General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOk, let's talk about conservative Democrats
First up, this isn't another thread to talk about Mello and Sanders and Kaine etc etc repeat ad nauseum. There's already more than enough of those. What I'd like to discuss is the broader question of which candidates we should be putting forward and whether allowing a conservative wing of the Democratic party is actually a wise strategy moving forward.
The argument as I see it is this: To make progress in conservative & southern states we have to run candidates who are outside the progressive wing of the party. This can well result in candidates who do not completely share the party ideology on major topics including workers rights, abortion, guns, healthcare and more. The theory goes that it's better to have someone in the D column who shares some or most of our ideals, than not. Over time this is supposed to allow increased exposure to Democratic thought and allow for those states to start moving more towards us ideologically.
On the opposite side of the argument is the idea that by allowing conservative Democrats we weaken our own national message and lessen our power to enact national legislation even when we have a majority (they won't always vote our way in case they're attacked with their vote at election time (see public option etc)). There's also thinking that by running conservative Democrats, we don't offer in the people in those states a genuine choice between our ideology and the Republicans, but rather between the GOP and a watered down version. It's possible this could be a contributing factor to our inability to connect with working voters in some of those states and the growth of the 'politicians are all the same' mentality that has infected a lot of voters. There's also the argument that by running progressives we can grow the progressive message there, which is undermined with conservative candidates.
I can see some truth in both sides of this one, and it troubles me not being able to see a clear route forward. My instinct is that we should run on our ideals and ensure that the Democratic 'brand' is clear and united in the values we represent. At the same time though there's certainly truth in 'the perfect is the enemy of the good'. If running pure progressives in southern states is just going to condemn us to decades of GOP rule in those states, then are we just being self-destructive handing over power so easily to those who resent everything we hold dear?
I'd be really interested to hear people's thoughts. And please, let me ask one more time for people to not turn this into a thread about individuals. This is just about strategy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)One vote makes a big difference in this climate so.. NO.
coco22
(1,258 posts)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)in the Senate had flipped Republican it wouldn't have passed.
SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)That's good, right?
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)Why has that suddenly changed? All because Bernie decided to embrace a conservative like Mello?
My, how the arguments do change on a dime.
The red state Democrats don't weaken the message on their own. Most have a very low profile. It's when they are held up as "progessives" and the "future of the party" that rhetoric of progressivism and economic justice is exposed as empty. It is when those who claim to be on the left go out of their way to justify right-wing positions and insist they should control the party that the national message is not just compromised but rendered morally bankrupt.
It's also electoral suicide because the fact is women are the majority of voters in the Democratic Party, and the majority of the country, including Republicans, supports a woman's right to choose.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)And as I repeatedly said in the op, this isn't a thread for talking about individuals or continuing this boring primary bullshit. If you want to do that, please go do it in one of the countless other threads where you get to call each other names, and form into little cliques where you bully each other with endless rounds of 'who is the real progressive'.
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 26, 2017, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)
And the fact is your argument and that of others here does seem to have done a complete about face in very short time.
The issue isn't casting a vote for a conservative Dem for lack of other choices. It's holding those people up as "progressives" and the future of the party.
Democrats have tolerated red-state conservatives, but they haven't signaled them out for benediction.
That really is the difference. We haven't seen people running around insisting Joe Manchin's positions should be a standard or normalized. He's tolerated, not celebrated. The difference is key. It is that celebration that is so divisive, that has prompted women's rights groups to mobilize.
Now it looks like something similar is happening in VA. It's becoming a serious problem.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I can keep repeating that if you like, if you're just going to ignore it each time and carry on with fighting a battle of your own invention.
Is there any particular reason that you consider it unreasonable for me to have a single thread which isn't about you and the primary you're determined to refight?
I stated very clearly in the op what the subject was that I wanted to discuss. If you don't want to discuss it, then go start another thread yourself about whatever you want.
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)I never said it was unreasonable to have a thread. I responded to what you asked. Now you say I have for some fucking bizarre reason discussed the "primary" when I'm talking about races NOW, the party NOW, not a year ago.
Is really so impossible for you to read anything you disagree with that you have to invent false claims about what I wrote? 
Bizarre. completely bizarre.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)So what did you do? Immediately jumped in to bring up Bernie, Mello and infighting. Do you not even notice you're doing it or something?
Your very first 3 frikkin lines..
Why has that suddenly changed? All because Bernie decided to embrace a conservative like Mello?
My, how the arguments do change on a dime.
Is that about a good strategy for the party? Is that not discussing individuals? Is that not contributing to in-fighting?
