Every Democrat should read this article in the NY Times.

[kentuck]

If Jon Ossoff wins his primary in Georgia on the 20th, Democrats should study his race very carefully. Do they go the way of Bernie Sanders or do they go a different way? Or do they find a way to unite the different ideas of Bernie Sanders and Jon Ossoff? We may think Bernie would have beaten Donald Trump in the last election but that is not a certainty. He won many races with the caucus system but lost to Hillary Clinton in most of the races where the popular vote was counted. How much does the Party need to change? For what it's worth:
=========================

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/us/democrats-midterm-elections.html

<snip>
Yet the party’s elected leaders, and many of its candidates, are far more dispassionate, sharing a cold-eyed recognition of the need to scrounge for votes in forbidding precincts. They have taken as a model the Democratic campaign of 2006, when the party won control of Congress in part by competing for conservative corners of the country and recruiting challengers who broke with liberal orthodoxy.

Outside Atlanta on Friday, Jon Ossoff offered a decidedly un-Sanders-like vision of the future in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District, a conservative-leaning patchwork of office plazas and upscale malls, where voters attended his campaign events wearing golf shirts and designer eyewear.

In a special election that has become the most expensive House race in history, Mr. Ossoff, a 30-year-old former congressional aide, presented himself as essentially anti-ideological. Greeting suburban parents near a playground and giving a pep talk to volunteers, he stressed broadly popular policies like fighting air and water pollution and preserving insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

Bucking the left, Mr. Ossoff said in an interview that he would not support raising income taxes, even for the wealthy, and opposed “any move” toward a single-payer health care system. Attacked by Republicans for his ties to national liberals, Mr. Ossoff said he had not yet given “an ounce of thought” to whether he would vote for Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, in a future ballot for speaker.

....more at link

[virtualobserver]

1. Ossoff's stategy might win a race here or there...

....but unless we make a case for more progressive policies, we will never have them.

[DanTex]

4. The only way to get more progressive policies is to win elections.

Running far-left candidates in red districts or swing districts is a sure way to lose elections, and guarantee that policies move to the right.

[kentuck]

5. True. I think the challenge for Democrats will be how well they can adapt to their districts?

Every district should be viewed as a different challenge. One size does not fit all. Voters may not be as receptive to ideologues as some of us might think? In some states, the message of Bernie Sanders may be very popular. In other states, it may not sell at all? That is the challenge for our Party.

As a side note, I cannot remember one poll from the last election where Hillary polled over 50%??

Where and how do we change?

[bettyellen]

26. Educate voters to care about policies over sound bite. Too many Dems had no idea what HRC promoted

And they talked more about her husband's policies than hers. Even Dems fell into the personality over policy trap.

[Les Cowbell]

52. And that condescending approach is why she lost

And Dems who take it will continue to lose. You are not going to "educate" people into caring in ways you want them to, and it isn't a matter of personality over policy. It's values over policy. Try reading George Lakoff; he offered his advice to the Clinton campaign and they didn't listen. Dems who spend all their time on policy papers and talking down to voters will get tuned out and the repubs will gain even greater control. Some people never learn.

[bettyellen]

112. Condesending says the man who tells me to "try reading" Lakeoff

DERP Because you just read a book written 25-30 years ago. Possibly before you were born? And you lecture others about talking down.

[Hortensis]

119. Not values. BRAND. Rump voters abandoned all

professed values at the polls, moral, ethical, intellectual, behavioral, patriotic--and even religious!--to vote for him. They live many of these values in the rest of their lives, but they've been lead down a belief path where politics is somehow separate.

Interviews with people who voted for rump in depressed areas reveal that many actually got and believed the message that the Democrats had plans all set to help them, and suspected pubs wouldn't, but they didn't want that help from Democrats. They didn't want Democrats to win so much that they voted against their own and their children's futures.

This development of mindlessly hostile partisanship is why efforts to "educate" won't work, not values. If only. We could work with values.

[tblue37]

27. AND we need to contest across the country. The Dem leadership should

never have ditched Howard Dean and his 50-state strategy.

