbers there.

[ProudLib72]

58. That's why I'm saying we should let the Dems in WV decide

They ought know their state's political climate better than anyone else, and they are the only ones who can tell if trying to primary Manchin is worth the risk.

[crazycatlady]

63. I think most mainstream Dems there know what they've got

But there's a Justice Democrat primarying him.

I'd rather this primary challenger run for state/local office instead and rise through the ranks.

[ProudLib72]

67. I am hoping that the DNC and DCCC decide to lend their support to whomever

has the best chance of winning. I think they are on the same page as we are in refuting the purity tests, but I don't know.

[crazycatlady]

68. DCCC won't be involved with the race

DSCC (Senate wing) will.

I've trained with them. They generally stay out of primaries unless one candidate (like a Roy Moore) is so toxic that he/she gives the other side a chance (again see Roy Moore).

[ProudLib72]

71. Ok, I was confused, but I looked it up

Van Hollen was groomed by Pelosi. I take that as a good sign.

[crazycatlady]

75. It's a confusing alphabet soup

DNC-- PResidential
DSCC-- Senate
DCCC-- House
DGA-- Governor's
DLCC-- State Legislative

(Some states have their own versions of the DCCC/DSCC. I'm leaving them out).

[mvd]

57. I agree with this

I'm all for a more progressive party, and it won't hurt for there to be a challenge sometimes to keep some Dems honest. If the more moderate Dem is the stronger one in the race, then vote for them in the general election.

[Voltaire2]

9. Primaries are part of a robust democratic process

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Wrongheaded litmus tests are the thing of LOSERS.

There is democracy and there are politics. One is theoretical and one is practical.

[Demsrule86]

14. We need the practical...because the theoretical is damn near killing us as a party.

[Sophia4]

46. Squelching dissenters and challengers is the stuff of the corrupt.

I may prefer to vote for the party favorite, but never, never will I agree that challengers in primaries are a bad thing. They keep the party alive.

It's better that a candidate's corruption or weakness be defeated in the primary than that we allow that corrupt or weak candidate to go to the actual election and be defeated there.

We need robust primaries with good contenders.

[stevenleser]

51. And turning off one's brain because reality is not to ones liking is the stuff of a tantruming 3 y/o

We're all adults here. I expect everyone to act like it and use adult logic.

[Voltaire2]

26. If an incumbent is a strong popular candidate then

a primary is no threat. If instead the incumbent is weak or unpopular a better candidate can be chosen by the people.

It’s called democracy. I support it.

[Sophia4]

36. I agree. It's called democracy. I support it.

Complaining about challengers is the mantra of the losers. It's what candidates say when they know they don't have a strong enough appeal to win against competition but want the position and the glory (and maybe the money) anyway.

Welcome challengers. That's what I say.

[Demsrule86]

13. No, not when you have no power and are defending multiple Senate seats while the other side only has

eight. Now when the house is gerrymandered and we have to win by more than 10 points to win back the House...just NOOOO not this year. Any that participate in a primary are dead to me forever...I mean it. Take the money and time and go after Republicans.

[Sophia4]

37. How do you define machine politics.

Because I pretty much think your post defines it.

The members of Congress we have now are what remains of what was once a majority in Congress.

Some of them are losers. They won their seat but lost the majority in the House and Senate.

Of course they need to be challenged. If they were doing a good job, Democrats would be in the majority in Congress, not in the minority.

Challenge them and make them work for their seats.

[YessirAtsaFact]

30. They are a great way for an incumbent to lose a seat

[JDC]

10. Ok. But I'm still gonna be pissed...

Thx for the talkdown.

[Demsrule86]

11. Agreed...no reason to force red state Dems to walk the plank.

[bhusar]

15. Yes in Arizona

I live in Peoria AZ and there are candidates that are bragging abiut being with Trump on their campaign posters. I forgot one guys name but the poster is a photo of the both of them, as oppised to the Dems in 2014 and 2012 that tried to seperate themselves from Obama. Tired of seeing Republicans in Arizona go unchallenged.