Seriously, I'm so sick of this playground bullshit. I'm asking you as an adult to respect a very simple request which doesn't harm you or cause you a moment of inconvenience. If you can't do that, then I have nothing further to say to you.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)You can't keep pretending like he doesn't exist. You can't keep shielding him from criticism by claiming that everything is "refighting the primary".
I can see why someone may want to avoid discussing it, but I should let you know that you're not making a very convincing argument. It looks like you're just deflecting and intentionally avoiding a topic where your side has a distinct disadvantage... where you're arguing from a position of weakness... where the contradictions and reversals are easy to see and uncomfortable for you to acknowledge.
Response to NurseJackie (Reply #72)
Post removed
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)BTW: It's unclear what you mean when you say "your little group" ... can you explain what that means and who you're referring to?
The only "group" I belong to is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. I'm not at all sure why anyone would have a problem with that.
Cha
(296,679 posts)Another Strawman, Red Herring, and Deflection Insult from the FACTS.
Thank you, Jackie, for Shining the Light on it!
MineralMan
(146,241 posts)Discussions go as they go. You cannot control a discussion on this forum. Getting angry at other DUers doesn't contribute to the discussion, I'm afraid.
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)why? Facts matter, and your efforts to censor them does not advance discussion, and the anger with which you respond to anyone who disagrees with you or thinks at all differently from you is not promoting unity. Quite the opposite.
We have two current situations in which anti-women's rights candidates are being endorsed or singled out for special favor. That's not about the primary. It's about what is happening NOW.
I said or inferred nothing about the presidential primary. I pointed out we have seen even quite recently demands to primary Manchin. It is impossible to miss the fact that too may change core positions entirely in response to individuals and not based on principles. To claim anything you think might counter your core belief that Bernie Sanders is infallible is refighting the primary is dishonest.
I raised a central issue that there is a difference between voting for a red state Dem because of lack of options and holding them up as the future of the party and "progressivism." That set you off. I see that as a key difference, whereas you insist on obfuscation because you find my point inconvenient. I find that sad.
'
You can ask any question you want, but you don't have any right to control how others respond or think. To claim efforts to do so are about "unity" is not credible.
Cha
(296,679 posts)up..
Your default accusation is not working
We're all sick of the "playground" bullshit.. so quit accusing anyone who wants to talk about what's going on RIGHT NOW... of "primary" crap.
JustAnotherGen
(31,769 posts)We start them - they go where they lead us you know?
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)has made me very angry.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,384 posts)I think that that is the key distinction regarding conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats: Tolerated but not celebrated. For me, as long as they toe the party line most of the time and mostly vote the right way (and add another "D" to the column in the Senate and House, I'm willing to tolerate some straying.
Gothmog
(144,833 posts)We need all types of Democrats including Democrats from red states
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)I am sure you want to keep this in the abstract plane because your argument is destroyed when we look at individual races.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I'm not insulting anyone. The thread subject doesn't insult or attack anyone. I'm in no way treading on anyone elses right to speak about whatever they want in other threads.
All I'm asking is for this one thread to be reserved for discussing the topic in the op. Is there a reason why that is now acceptable to you?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Priceless.
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I'm asking for people's opinions and perspectives on a question that I don't have a clear answer to. Why is this difficult to understand? I don't know any way to make it any clearer.
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... BUT, what you're doing instead is trying to artificially manipulated and guide the conversation by setting artificial boundaries and making "certain subjects" and "certain examples" and "certain politicians" off-limits.
Honestly, the entire exercise strikes me as something that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of a thread seeking "people's opinions and perspectives" ... and MORE like a thread in which the OP is ONLY interested in those posts that VALIDATE and CONFIRM the OP's pre-held opinions.
Response to NurseJackie (Reply #74)
Post removed
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Gothmog
(144,833 posts)BainsBane
(53,010 posts)and it's obvious.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Looked like you achieved your goal. Enough bate and sooner or later they take it. Not sure how that serves discussions though.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I was stating my honest opinion and assessment of the artificial guidelines and boundaries that actually restrict the free-flow of thoughts and ideas. Why would you assume that I have any other goal?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I made my judgement based upon what you had written and the way you chose to engage them. Much they way you made yours based upon your interpretation of their writings.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I'm not sure I agree with your perception. But the point is that yours had actual consequences, and prevented me from continuing the conversation. Feel happy with your accomplishment.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... I'm not responsible for someone else's mistakes. People make they're own choices.
Cha
(296,679 posts) zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The nuns used to tell us that the sinner AND the tempter were both guilty. It's why both Adam and Eve were thrown out of Eden.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
"Go to sleep, Sweetheart... "
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)That'd been a good way to get yer knuckles rapped by the Sister.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Vesper
(229 posts)I didn't get a chance to read it, but I think it was the OP and he's certainly laid out the bait and took it himself. Given my interactions with him on this topic and the ever increasing belligerence and personal abuse, it's clear that discussion was not the goal here.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I mean this as constructively as possible.