[virtualobserver]

10. the way to win elections is to focus on how Republican policies harm voters

and how Democratic policies help them.

Carefully tailored and scripted campaigns where people say that they haven't given an “an ounce of thought” to whether they would vote for a national Democratic leader like Nancy Pelosi look insincere and cowardly.
People don't trust someone who runs away from one of the leaders of their own party.

Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican... - Harry S. Truman.

[DanTex]

14. Joe Manchin won in WV while running away from Obama.

If Ossoff needs to distance himself from Pelosi to win in his red district, then that's what he should do. I don't know much at all about his district, I trust him to make the decision.

It makes no sense at all pretending that the same strategy that works in San Francisco or Manhattan is also going to work in the suburbs of Atlanta.

[virtualobserver]

15. The Democratic Party has been using this time honored strategy since the early 90's...

and it has left us with our current situation.

It is opposite of leadership.

[kentuck]

17. The problem, in my opinion, is that even when they get a majority in Congress...

..they still act like mushy moderates. The agenda cannot be set from campaigns, it must be set in Congress, once we get a majority. Run to win and legislate as progressives is the way to go, imo.

[virtualobserver]

20. They act like mushy moderates because that is how they campaigned.

They want to be re-elected.

Leadership involves actually making the case for progressive policies so that you have an actual mandate to govern as progressives.

There are two ways to win an election.....

1. Poll the people.....find out what they believe.....tell them that amazingly, that is what you believe.

Voila! mushy moderate.

2. Make a case for progressive policies. Persuade the people. Leadership.

If we can't make a case for our policies, then they must not be very good.

[Demsrule86]

81. In order to have the power to craft legislation by being in the majority...you have to accept

you won't get every progressive policy we all believe in...that is just a fact. Maybe we get single payer and a higher minimum wage...and some work on student debt...you will need to lower the age of medicare gradually to get single payer...a stand alone bill will never work. While I wish people believed as we do...it is not the case. We own nothing politically, not the state governments, not the house, not the senate and not the presidency...and we will be fighting the courts too. Losing in 2016 was a disaster for us...and while people like Sarandon are waiting for the 'revolution'...it never happens. We move left from the center not the right. We have lost the courts as well...the next few years will be a time of compromise for us, and we will be limited in what we can achieve. The GOP has everything and they still have not been able to do as they please (thank God). However, we will achieve some stuff and saving social security, Medicare and Medicaid is huge... We can achieve nothing without the majority. Buckle up, it is going to be a shit show. Sometimes stopping the other guy and improving on policies like the ACA is all you can get.

[DanTex]

18. And in that time controlled the White House for 16 years. And won the popular vote

two other times.

Has the hard-left strategy ever worked at all?

[virtualobserver]

21. As we have seen, controlling the White House isn't enough.

Conceding huge swaths of the country to Republicans and moving in the direction of THEIR political goals has won some Presidential elections but it has left us in a position where people do not know what we stand for.

Your use of "hard left" illustrates the problem. You are using the political framing of conservatives.

Poll driven campaigns are going the way of the Dodo. They are ineffective.

Roosevelt and Truman, although quite different, knew how to do battle politically.
I would use them as my model.

[JI7]

37. controlling the white house gave us supreme court justices and nation wide same sex marriage

we moved in the direction of health care for all.

the president signed fair pay for women.

there will never be anything that will be enough . it will always be difficult. but without the white house we would have been far worse off as seen with trump now.

[virtualobserver]

39. it didn't give us Merrick Garland

Of course it would have been worse if we hadn't held the White House, but we will not win using the same strategy that we have been using for the past 25 years.

[JI7]

40. that has to do with republican control of senate . if hillary had won merrick garland would be sc

justice.

[virtualobserver]

42. No, the Republicans would have blocked the nomination for 4 years....

They would still have held the Senate.

John McCain said they would block any nominee that she put up...he said that before the election.....you know....the honorable John McCain?

[JI7]

43. in the end it really is about demographics and white voters voting on white privilege

the reason california is strongly democratic these days is because of changes in demograhpics with majority being non white. it's not because people became more liberal.

and the reason ossoff is doing as well as he is because the district isn't as white as when gingrich held it.

and hillary as president would still have meant no gorsuch on the sc.

