You want a 50 state strategy or you want a purist party of dems

[boston bean]

who vote lockstep 100% of the time with no differences allowed.

You can't have both and have a majority that weilds power.

Choose.

26 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	50 state strategy
	26 (100%)
	Purity - lock step progressives
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[vi5]

1. There's more to it than that....

I want a 50 state strategy. It's the only way to regain control.

But that doesn't mean I want the conservative Dems who represent conservative states or districts to have what essentially amounts to veto power or outside influence over progressive Democratic legislation, which represents the will of the majority of the party and/or the majority of the other elected Democrats.

Republicans manage to win and control and run and govern and pass their conservative agenda even with blue state Republicans. So there's no reason to assume that we need to give in to and cater to the whims of red state Democrats. They are and should be more than welcome within our party, and their demands should be given proportional understanding and concessions to their proportion within the party and among the voters.

[boston bean]

3. Well... that is what you are going to get. You can't change that. You will have a majority for 2-4

years and that is all, if they can't vote how their constituents want.

This is a grown up world with grown up consequences. I don't have all the answers, but this is nothing new with the democratic party. People swing back and forth and I think we are harmed by the swings.

We need be happy with people who can get elected that vote with us 50-75% of the time. That is just how it is.

[vi5]

4. So there are no blue state Republicans?

How do they manage to do it?

And if we get enough of a majority it's fine for them to vote how they want, but they should not be given committee chairs or power over legislation that is crafted the way Lincoln and her ilk were over the Healthcare law.

And if I remember correctly, even with the blue dogs and conservadems voting the way they wanted for their constituents (supposedly) when we gained full control in 2008 we still only had the majority for 2-4 years. Maybe that wouldn't have been the case if we didn't need to turn every piece of legislation into some ridiculous Rube Goldberg machine way too complicated for anyone to understand or to do what it is intended to do, just to please 1 or 2 Senators out of 59.

[boston bean]

6. Susan Collins and there are others who do not vote lockstep.

[vi5]

9. Collins and Snow are the only ones I can think of...

..and last I checked they aren't given veto power over legislation. When is the last time that any Republican legislation was shot down or watered down for fear that Collins and Snow would be upset?

[boston bean]

12. many times. I think you just aren't paying attention.

Republicans complain about Rino's as much as we complain about Dino's.

We have a system in place that places democrats at a disadvantage. That runs across the board where conservative states are well represented where democratic states/larger populous states are less represented.

You cannot look at this from such a hard nosed line.

Democrats aren't out to screw ya. We do the best with what we have and if we want a majority, we are going to have to deal with people who come from conservative states.

[vi5]

20. Again....I get all of that....

.....I get that we need to have Dems from red states. I get that we need to allow dissent and compromise. Our problems are just more complex than an either/or, black and white situation like this poll choice describes.

Yes we need red state dems and allow them to vote their conscience.

No we don't need to give them outsized power over legislation.

Yes, we need to be better than Republicans. No we don't need to always cede the narrative and assumptions to them like we always do.

What we need is for Democrats to fight harder and for them to be better salespersons. THAT is our biggest failure. We've been too content to sit back and go "Well thats Republicans fighting dirty. We need to be better than that and the voters will reward us." I think it's obvious at this point that is not the case. If gerrymandering in states with Republican control is screwing us, then we should be doin the same in blue states, not simply sitting back and whining about it and going "Oh well. Gerrymandering. Nothing we can do about it."

If presenting something as a black and white issue is going to be a hard sell for people with constituents in more conservative districts then those politicians need to get out there and sell better. And if they need the tools to do so then we should have a party infrastructure that gives that to them and gives them the support they need.

And we should also not be confusing "voting in their constituents best interest" with "voting in their donors best interest" which is another thing we too frequently do.

Having this be some overly simplistic choice between "purity" and "reality" is just as childish and naive as you are accussing one side of being. Many of us are fine with a "big tent" and understand it's necessity, but also don't want us just falling back on that as an excuse for failure or inaction as we too often have within the Democratic party.