I'm taking you at your word that you meant well with this OP, but your attempt at dialogue is simultaneously controlling and rife with attempts to create straw men and is anything other than direct and honest.
If you really want to have a good conversation with people who may have a different opinion than you, this is not the way to do it. You can't control where a discussion goes for starters.
Vesper
(229 posts)the issue in the OP requires discussion and facts don't seem to go your way.
I'm not sure why there is such inability to discuss these things without getting to the insulting ad hominems, but don't start a discussion if you're not going to be able to engage in a productive manner when facts are presented that are not convenient for your argument.
Cha
(296,679 posts)
kcr
(15,313 posts)The philosophy regarding strategy on this issue is partisan. If you can't abide what you perceive as "little cliques and bullying", then an internet discussion board is not where you should be asking for input on this topic.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Cha
(296,679 posts)trying to slough off and deflect from the current problems.. this is about the Here and NOW.
Stop trying to act like this has anything to do with the "primaries" .. it's ridiculous.. BS is out there saying an "aggressively Anti-Choice dem", a mayoral candidate in Nebraska, is "progressive" and Jon Ossoff, a Pro Choice Dem, running for a Congressional seat in Georgia, with other outstanding Progressive issues in his platform isn't.
BS threw Ossoff under the damn bus.
That is the big problem.
Bains is exactly right..
The red state Democrats don't weaken the message on their own. Most have a very low profile. It's when they are held up as "progessives" and the "future of the party" that rhetoric of progressivism and economic justice is exposed as empty. It is when those who claim to be on the left go out of their way to justify right-wing positions and insist they should control the party that the national message is not just compromised but rendered morally bankrupt.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Primary the non-progressives, sure, but in general support the most progressive candidate we can get. I love the brave barnstormers who don't compromise, but we also have to win races, and depending on the district/state, a politician is probably going to be pragmatic about messaging.
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)When we endorse, we are embracing a candidate on a range of issues, for better and worse. When we fail to endorse, we lessen that candidate's chances of victory. There's not a lot of wiggle room there.
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)a position that has zero influence on the balance of power or standing of the party. Mayor's don't control state elections or redistricting. They don't contribute to party majorities in DC or in a state. Mello was endorsed instead of Ossoff, whose race does have national implications. So yes, failure to endorse does have implications, and we are witnessing a preference for opposition to women's rights over a solid liberal record. Why? What purpose does it serve?
Warrern has just endorsed an anti-choice candidate in the VA Democratic Primary, over the NARAL endorsed candidates. That's not about voting for an anti-choice candidate because of no other option, that's holding them above the NARAL endorsed pro-choice candidate. A disturbing pattern is emerging. And I say that as someone who likes Liz Warren.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)But, two different races in two different states, two different strategies. I'm not sure we can sensibly use the word "preference" here.
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)and should if you're paying attention.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Or enough so that identical standards and backing should always be employed? On identical timelines?
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)Lieutenant-Governor Northham, a fine progressive Democrat who is endorsed by NARAL failed to win the endorsement of party leaders in the Virginia governor's primary...while Parriello (D), a former house member that voted...I said voted for the Stupak amendment which almost derailed the ACA in 2009 and would have disallowed coverage for abortion in the ACA received the endorsement of Democratic Party leaders...unacceptable and particularly in a primary.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Perriello is obviously a Tester-Webb sort of Democrat. "Conviction politics" has always struck me as an excuse for weaselry.
Northam having called himself a fiscal conservative, and having once been targeted for party-flipping may not have helped, but you'd think being Kaine's right-hand man would count for a lot.
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)“I’ve always from the start fought for women’s access to reproductive health care. My opponent hasn’t,” Northam said in an interview with The Post on Wednesday. “I have never been one, despite being from a very conservative area of Virginia, that puts my finger up to see which way the political winds are blowing.”
He was referring to Perriello’s voting record while representing a conservative district in Congress, including his support for an unsuccessful amendment to the Affordable Care Act in 2009 that would have prevented insurance plans covering abortions from receiving public subsidies. The day after he launched his gubernatorial campaign, Perriello penned a lengthy post on Facebook apologizing for the vote and defending abortion rights.
As a member of Congress, Perriello also opposed the assault weapons ban and was endorsed by the National Rifle Association, a group he called the “epitome of people-powered politics.” But a month ago, Perriello ripped into the NRA, calling it a “nut-job extremist organization.”
In Congress, Perriello joined a bipartisan effort within the Virginia delegation to allow oil and gas drilling off the state’s coast. At a campaign appearance this month, Perriello said he now is “very skeptical” about offshore drilling.