[virtualobserver]

45. No, it is about Democrats not making the case for themselves and against Republicans.

People stay in their ruts unless you shake them up. People can be persuaded. Even white people.

[JI7]

47. we have actual numbers. there is a reason why trump appealed to mainly white voters

and why someone like mccain and romney who did not try to appeal to bigotry did not appeal to many of those same voters.

and you ignore things like the court striking down the voting rights act which happened after obama won in 2012 . the trump win in those few states were very small compared to the huge popular vote hillary had.

over 90 percent of black women voted for feingold while only 30 percent of white men did.

in fact hillary actually did better than feingold .

[virtualobserver]

51. As I said....Democrats didn't make the case.

If we as Democrats just dismiss everyone who didn't vote for us as evil, then we are just victims.

We have to educate and motivate voters......but we also have to call out the Republicans on their shit and also on how wrong they always are when they predict the effect of tax cuts and on raising taxes.

[alarimer]

91. I absolutely agree with this.

Use Kansas as an example of failed Republican policies; they failed so much even the REPUBLICANS voted to raise taxes (over the governor's veto).

[betsuni]

49. +1

[DanTex]

88. Feel free to suggest another term besides "hard left".

But you didn't answer my question. When has the hard-left (or whatever term you want) approach actually produced electoral victories?

The answer is, it hasn't. The reason Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp are in congress, but Zephyr Teachout and Russ Feingold are not, is that Manchin and Hietkamp won their elections. In red states, no less.

All this talk about Democrats needing to go more to the left is meaningless until the left proves that they can win elections. So far, they haven't.

[virtualobserver]

95. It has nothing to do with "left"

What the DNC centrists have proven, is that their strategy of attempting to pander to Republican voters has placed us on the brink.


The "left" didn't lose 1000 seats at at the state and national levels over the last 8 years.
It is the current centrist leadership that has proven conclusively that they are great at losing elections.
Pointing to the occasional win of unreliable Democrats like Manchin and Heitkamp who cannot be counted on when we really need them does not persuade me. For every Manchin, we have an Alison Lundergan Grimes, shooting guns in tv ads and refusing to admit that she voted for Obama..... and then losing to the least popular Senator in the chamber.


Republicans control both chambers in 32 states. They only need 2 more to call a Constitutional convention.

[DanTex]

99. Yes, it has everything to do with the hard left.

See, it's easy for people like Chris Hedges to throw stones, because he doesn't have to worry about winning elections. The hard left complains that the Democratic party has lost seats, but how many seats in congress does the Green party hold? How many seats have they ever won? The hard left didn't lose any seats, because they never won any seats to begin with. The hard left didn't extend healthcare to 20 million people, curb carbon emissions, pass the strongest financial regulations since WW2, save the auto industry, etc.

More generally, what has the hard left ever accomplished, other than helping W win in 2000, and Trump win in 2016? Try to answer that honestly.

Yeah, you're right, Grimes lost. In Kentucky, a state which was a huge longshot to begin with. Again, show me the hard-leftists that have every won any major election in a red state. Or even a purple state. Or anywhere, really. You're right, for every Manchin there's a Grimes. We're not going to win all red state elections. But if we can win even half of them, that's a huge bonus.

Anyway, after you answer the question of what the hard left has ever accomplished, then tell me why we should listen to their electoral strategy. Cornel West and Chris Hedges and Jill Stein can lecture the Democrats as soon as any of them prove they have a message that can win an election.

[virtualobserver]

100. No, the onus is on you. You have to explain to me why this strategy which lost 1000 seats....

...1. will suddenly and magically work
and
2. is the only option.

Your obsession with the "hard-left" is yours and yours alone.

Tell me why the Einstein quote "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." doesn't apply to the current Democratic strategy.

[DanTex]

103. That's a joke. The Democratic Party has both won and lost a lot of seats over the

last few decades. In my last post I listed a bunch of the good things that happened over the last 8 years due to the Democratic Party.