[Hekate]

16. Amen

[kimbutgar]

18. I draw the line at fake Democratic candidates who were once rethug

There’s some racist guy running now as a Democratic candidate. There’s no way in hell I would vote for him.

[Honeycombe8]

19. Totally Agree! Not only THAT, the Dems have started backing INDEPENDENTS who can beat GOP.

There are some areas where anyone with a (D) by his/her name cannot win. But an INDEPENDENT can. In some areas, the Democratic National Party has gotten with the winnable Indies and agreed not to run in the race, and to even back the Indies, to give the Independents a good chance of winning. In a three-way race, the Repub was likely to win. It worked!!!

So there are now some Alaskans in dark red Alaska who are now represented by liberal-leaning Independents, one or more for the first time in decades. In places where the Repubs had always been shoe-ins. Sarah Palin's Alaska.

It's being smart in strategy. You back the horse that can win, not the one you know will probably not win. As long as he's in your corner more than the Republican alternative, you're ahead. Way ahead. Turning red to purple.

In the lower 48, hopefully those will be ones with an actual (D) by their names, whether progressive or moderate. Any Dem is better than a Paul Ryan or a Darrell Issa.

[Kentonio]

87. I was reading about that

Those young Dem organizers up in Alaska are hugely inspirational.

[Mr.Bill]

20. I live in a very safe Democratic Congressional district,

and I will take a good look at all the Democrats in the primary. I won't mention him because of DU rules, but our current Congressman hasn't done much for my county, and only responds to my inquiries with form letters. I will vote for whatever Democrat wins the nomination, I just wouldn't mind seeing someone younger and different.

[Sophia4]

47. You mentioned the problem.

We have some sitting members of Congress who are serving when they should step aside and let a younger person take their places.

I could mention several relics of a past time.

I'm 74. I know this sound ageist. But once you are over 80, you should let a younger person take your place in Congress or the statehouse. I love these elderly statesmen and women, but it's time to build a younger Democratic Party.

[crazycatlady]

61. That can start with Conor Lamb, 33

Blue Dog type Democrat running in a conservative PA district in a March 13 special election.

[mcar]

21. Those Dems can help us get to a majority

Do people really know the significance of that? I don't care if Manchin, et al vote against us at times. They vote with us most of the time and GIVE US THE MAJORITY!

(Apologies for raising my voice ).

[hay rick]

22. Ideological purity is so much better than winning elections.

I think 2016 proved that beyond a doubt.

[Sophia4]

39. Great post! Thanks!

[OilemFirchen]

64. !

[Sophia4]

49. What good is it if a Democrat votes for the Republican tax bill?

Might as well be a Republican.

[thucythucy]

84. With a Democratic majority the tax bill wouldn't have even been on the agenda.

Surely you know it's the majority decides the agenda of each house.

It's the majority that chooses who chairs the various committees, including committees charged with investigating corruption.

"Might as well be a Republican." That could be said about posters here encouraging division and dissent when we should all be focused on stopping the horror that is our present federal government.

[Jim Lane]

24. This undercuts the argument against third parties.

What third-party advocates ignore, when they denounce the Democratic Party as being too conservative, is that Democratic Party policies aren't set in stone. Its candidates are chosen in primaries.

If someone is generally to the left of an incumbent Democrat (say, an incumbent who opposes single-payer, voted to re-authorize NSA spying, etc.), can we logically say:
1. Don't run in the Democratic primary, but
2. Don't run in the general election as a Green because you'll split the vote.

What this boils down to is: Just STFU or we'll accuse you of helping Republicans.

I agree with point (2) above, that people shouldn't split the vote in the general. As for primaries, there are factors to be balanced. Does this candidate have a chance to win the primary? If so, would he or she have a chance to win in November? Would a failed primary run hurt the incumbent by siphoning off money? Would it help the incumbent by making him or her look centrist? ("My primary opponent wanted socialized medicine, now my Republican opponent wants to repeal the ACA and thus end the Medicaid expansion etc., I'm taking the sensible middle course.&quot Would a primary run that's hopeless this year have long-term benefits by putting more progressive ideas before an electorate that otherwise seldom hears them?