“You don’t do a mea culpa on three issues like that,” said Senate Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax), who backs Northam. “He talks like Bernie Sanders, but he votes like Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/in-va-governors-race-democrats-are-locked-in-primary-battle-to-be-the-most-progressive/2017/02/15/84b56096-e98e-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.5f972b3534a5
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but both candidates may have evolved in this decade.
I would prefer a Northam.
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)I like Northam better also. I fear we may lose this race though as it is being used a vehicle to reshape the Democratic party...I used to live in Virginia and still have family there.
JustAnotherGen
(31,769 posts)Northam describes himself as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I think to the OP I would state - is that allowed in the platform? It's very representative of folks in coastal states who come in affluent and above on the earnings/assets charts.
I look at Northam and his platform - and I could see him and Murphy (in NJ - my hope in June and November) delivering a one two punch to Trump Co.
mcar
(42,270 posts) BainsBane
(53,010 posts)in Omaha and VA is "refighting the primary." 
mcar
(42,270 posts)BainsBane
(53,010 posts)all over the fucking place. Only I won't be gaslighted. The only possible result is self-delusion.
mcar
(42,270 posts)The attempts are both disturbing and amateurish. I've seen them on Twitter and on websites.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)You felt the need to come hijack someone elses thread to continue an argument you're already having in half a dozen other threads, but you're the innocent victim. Despite the thread not being about what you happen to want to talk about, and despite being asked politely and repeatedly not to do so.
Ok then..
Cha
(296,679 posts)
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)He votes with the Democrats significantly more often than any other Senator from a similarly red state.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/liberals-would-be-foolish-to-target-joe-manchin/
BainsBane
(53,010 posts)rather the same people insisting we must embrace politicians who oppose equal rights have been arguing that, as recently as two weeks ago. Now they decide to change on a dime when the issue in question is equal rights and economic survival of women.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Everybody including me beats up Joe Manchin but I rather have him than two Shelley Capitos.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)It certainly does expand the tent. I've been thinking of it more as a temporary way to make people move more left, but simply expanding the range of ideals we encompass is also relevant. I guess then the question becomes where we draw the line in terms of how close to core party values they are.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)and I respond!
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I'm a very pragmatic person, and you might know that if I'd joined DU earlier and we'd been able to have conversations before everyone was grouped into camps and their posts judged through those filters.
Hopefully when the current fighting dies down again we can begin to consider people as individuals again and consider their posts outside the group bubbles we've been in for too long.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)I see that now, possibly you are seeing a bigger picture.
We'll see.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)But I'm also naturally combatitive in debates, and when people are arguing there is much less room for nuance. I'm not looking for approval or affirmation from anyone here, but I am interested in their ideas and their perspective, and its sad to not being able to discuss them in more detail without assumptions of motive being made.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)See posts: 77 and 71 as an example. Yes indeed, it really IS a shame that people have difficulty in discussing things "without assumptions of motive being made."
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)But endorsing a guy with an anti-choice voting history in the House( Perriello) for governor (Virginia) in a primary when a Democratic candidate ( Lieutenant-Governor Northam) who has won state wide in Virginia is running and who has an endorsement from NARAL is unacceptable. We could lose this important race if it becomes an effort to reshape the Democratic party into a populist party that does not consider social justice issues important enough to be considered before making endorsements.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)When we control one or both houses then our leadership controls what bills can and can't even get a vote.
So if we elect "blue dogs" or other candidates who are the best we can get in those states and they give us the numbers to reach that majority, things change in a HUGE way.
Control, control, control.
Would you rather have control and a few people who who don't agree with on your side or ideological purity and be the minority party longer while the cons stay in the majority and keep doing more and more damage?
If a "blue dog" is the best chance for winning ina district then using them to add one more seat to the count of who is in the majority is the smarter path than running candidates you know can't win there and staying the minority party.
And those running in districts where only moderate or conservative dems can get elected won't ever get into party leadership because those seats are more volatile and they have more turnover. There is a reason our party leadership comes from safe states and is more reliably progressive, and when they control what gets to the floor for a vote the damage and conservative dems can do is pretty well mitigated.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't see how we can get someone more progressive than Manchin out of WV, for example. As much criticism as Manchin gets, he votes with the Dems a lot more than any Republican, including say Susan Collins. And the other advantage of getting a Dem elected in a Red state is that if we lose Manchin's seat, he won't be replaced by a Susan Collins Republican, he will be replaced by someone a lot worse.
However, having said that, I think it is important that we try to get the most progressive person who can get elected out of every state. Dianne Feinstein, for example, is sort of a waste of a CA Dem, because the state can elect somebody much more progressive than that.