You're acting like all the Dems have ever done is lost seats. Which is totally false. Before they lost seats, they won seats. And then before that, they lost seats. And then before that, they won seats. As everyone knows, the political tides go back and forth over time.

Except when it comes to the far left. They have accomplished absolutely nothing for many decades. The Einstein quote is perfectly applicable to them. They threw the election to W in 2000, and after that, instead of changing strategies, they kept the same, accomplished nothing, and then helped throw the election to Trump in 2016.

Tell me again, how many seats has the Green party won, ever? What has the hard-left (or whatever you want to call it) accomplished in the last 50 years?

The answer is zero, and nothing.

Is it really too much to ask, that before the Naderites and Steinites come telling us how to run our party, that they demonstrate the ability to do anything except for help Republicans get elected?

[virtualobserver]

106. your endless straw men about Nader and Stein bore me.

I'm a Democrat. Your assertion that somehow the only options are either the current strategy or Jill Stein is a false dichotomy.

Nader didn't throw the election in 2000.....SOS Harris threw tens of thousands of voters off the rolls. The ultimate recount of all counties still showed Gore ahead.

Disclaimer: I voted for Hillary in the GE

but

the message that you are sending to voters is....

1. you don't get to decide the direction of the party, we do. If you want to do something different get your own party.
2. If you vote for someone from a party that you like, and then we lose, it is your fault. So, get your own party because we don't care about your dumb ideas, but don't vote for it.

[DanTex]

109. They're not straw, those are real people.

And their party has pursued the hard-left option for decades, with nothing to show for it except for two GOP presidents.

But, OK, if you want, let's forget about the Green party. Still, there's no evidence that the hard-left strategy will lead to anything but electoral losses. And that's the central problem here. Unless you have some evidence to president.

I'm not sending any message to voters. Voters vote how they want, and I'm not a politician. In fact, Democratic voters are the ones that choose Democratic candidates, which means that the reason the Dems are where the are ideologically is because that's where the Democratic electorate is.

The hard-left likes to pretend that they are the only people in the world with opinions. But they aren't.

[virtualobserver]

116. the current strategy is leading to electoral losses

and the party isn't making an adjustment. If they don't, the situation will take care of itself.

[moda253]

110. Can I borrow part of your post?

I could never state what you stated and it needs to be circulated in broader scope. I'd like to post part of it to my FB feed.

[DanTex]

113. Sure, by all means, post away. Thanks.

[moda253]

117. Thanks!

nm

[stevenleser]

32. That's your spin. It may very well be that this strategy kept us from worse losses. You have no

proof of your position. In fact, the available proof suggests the opposite from your intended spin.

[virtualobserver]

38. There is no proof that suggests the opposite

I think that a better case can be made that Presidential races are won with charisma.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have charisma. George W. Bush and Donald Trump have their own weird brand of Charisma.

Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton do not (at least not enough, they have Senator level charisma).

We have lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 seats in state legislatures, governor's mansions and Congress since Obama was elected.

How can you possibly argue that it could have been worse? We stand on the brink!

[JI7]

41. gore got more votes than bush. and hillary got more votes than trump and a higher percentage of

votes than her husband did.

[virtualobserver]

44. Yes, but my point is still true.....

If Al and Hillary were charismatic they would have won by a PV and EV landslide.....economic numbers were great in both cases. It should never have been close.

[JI7]

46. people vote on many issues. and people who voted for trump voted largely on race and other social

issues.

[virtualobserver]

48. I'm not talking about Trump....

I'm talking about the entire Democratic Party....nationwide.

Making a case in every state that Republican policies hurt everyone in every way.

Harry Truman had a quote which I will paraphrase.....He said that if you want to be well off like a Republican, then you'd better vote for Democrats.

[JI7]

50. you have to admit the bigotry first. they vote republican because the republicans represent

their interests.

their interests are opposing migrants, immigration, black lives matter , lgbt, etc. so when they vote republican they are voting for their interests.

i mean, they voted for fucking donald trump. not someone who tries to be subtle or hide their with with fake concern . trump ran as an openly bigoted race . trump is a vile piece of shit but they voted for him even more than they did vote mccain and romney and it's because of the bigotry.