[boston bean]

22. That message doesn't work in red states. You may want to believe it with all your might, but it

doesn't work.

We left the 50 state strategy behind for eight years and went with message and we lost a hell of a lot.

We do have another party who messages as well.... all of this isn't in a bubble.

[brer cat]

29. It appears to me that you are the one

who is being naive. Bernie Sanders got 270 votes in my county vs 3000 for republican candidates. Do you think a progressive candidate can come here, "sell better" and win? Hell, no. And it has absolutely nothing to do with their "donors best interest" or gerrymandering; that is simply the reality of political views here. It is going to be a very long slog to get any democrat elected, and when they start to win here, they will be very conservative. Running a progressive candidate in the near-term would be counter productive, turning off the slightly left-leaning voters before we had a prayer of winning.

Running a successful 50-state strategy requires recognizing reality, not trying to force the agenda of the most progressive members of the party into every district in every state.

[2naSalit]

34. Snow retired a few years ago....nt

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Poliics is constant compromise. Even when we are abolutely, positively correct in what we believe...

we have to compromise just to get anything done at all.

Sure, you can compromise your way into defeat, but I don't trust purists. It is kinda nice to have them around to keep perspective at times but they cannot be trusted to not throw that monkey wrench in at the wrong time. Besides, sometimes they are actually wrong, but won't give an inch.

A large part of the problem is that the Republicans have more party discipline. Now that their right wing has taken over, there are fewer moderates with a voice, so they are more focused. I like the large number of voices we have, but it does make it damn difficult to get anything done at times.

[vi5]

5. "Now that their right wing has taken over there are fewer moderates with a voice"

And yet they are still in control and are still winning elections.

And isn't compromising our way into defeat exactly what happened to us as a party?

By the logic that everyone keeps putting out, that we need to give our moderate voices more of a say or more control or else they'll lose elections that shouldn't be the case, right? The Republicans should be losing left and right if giving in too much to your base is bad.

[boston bean]

7. Gerrymandering plays into this.

No one says give them more, but you cannot force people to vote a certain way.

Face the fact 50% of this country is conservative. Deal with that and work from there.

[vi5]

11. Fine, if it's not "give them more" then I'm o.k. with it...

But history tells me that's exactly what it means.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. As I said, party discipline is important, but...

their message also resonates better with maybe half the country. Add the two together and they end up running things.

And, I'm starting to hate primaries. A Democratic primary was one big reason we lost last year's Congressional election. Locally, we had two good candidates who fought it out and left too many bad feelings to take the general from an incumbent. Isn't that a large part of what happened to the Presidency?

[Stinky The Clown]

8. I see this shit about Joe Minchin and how he should be stripped of his leadership seat.

What's next? Throw out everybody who spoke to a republican over lunch one day?

This is just unrealistic, childish thinking in (as you say) a grownup world.

I agree with your premise completely.

[boston bean]

15. It is the Manchin thing.. I do not like that man.. however, primary him.. oust him... NOPE!

The last thing we need to be doing right now is kicking a man who votes with us 75% of the time out of the party.

Is he an ass. yeah.. does he cause us heartburn.. yeah. Does he slow down progress, YES. Does he help more than he hurts? YES.

[Cha]

10. You're

funny, boston.. 50 states!

[boston bean]

13. Hi Cha!!!!!!!

[Cha]

19. Hey

[NNadir]

14. A look at the 1948 election map might offer some perspective on what is...

...and is not possible:



Truman was opposed by former VP Wallace (who won no electoral votes) on the far left, and Thurmond (Segregationist) on the right, who took what are still the most racist states in the South as an outgrowth of his executive order to desegregate the armed forces. Dewey, a very popular moderate Republican, as species which no longer exists, was the Republican nominee.

Truman was a tough minded moderate. He was extremely unpopular when he left office in 1952, mostly because he faced down MacArthur and insisted on the supremacy of civilian control of the military, but history has a very different take on him, generally in the mid-range among the top ten, as high as the 5th greatest President as ever.