So, to the extent that we are going to talk about running more progressive candidates, the place to start is not with red state Dems, who are generally already as progressive as the state can handle. It's in blue states.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I do worry about the lack of choice it offers voters there, but I guess if there was a big enough appetite for progressivism in those states we probably wouldn't be having the conversation in the first place.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But I don't see it.
There are some strongly progressive senators elected outside of blue states. Sherrod Brown, for example, could be considered the "progressive MVP" because of how progressive he is versus Ohio as a state. But people like him are rare. The most progressive senators, other than Brown, tend to come from solid blue states.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)How many races would we lose in red states in exchange for each one of those progressive victories.
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)a candidate with an abysmal voting record on pro-choice is endorsed by Sen. Sanders and surprisingly Elizabeth Warren (called her office) while a NARAL endorsed lieutenant governor, Northam, is thrown under the endorsement bus. Northam has proven he can win statewide...while Perriello lost a House seat in 2010...while a member he voted for the Stupak amendment in 2009 which would have denied abortion coverage in the ACA. The clearest route forward is to support the pro-choice Democrat when given the opportunity. The risk here is in the zeal to reshape the party in some populist image, we will actually pick candidates who can't win and lose our chance to stop Trump.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)And asked politely for people to respect that.
Please respect that.
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)I guess if you look at individuals it shows this is not about holding your nose and voting for the Democrat which I have done before. I would vote for Manchin if I lived in his state. This is about reshaping the Democratic party into an economic populist entity where social justice proponents are forced to take a backseat in the party assuming they even have a seat. This is not about holding your nose and voting...it is about Party leaders endorsing anti-choice candidates which I find unacceptable. I ask all of you on this thread, what rights are you willing to give up in order to reshape the Democratic Party into a populist entity?
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)And covering the post-primary issues that you're talking about. That's fine, I'm not trying to obstruct people talking about whatever they want to discuss, I'd just like to have this thread about taking a step back from personalities and perceived allegiences to individuals and just look at the broader question. As I said in the op, I don't have a clear answer to the issue, so I'm interested by other people's perspectives on the correct strategy, without it devolving into arguments about individuals.
FSogol
(45,425 posts)
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)the environment folks are under the bus too.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Did you read the actual op? I very clearly said there were two opposing cases and despite seeing bits of truth in both I don't have a clear answer. How exactly has that been transformed into me making a case for something?
FSogol
(45,425 posts)It shows you are not serious about the discussion, that you only want people to agree with you.
If Perriello carries his campaign past losing in the primary (like Sanders), it will just aid Gillespe in turning Virginia red again. So sorry if I scoff at your philosophical arguments.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)That makes no sense. The only reason I asked for people not to bring up individuals was in a vain attempt to avoid this turning into yet another round of people attacking each other. A pointless request as numerous people just ignored it anyway so they could continue scoring imaginary points off each other.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)If the platform of the party changes, I'd have to seriously consider those changes. To me, to acquiesce to get votes is cheap.
Democrats need to proudly support their platform and explain with facts why that position is better than the Republican agenda. More aggressively than they have been doing in my opinion. Those too stupid or too ornery to understand facts are not the voters we will ever get anyway. I'm proud of Democratic values and I'm tired of talk that the party has to change to win. Let's see where we are in 2018 and see how many people have figured out that Trump and the Republicsns lied and haven't delivered before we start abandoning our principles.
Donkees
(31,297 posts)norm. The last time we had a '50 state strategy' under Dean, the party was open to supporting conservative candidates and did enlist candidates who were 'pro-life'. Since then, large blocks of previously reliable Democratic voters in these regions have switched party affiliation.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Donkees
(31,297 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)
Phoenix61
(16,991 posts)I'm in a very red area. The local dem party does nothing and I mean nothing. They have executive meetings and that's about it. It's easy for people to see Dems as the boogeyman when there is no one promoting any democratic platform at all. How will the party ever know what direction to go in if this continues?
Scruffy1
(3,251 posts)The national party doesn't really have much power to control what house candidates run or their bona fides. In my state we have both Keith Ellison and the Republican light Colin Peterson. We would all love to see Peterson gone, but it's never happened and it's really up to the people in his district to select their rep. The real problem, to me is the gerrymander. Unless we can take over the state houses before 2020 we will be screwed.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Totally agree there's not really anything we can do if a local candidate just gets supported locally.
no_hypocrisy
(45,995 posts)They used to be moderates within the republican party but over three decades, they were purged for being non-conservative. That doesn't mean they stopped being republicans. And since they couldn't stay within their party and fight for their views, they migrated to the democratic party with the party assuming and hoping they'd morph into democrats. Well, it didn't exactly work out like that.