[virtualobserver]

53. that's the thing, though.....the Republicans don't actually represent their interests

that is the case that you have to make. You have to explain it to them in plain language.

[JI7]

55. if their interest is banning immigrants, refugees. opposing black lives matter, the republicans DO

represent their interest.

[virtualobserver]

57. none of those things actually are in their interest.....they are just the flags that Republicans....

wave in their faces in an attempt to make them fearful.

You have to explain to them fully....that the republicans are trying to distract them with these issues....
and then show them clearly how the Republicans are harming their interests.

You have to expose the Republicans for the frauds that they are.

[JI7]

58. you don't decide what is in their interests. they do and they show it by voting year after year

it's not just trump. they have voted for people like gingrich, sessions, gohmert , gowdy , bachmann and all the other fucking idiots that make up the republican congress.

[virtualobserver]

60. If we are going to be the victim party, then we let the Republicans continue to delude them

we make no effort to show them how destructive the Republican policies are to their lives.

Then we can all sit around and chat for the next decade about how those bad people keep voting Republican

[JI7]

62. i'm calling them out on their bigotry. i'm not going to pretend why they voted the way they do

and let them continually claim to be the victims.

[virtualobserver]

63. So you aren't into trying to win elections....you just want to scold them

[JI7]

65. they should be scolded if they are bigots instead of pretending it isn't what it is

[virtualobserver]

66. how does that win elections?

[JI7]

67. how does pretending the bigotry doesn't exist win ?

and i said above that in many cases we will just have to wait on demographic changes as happened in california .

and that's teh same reason ossoff is competitive in the gingrich district. because it's not all white as it was when gingrich was there.

[virtualobserver]

69. waiting on demographic changes is not a strategy

Explaining to voters why voting Republican is against their interest is not pretending that bigotry doesn't exist.

[JI7]

70. it has been explained many times. their problem is with black lives matter and immigrants

[virtualobserver]

71. Republicans are not a monolith

What I am suggesting is that the party needs to make a case to those who are mistakenly voting Republican for economic reasons.



When you look back at the whole centrist period stemming from the DLC thinkers, it was filled with policies pandering to those bigots.

Nothing has changed. Nothing will ever change in states like Kentucky, if our nominee won't admit that she voted for Obama, while firing guns off in her ads. Nothing will change in Georgia if our candidate refuses to admit that he would vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker. Nothing will change in West Virginia or North Dakota if our Senators cheerfully vote for the worst cabinet members ever proposed by a President

I say we win by changing people's thought processes, not by coddling them by pandering to the beliefs that have been programmed into them.

[JI7]

72. candidates run for office to get into office so they appeal to what the voters want

i have said if you have a problem with it you should try to get the voters to change their views.

look at darrell issa. the only reason he is being somewhat critical of trump now is because his district is changing and there are more hispanics who vote democratic and are turned off by many of the things he has done.

but complaining about candidates isn't going to do much since nobody is going to run a serious campaign in order to win by running against what they support .

you have to go to the people themselves and once they change they will get the candidates to take those positions or just lose like santorum did .

[stevenleser]

118. There is absolutely proof that suggests an approach to a broader audience improved results

The election of 1992 which featured Bill Clinton and a shift away from Progressivism toward a more center left approach produced the first victory for Democrats in 16 years. This began a 24 year span where Democrats only lost the popular vote once in seven elections after being destroyed in three straight.

Folks like you attack Clinton and his approach and the changes he brought to the party, but since then, Democrats have won more national contests than they have lost.

[virtualobserver]

120. not in terms of the House....only 6 of those 25 years.

We lost 1000 seats in state houses during the 2010 and 2014 midterms.

You would imagine, with that kind of disaster, a radical change of approach would have occurred.

The Koch brothers have 32 legislatures.....they only need 2 more to call a Constitutional Convention.

What is the plan to avert this, Steven?

[stevenleser]

121. House races are not national elections, they are local elections where the constituencies vary widel

As has the approach by various candidates. Same with the state legislature races. That doesn't make your point at all.