[X_Digger]

16. I want politicians who represent their constituents and caucus with us.

Yes, that means that occasionally you'll get a Manchin who might not vote with us on 100% of the time, and you'll have independents who frequently vote with us.

To have effective change, you need to be the majority party. That is done by fighting in every state. (Hey DNC, you're not getting any money from me until you spend it in Texas!) That means that sometimes the best dem candidate in a state might be too conservative for voters in california, but it's a fuck ton better than the republican candidate in the same state.

[Horse with no Name]

26. I think Texas is ripe for the picking

If they would put a little bit of money here and explain to the people in this state (who are unhappy)that their ills come from the republican controlled state government.

[aikoaiko]

17. I always vote for most electable liberal in the primary.

Unfortunately. I don't have many choices in part because of my red state and in part because the local party is making those decisions before I can.

[boston bean]

18. That is what a party does. If they chose people you want, there would be others who aren't happy.

[aikoaiko]

23. I wasn't clear, I meant to write local party leaders decide

The Democratic Party let Buddy Carter (R 1st District) run unopposed and he is a nothing Republican

[mopinko]

28. letting them run un-opposed needs to stop.

yes, usually that means finding a sacrificial lamb. we need to do more for those "lambs" than giving them mint jelly when they end up on the plate.

[KittyWampus]

24. This is the rare binary choice that reflects reality.

[procon]

27. I want fewer batty polls. nt

[TDale313]

30. I reject the premise that those are the only options

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2017, 01:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I think you can have both. I think there have to be some common values and goals that bind us together as Dems, or what's the point? 50 state strategy means finding a way to articulate that and making that case all across the country- taking the fight everywhere, not just the Blue States. It means building the party infrastructure in areas we've ignored. It does not mean going Republican lite or checking our values at the door.

[stevenleser]

32. Reality doesn't care what you reject. nt

[Talk Is Cheap]

33. I agree with your perspective...

The second 'choice' offered, of course, was full of bull-ony.

We do need a 50-state strategy while maintaining a progressive liberal Democratic agenda.

[vi5]

35. Yeah, but otherwise....

...they'd have no excuse for not getting things done.

Apparently every Dem is allowed to vote 25% of the time for their best interests, against the best interests of the Democratic party and we're supposed to jump for joy at that or else we want purity.

Can't pass a good energy/environmental bill? Oh well, can't be mad at Manchin because he represents coal country. Oh well. He votes with us the other 75% of the time.

Can't pass a good pharmaceutical bill? Oh well, can't be mad at Booker because he represents a state with a lot of Pharma companies. He votes with us the other 75% of the time.

And on, and on, and on, and on. Take your pick of Dems and their contituencies.

But then also be sure to get mad at people that says the Democratic party doesn't actually stand for anything and isn't willing to fight. And be sure to completely ignore that Republicans are mopping the floor with us and control every branch of government DESPITE not running a 50 state strategy that panders to their more moderate members. Apparently it's only DEMs who have to do that.

[Gothmog]

31. Perez did a great job at the DOJ and the voting rights section

I have met Ellison on a couple of occasions and I like him. I just like Tom Perez a great deal more due to his his work on voting rights. Perez rebuilt the Civil Rights and the voting rights sections of the DOJ. This article was cited on another thread but his quote makes me smile http://prospect.org/article/subtle-force-tom-perez

In October of 2009, Perez was finally confirmed and set out to reform a division in disarray. Under Bush, the division was accused of ousting career prosecutors who were insufficiently conservative and punishing those who didn’t leave. In his early months, it reportedly wasn’t uncommon for staffers to break down in Perez’s office as they recalled the trauma. Within a year, Perez turned around morale and transformed the division into a formidable enforcement machine.

Perez is well suited to fight GOP voter suppression which has to a major part of any DNC efforts

[quaker bill]

36. You identify a paradigm

that was once true. I believe Trump is sorting this out for us. There will be no gray mushy middle going forward. We will unite and speak with one voice or lose.

QB