Instead of changing their original republican party, they are changing the democratic party and that's not necessarily a good thing. What happened to the principles of FDR and the New Deal? LBJ? JFK? Their views are now considered radical left by certain democrats who may in fact not be democrats.
Quandry: should the DINOs be marginalized with the legitimate concern they will return to the republican party, thus depleting numbers from the party or should their views be incorporated into the latest version of being a democrat?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)He is about as liberal as you could ever hope to elect in a conservative district like NC-11.
He didn't follow the party line on issue like gun control, reproductive rights and many others, because he was pretty much voting down the line in a way the represented his district almost as if he consulted polls for every issue and followed his district. If you look where he was in virtually every issue you see a snapshot of the typical resident of NC-11
Was he great on many progressive issues? Hell no.
But he had a D next to his name and caucused with Democrats. He and others like home have use a majority in the 111th Congress in the House.
Because we had the majority then this is just some of the legislation that was passed:
Affordable Care Act
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Cash For Clunkers
Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Dodd-Frank
Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal
He didn't vote for many of those bills. But because he held a seat that put us in the majority all those bills got to be voted on because we were in charge of what came up for a vote.
Now, was getting all that passed worth having Shuler and others with a D by their name who were weak on many issues? In my book it damm sure was.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Because abstain would be as good as a vote sometimes I suspect.
I know he voted against the ACA, for example.
However he also held out as "undecided" right until the end when it was known they had secured enough votes. I strongly suspect that had it come down to needing his vote to pass he would have, but since he hailed from one of the most conservative districts they found enough votes to let him vote no while knowing it would pass in hopes of keeping the seat. I think his undecided stance right up to the wire was keeping his options open in case his vote was needed as the deciding one.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
DarthDem
(5,254 posts)I would as well. Great post.
And yeah, wouldn't it be nice if we had that functionality, like most websites do?
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)He did vote for 20 week abortion ban.
Requiring doctors for everything at abortion clinic...right wing meme to close clinics down.
And a ban on insurance companies covering abortion in Nebraska.
He is running for mayor so I would also like to know why we are wasting time and money on a race that won't help us fight Trump...and why while Sen. Sanders endorsed Mello he had reservations about endorsing Ossoff.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)No clue why you think he is in Nebraska.
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)You mean this guy...the Duke energy guy? Do you know the damage Duke Energy has caused...this is not a candidate I would choose for any state.
"Duke Energy Corp. has chosen outgoing N.C. Congressman Heath Shuler to quarterback its office of federal affairs in Washington, D.C., starting Jan. 4.
The former NFL quarterback will help the company decide whether the office needs to be expanded, now that Duke (NYSE: DUK) is the nation’s largest investor-owned regulated utility."
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)This guy also voted for the Stupak amendment that would have denied abortion coverage in the ACA and probably ended abortion coverage for everyone.
"Rep. Heath Shuler voted against the sweeping health care reform legislation that passed the House of Representatives 219-212 last night.
Shuler joined 35 other Democrats, including two from North Carolina’s delegation, in opposing the bill.
Word had circulated in online vote counts since early last Friday afternoon that Shuler would vote against health-care-reform legislation. Later that day, March 19, he made it official.
In a brief statement, Shuler said, “I recognize that there are strong views on both sides of the health-care debate, and it has spurred strong emotions throughout the nation. Tens of thousands of constituents have shared their opinions with me, and I appreciate their views. My responsibility as Congressman is to filter through the emotion, misinformation and politics surrounding this issue and do what is best for Western North Carolina and our country.”
treestar
(82,383 posts)And not as simple as we tend to make it here. People like Manchin may be better than the right winger who would win.
The question is how to reach to the people in those states. The Constitution does give states power. When dealing with a state like WV, etc., what do we do to get those voters to understand their own interests?
No simple answer to such questions.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Gun control is the huge classic example.
WV has a very different culture with guns and hunting than places like NYC or LA. Where it's rare to own a gun in those places it's rare not to in places like WV. I have known people from NYC who lived their
You have to realize the same message doesn't resonate in all places the same.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)We don't have to make it the same nationally. At risk of sounding like a right winger, maybe it should be a state thing. Urban/suburban people are more crowded together and more likely to fear guns being used against them than for hunting and self protection in more remote areas. Generalization, but generally so.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And there is some truth in it.
The person who grew up poor in NYC and only saw guns in the hands of criminals and has seen friends and family shot will have a totally different outlook on the issue than the person who grew up equally as poor in rura WV and saw their parents save to buy them a first gun at 7-8 years old and bonded with their dad, siblings and family over hunting and shooting.
A person in their 50's in WV probably remembers when high schoolers went hunting in the morning before school, went to school with the hunting rifle in the truck in the school parking lot and still in camo, and as soon as school was out went right back into the woods. Their peer in NYC would see that as a totally alien concept and probably be horrified by it.