It's just too sweeping to say that all primary challenges, or even all primary challenges this year, are wrong.

[Voltaire2]

28. Exactly.

It’s ridiculous. Nobody owns the seat. It’s earned by getting elected. First in a primary and then in the general election.

[Kablooie]

25. Yes. Numbers are all that count right now. Refining values comes later.

Without sufficient numbers no Democratic values can even be considered.

[yallerdawg]

27. Doug Jones just won in Alabama promising to get CHIP back!

A Democrat delivering on his campaign promise in his first significant Senate vote?

Heaven forbid!

[honest.abe]

29. Totally.

[Bradshaw3]

31. Yes,yes, yes a thousand times yes

Take back the government whatever it takes. The stakes are too high.

[pnwmom]

33. You're absolutely right. And the leadership knows that those 5 votes made ZERO difference

because they only needed 215 to win and they had 225 -- without the 5.

[Sam McGee]

35. Agreed -- except --

I will not vote for, donate to, or work for a Democrat who says "reach across the aisle," "work for bipartisanship," "find common ground with Republicans" or similar bullshit.

[SunSeeker]

40. K & R

[AlexSFCA]

41. any dem better than any rep

having a majority would give us power to introduce bills and block court nominees

[Beartracks]

42. Omfg, yes! Our job is_simple: vote for the best Dem on the ballot.

At all times. At all elections.

That really is all there is to it.

==========

[tiredtoo]

43. Have mixed thoughts on this

First thought, I agree with original post 100 percent.
Second thought, Maybe we should primary some of these DINOs to let them know we are a force to be reckoned with now!

[hurl]

45. Honest question

In general, I agree with the sentiment: We face an existential crisis, so focus our fight on the common enemy (GOP), not potential allies! Sufficient numbers to effect change is far more important than 100% agreement on all issues.

Absolutely. No question whatsoever.

Still, in the back of my mind, it seems that taking this positon essentially implies that we do not trust our primary voters. Sure, there might be good reason for suspicion in places with open primaries, but the rest? Is the message that primary voters must accept limited choices when we are the minority, because we voters might make the wrong decison?

[Sophia4]

53. How do you define machine politics?

Discouraging young or new contenders from giving it a try pretty much defines machine politics for me.

And I believe that the Democratic Party should show no favoritism in its primaries.

Our Party has failed at every level in gaining majorities outside of a very few states. It's time to renew and refresh our Democratic Party in every way.

We need new, brighter leadership, not tired old person we now have. We need a feisty winner to take on Trump. And we need party leadership that welcomes the new and in many cases younger challengers.

If we don't step up to the challenge of renewing our Party, we will continue to lose.

I challenge sitting Democrats over the age of 80 to mentor young contenders for their seats and encourage them to run in primaries and get some experience campaigning.

Are we becoming a party of the past?

Sounds like this is hanging on for dear life rather than taking up the challenges of the future.

We should be the party of the future.

[murielm99]

82. Why do you keep throwing around the word "machine?"

You are the one talking about outdated concepts. No one else in this thread is saying that. I have a feeling that some people have had to Google it.

I would like to know who these tired old people are. And I would challenge you to look at some of the efforts being made right now. We had a training series called "Build the Bench" in my state. Emily's List helps foster and promote new leadership. Loretta Durbin runs a series of workshops for promising women leaders. Dick Durbin always surrounds himself with young aides of both genders. They learn from him and move on to other forms of political activism. Do the Camp Wellstones still exist? I have a feeling they do.

I see new grassroots organizations at all levels. Many of them are working with existing county and state organizations.

Do some research before you criticize. Our party is experiencing a nearly unprecedented resurgence at all levels.

[Demsrule86]

80. Machines are in the past...there are no machines.

Mayor Daily is long dead. The smokey backroom has been closed for years...primaries this year risk our efforts to win a majority in the House and Senate. Anyone involved should be shunned forever. I am talking about house and Senate Dem primaries. Obviously we will have a 2020 presidential primary and hopefully all will vote for who eventually emerges as the candidate.

