General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAlthough I've stepped back from the primary circus
It's quite evident to me that the true test of this huge revival, some may say that's inspired by Bernie's candidacy, is by how much it also inspires more people to supplant Republicans with Democrats in Congress and in state and local races.
In spite of gerrymandering, the movement, if it's sufficient enough, should shift back to the left in swing states. Unless we see something like this we shouldn't be so cocky as to say that our nominee (whosoever that will be) will convince people who normal vote for Republicans to vote for a Democrat.
For one, in order to get these GOP voters and independents to vote for Democrats we'd have to have a candidate and an overall message that resonates with them. It's going to have to be done in a way that breaks through the negative, nativist ideological wall of right wing identical political messaging.
Also, it needs to counter much of this country's obsessive need to throw a wrench in the works. That will be the hardest part of all, because we're saddled with an overall political infrastructure that lends too much leverage to the side that says 'No!'
The sides that obstructs can shift the balance of power to itself. That's why it's easier to kill legislation than it is too pass it, yet once it is passed, it's even harder to kill it.
So, what kind of momentum are we building here and how far will it work to our favor? It's imperative that we shift the balance. The natural process would indicate that a shift leftward is due very soon. However, we all known that this imbalance of power is not very natural at all, due to the overwhelming influence of billionaires and millionaires.
If the nominee breaks this cycle by influencing more people to vote and to vote for our side, it has the consequence of taking power away from the other side as well. It's important that this happens in order to break the strong influence of the obstructionist right. Otherwise, we'll have another Democratic president hamstrung from the git-go.
ypsfonos
(144 posts)One candidate has them.
rurallib
(62,346 posts)Ms. Lib and I were just discussing this yesterday.
First off we see few candidates that have picked up the Sanders mission to much of any degree. If Sanders wins an overwhelming primary campaign will down ticket candidates take up the mantle even then?
Neither of us saw Clinton as having very long coattails.Perhaps in a few races, perhaps an unexpected turnout of normally under voting groups. But as of right now (and whoever the repug is may make a huge difference) we don't see a groundswell behind her.
Our thought is Sanders will have coat tails if Dems are willing to hop on them, but there may be some great reluctance there - especially from dems in office.
In our local case, I so hope we could find coat tails long enough to sweep Grassley out. I don't see that happening.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)to Iowa since the day he was elected.
Is there anyone running against him that I can put on my donor list?
rurallib
(62,346 posts)Bob Krause and Tom Fiegen are both really good guys, but probably real longshots.
Fiegen has aligned with Sanders early. Fiegen is one of the brightest minds I have ever met and would make a great senator. He is a lawyer who shepherded many families, particularly farm families, through possible bankruptcies. He is a whiz on the economy and understands kitchen table economics. Name recognition though is very low.
Bob Krause is a very good liberal and a vet who has championed veteran causes for a long time. Very low name recognition.
Rob Hogg (pronounced with a long O) is a state senator and as of now the most likely to end up opposing Grassley. Not great name recognition, but much better than the other 2.
http://www.robhogg.org/
Tom Fiegan: http://fiegenforussenate.com/
Bob Krause: http://www.krauseforiowa.com/
As I said, Hogg probably has the best shot.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Where I live, that is a problem. In order to bring more liberals into local elections, you have to be able to vote for them. If they aren't running for office, how do you change the direction of government.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)That happened in the recent mayoral race in Columbus OH, and is happening right now in the senate primary race with Strickland (A- rating with the NRA) running against an unknown liberal. And of course Strickland refuses to debate with him and the press refuses to cover him.
rurallib
(62,346 posts)Been asked a few times and when I start thinking about it I get totally overwhelmed by the commitment needed.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)number of voters from the base.
How many voters and where they'd be lost of course varies from candidate to candidate.
Clinton supporters think she'll attract centrist women, and that Sanders will scare off moderates.
Sanders supporters think Sanders will attract disaffected voters, and that Clinton will discourage turnout of the base.
It's mostly speculation.