Of course the out of touch to the other persons realities works both ways. That rura WV person is just as out of touch to the realities of the poor NYC person. But we are not losing the urban voters and we are the rural because party leadership is by a huge gap more in touch with that urban demographic.
CrispyQ
(36,410 posts)Christians that the GOP is the party of God. That is a myth that the dems need to take head on. Every hateful budget the GOP puts forth is an opportunity for the dems to address this, but they don't. The dems would also be wise to address hate radio, although that horse left the barn long, long ago, they could still do something as opposed to the absolutely nothing that they do now.
The time to talk & change strategy was 2000 after they stole the election. Instead, what did the dems do? They rolled over, again, in 2004 when the election results were questionable. We'll see how they handle the 2016 theft. It won't be easy to do anything since they control nothing. Maybe they should have shown some spine & strength back in 2000. Now, they've been effectively neutered & it will be decades, if ever, before they have any influence. The dems are not without blame in this mess.
Caliman73
(11,719 posts)The Democratic party did well in the South up until the late 60's and 70's. The major change was not religion. The major shift in electoral politics that began the decline of Democratic politics was the passage of the Civil Rights Acts. Religion was a factor, but not a predominant factor within the Republican Party until right before Reagan ran for president in the 70's then again in 1980. For that it was Roe v. Wade, but the seismic shift in party politics was integration, school bussing, and other racially motivated policies that the Democrats abandoned nationally and where the Dixiecrats found a new home in the Republican party.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)At the local/state level I think the #1 priority has to be voting rights and redistricting. Every year with the Republican state control it's becoming less likely to ever win a house majority again. If the trend continues we could be looking at one party rule for the foreseeable future.
MedusaX
(1,129 posts)Suggests that the candidate should be a reflection of his/her constituents....
When you look at The blue - red political spectrum -- in terms of political beliefs held -- You end up with a Fuckton of purple people....
If this were dominoes ... the purple people would be the bone pile you draw from...
Ideologically, the 2 PARTIES are polar opposites when it comes to Individual Rights and the Role of Government....
BLUE
Dems.... believe Gov. should protect individual freedoms & rights allowing for a broad range of options....
believe that Gov should ensure that all people have equal opportunity to reach their maximum potential as productive, contributing members of society
by:
providing access to a wide range of resources and
Protecting every individual's right to be free from oppression....
RED
Repugs ....
believe Gov. should restrict individual freedoms & limit individual rights to create a narrow range of legally allowable options ....
Believe that Gov. has no obligation to provide access to resources which would give everyone an equal opportunity to reach their maximum potential as productive members of society.
PURPLE
PEOPLE, however, fall all along the continuum ....
based on the "average" of their positions on all the issuses
Candidates are PEOPLE ....
whose "average" places them closer to one 'pole' than the other...
which determines their PARTY affiliation....
• The PARTY represents an IDEAL / SET of BELIEFS
• The PARTY PLATFORM describes GOALS related to those BELIEFS
• The PARTY National / State LEADERS work to EDUCATE PEOPLE (encourage PROGRESS towards the PARTY IDEALS)
and
IDENTIFY potential CANDIDATES who are REPRESENTATIVE of the 'Average' position held by the PEOPLE in any given area ....
Just as teachers
welcome all learners into the classroom community....
and hold the highest expectations for all learners...
Teachers must meet each learner where they are
And facilitate their individual progress towards the established objectives
All learners progress at different rates
All learners can learn
All learners add value to the classroom community
Administrators support and encourage Teachers to build relationships with learners and to adjust their instructional strategies as necessary to meet the needs of all learners
States/Districts are Classroom Communities
People are Learners
Candidates are Teachers
Party Leaders are Administrators
Party Platform is set of established objectives that each learner is working toward
No one would tell a learner that they were not welcome in the classroom because they couldn't read or multiply as well as all the other students...
And to only come back if and when they could demonstrate mastery of all the established objectives ...
Strategy:
Embrace the Purple People
Match them with a similar Purple-ish Blue Candidate
Welcome them as members of the classroom community
Appreciate the value that they add
Facilitate their progress toward the objectives
Ultimately they will become a beautiful shade of blue
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)This conflict predominately arises over money. Who should the DNC "fund"? Who should any of the national funding organizations fund. Furthermore, what role should theses funding entities play in primaries? Should the DSCC/DCCC be involved at all in primaries? Should out of state people not give money until the states have chosen their candidates?
Right now, national money plays a big part in local races, so it only makes sense that the people giving that money expect that their positions be supported. If they find they are not, they should be free to support those people that DO support their positions. If the national party is going to support candidates in the primaries, national organizations should be allowed to oppose those candidates if they don't like their positions. If the Clinton's and Obama's, as well as Biden and Pelosi et. al. are going to run around raising funds for local primary candidates, then other national figures should be allowed to seek to support the candidates THEY want to see win primaries, even if they aren't the incumbents.