[crazycatlady]

90. New Jersey

We have a senator up this year who was on trial for corruption. By all means he should be primaried. But the county party bosses most likely won't let that happen.

[Demsrule86]

91. Oh please right wing hit job...no he shouldn't be primaried...don't pile on with the evil right.

you had a Republican governor...no bosses...give me a break.

[George II]

48. But, but, but.....are they "progressive enough"? You express my sentiments precisely.....

....we need Democrats in Congress, we'll worry about whether or not they're perfect AFTER they get elected.

[bronxiteforever]

54. Kick and recommend.

[GaryCnf]

59. A discussion based entirely on the dogma

That our values are so repulsive to the residents of places like West Virginia that no actual Democrat can win there.

This is an insult to both our values and the people of so-called "Red States"

[annabanana]

60. We need the Chairs of the Intel Committees!!

Think how different the House Committee would go with Adam Schiff in Charge!!

[still_one]

65. Thank you for bringing reality and sanity to what the stakes are

[Mme. Defarge]

66. Damn straight!

[Awsi Dooger]

69. I made this point repeatedly to Chris Bowers on MyDD more than a decade ago

He was a functional idiot in terms of logically projecting the future. All he cared about was the most pure liberal nominee in each state or district.

Well that's wonderful, Chris. Welcome to semi-permanent minority status. I posted that via his method we'd only have a chance when an incredibly unpopular Republican president were in office.

He warned me for disrupting the forum. More than a decade later I realize I was actually understating matters. You've got to be a moron of unimaginable magnitude to force nominees in races where they don't fit.

If the nation were 35% self-identified liberals and 26% self-identified conservatives, then we could get bold in state after state, due to basic margin for error.

The devastating reality is that those numbers are reversed. If we ever lose sight of those numbers we cannot succeed. The issue polling doesn't mean a darn thing compared to how voters self identify.

[BlueIdaho]

70. Hell to the Yes!

We either believe in a “Big Tent” or we don’t. As a resident of Idaho, I believe in the value of every Democrat and I welcome them all to the fight for a better country and a better world.

[NBachers]

72. If those so-called conservodems were in a strong enough majority, maybe they'd feel safer voting

with stronger Democratic values.

Keep the Democrats we have in their position, and put new Democrats where there aren't any. That's easy enough to understand.

A strong majority will pull us along better than a weak majority, or a non-existent majority.

[bullwinkle428]

74. It's as ridiculous as those that went crazy following the Franken resignation

and insisting on primaries against those that called for him to step down.

[old guy]

76. My heart wants to argue with you,

but my head knows you are right. Damn.

[BobTheSubgenius]

77. Mmmmmkay.

[Progressive dog]

78. What the "primary them" supposed Democrats don't get

is that different parts of the country require different candidates. If we want to turn into a fringe party, the way to do it is to insist on purity. The Republicans chose winning elections over governing, power over right, and are turning the US away from democracy.
An occasional vote that doesn't meet a purity test is not a reason to help replace them with a Republican. That will be the result and is probably the intent of running primary candidates against them.

[pecosbob]

81. I would cut off my arm

before I voted for Manchin or McCaskill. Incumbents must be judged by their voting record. Fortunately I live in Nevada where I don't have to make that deal with the devil.

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

83. "Eye on the ball, purists. Eye On The Ball".

Well said.

[lillypaddle]

85. K&R

I'm with you.

[Kentonio]

88. If it genuinely risks the seat then no its not the time to take those risks

There was one rep though (can't remember which) who is basically a Republican in Dem clothing, who voted against most things we care about, and is sitting in a seat which went something like +24 Clinton. He's being primaried and I don't see a single good reason why we should consider that dangerous or a bad thing.

[Stinky The Clown]

89. Agreed

The primary calls this thread pushes back against are those for the likes of Manchin, McKaskill, Heitkamp, etc.

[Orsino]

92. There's always a tension between our principles and our need for victory. n/t