Alternately, if we want a "hands off" approach, then incumbents should expect to have to find their support within their own states. No running of to Hollywood to raise money for their primary races. No support from the DSCC until they win their primaries.
Furthermore, you don't acknowledge there are two kinds of conservative democrats. It is one thing to vote ones "conscience" from vote to vote. It is another thing to coordinate ones activity with the opposition. We had democratic leaders removing and blocking the participation of democratic activist during the build up to the ACA. We had senators coordinating with lobbyists for the insurance companies which resulted in the loss of the public option and the inclusion of the mandate. They knew they could do this because they knew that the GOP would support their actions. They knew they could undermine the ACA because they didn't have to worry that a democratic majority would be able to get enough republican votes to pass it. That goes beyond just being a conservative democrat. That becomes a case of working in opposition to the party.
MineralMan
(146,241 posts)Those examples are people who have been elected to office or have failed to win their election.
Since you wish to exclude the mention of specific examples by name, there is no real way to participate in the thread.
Sorry.
HeartachesNhangovers
(814 posts)are either progressive or conservative, when in reality, most voters - even Democrats - are neither. Most voters are centrists. Appealing to conservative voters is a bad strategy because it just enrages the progressives and doesn't work anyway. The Democratic party should serve the majority of its voters - the ones in the middle - and let that strategy draw in whichever progressives and conservatives will listen to reason.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Other than presidential elections isn't this up to individual electorates?
Oneironaut
(5,477 posts)There is a general platform of what makes a Democrat a Democrat. However, I don't think Democratic candidates need to agree with absolutely everything in the Democratic platform.
I hate the term, "big tent," but that's what we should be. Not every Democrat is a progressive.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Unfortunately, that problem eliminates opportunities to increase our numbers. Here in MO, many of the state GA seats are not even challenged. The problems potential candidates face is that if they want to run as Democrats, they may not get local or state party support. Unfortunately when they are rejected, they have a place to go if they really want to run.
As much as I have disliked the increase of pro-gun and I mean PRO gun Democrats (many just voted to legally bar any public entity from disallowing guns- bars, churches, schools, no background checks, no license, background checks, or age limits for purchase and conceal carry etc... ) who also have anti-choice leanings. During the '16 election, a Democrat had a really good chance to unseat the republican state senator in my district.
He caught hell from some local Democrats over a conservative gun vote and he lost. I wasn't thrilled with his vote, because MO is really getting out of hand with the ultra permissive laws despite being #1 in toddler shootings last year. But, I didn't pay attention or forward that argument. Now, I kind of wish I had defended him.
Certainly, I would love to live in a world where all of my opinions were unconditionally represented, however I have personal experience that suggests it isn't helpful to enable the republicans to not only maintain their majority but to expand it and solidify it in districts where we could have and likely would have had Democratic contributions on important votes.
I think there are valid pros and cons, and have no idea what the best solution would be. I guess it should be left to trusting the opinions of ourselves and others. I would hope that the numerical factor would be considered though.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Conservatives in WV are not the same as deep South are not the same as Nebraska. The history of the areas are radically different. They are a coalition of very different groups who are unified around religion, guns and conservative social beliefs.
Deep South was slave states. Huge economic inequality. Much of their 'conservatism' revolves around a racial caste system but they are more populists on economic issues. WV is miners, always poor, slavery was never a pivotal part of their economy, strong history of Democratic support until recently, also populist economics. Nebraska was a hotbed of socialist activism. Kansas was full of anti-slavery religious radicals.
The only thing that unites these groups now is guns, religion and the feeling that liberals look down on them. We can win some on economic policy, but only if we accept their social conservatism and stop talking about them like they are children.
We ALREADY have a large swath of Democrats who personally oppose abortion but do not press the issue at the national level. Black protestants are a mainstay of our coalition. There are many Catholic Democrats who think economic justice is the most important issue. These people are already part of the coalition, so not sure what the fuss is, all of a sudden. Is it just a bias against rural Americans?
It's a democracy. Barely a majority of Americans support abortion rights and most of us are gerrymandered into urban districts. I don't see how we win consistently on a national level if we don't keep a lane open for representatives who personally oppose abortion. We ALREADY do this and yet the party defends abortion rights. We could do this in places like Nebraska and WV and actually hold power. It is what it is.
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)and called for primarying them...Many have reversed their opinions and why is that? It is very simple many would vote for anyone who has Sen. Sander's endorsement in the coming elections. No person is perfect, and unquestioning loyalty is never a good thing.