[virtualobserver]

122. You don't get my point. House and Senate races NEED to be nationalized.

In 1994, that is how the Republicans stunned everyone with their contract with America.

To a lesser degree, the Tea Party movement in 2010 achieved something similar.

If you rely on weak local strategies, this trend will continue.

Even in Presidential election years which are naturally more nationalized, people don't connect the dots.
They re-elect the person that they know in most House and Senate races.

The election needs to be reframed. To quote Harry Truman from his 1948 acceptance speech.

"The country can't afford another Republican Congress"

[sweetloukillbot]

59. Worked pretty well when Howard Dean did it in 2006

[Les Cowbell]

54. Agree 100 percent n/t

[MiddleClass]

19. Congressman for the district alone

I don't care if they vote against Nancy Pelosi, or say they will, as long as they're not a vote for Paul Ryan, Democrats win. Nancy Pelosi wins.

Each district decides its own pressure points, with Democrats overall helping the middle class,

people left out of both parties.

[virtualobserver]

22. So, you think that a Democrat who shows disrespect to Nancy Pelosi will stand up for us?

Not when it counts.

[Demsrule86]

83. We can make the case after we take back the house...and the reality is that progressive does

not sell in red states. You move from the center to the left...never the right to the left.

[virtualobserver]

92. Progressive will sell in red states, it just has to be explained properly

Democrats have given Republicans a free pass for a long time.

We have to shatter the Republican framing of issues and show the impact of their policies.



It is impossible to do that until you stop pandering to their current manipulated mind states, and start reframing.

[Demsrule86]

102. It won't sell...it just won't. Maybe after we get back in power with the help of centrists...

we can move left. Look at Kansas...a centrist candidate ran for governor won in 16...but a liberal candidate supported by Sen. Sanders lost recently...he did better than expected, and I can't help but wonder if a different candidate more suited to the state might have won.

[virtualobserver]

105. when you really look at the race in Kansas..

1. The DCCC abandoned Thompson, because the thought was that he couldn't win.
The party—which had initially denied a request from Thompson’s campaign to help
eventually gave him $3000.

Similar situation with Quist in WY.

2. Republicans poured in big money for attack ads and far outspent the Dems in a deep red district that Trump won by 27.......Estes only won by 7.

[Demsrule86]

108. Neither candidate was ever going to win...they were the wrong person for the state.

I have hopes in Kansas if we run a moderate in 18.

[George II]

94. The refrain that we heard during the General Election campaign was...

....that the Democratic Party was pushed further left as a result of the compromises at the convention.

The Democrats lost.

So why would moving even further to the left change the outcome?

[virtualobserver]

98. No one cast their vote based on something from the convention that they never even heard about....

The Democratic party didn't move an inch to the left during the campaign.....maybe a millimeter, and only when pushed.

[Warpy]

2. Silly article.

It should be remembered that Ossoff is running in Newt Gingrich's district, one that hasn't voted Democratic in a very long time. His message is tailored to the constituents in that district.

He will very likely be GOP-lite in a lot of areas, but not all of them. Handel, on the other hand, is a far right lunatic.

Politics is the art of taking what you can get. Then try for more.

[peggysue2]

33. Ding, Ding, Ding!

Warpy said:

'Politics is the art of taking what you can get. Then try for more.'

Wish we could tattoo this on Democratic butts throughout the country.

Yes, we want to win. And therefore, we need to realize that a message that resonates in Massachusetts will not play in a Republican district in Georgia. Ossoff is playing a very smart game of politics. I hope he's successful. Then, what he brings to DC and who and what he is will be on review. But the first thing is to win, appeal to the electorate that is, rather than what you'd wish the electorate to be.

If the 6th district can be convinced into electing a Democratic candidate, they just might be receptive to other Democratic policies. We won't know without the initial win, will we?

Put the damn purity tests aside and let's reinvigorate the 50-state solution. No, we won't always be happy with our various members but it's only with a majority that we have any hope of promoting Democratic principles, and/or kicking the current WH resident/impostor to the curb.

And yes, Handel is a wacko. Her Korman Cancer Foundation history says everything that could be said. But, of course, she had to add to the negative: "I do not believe in a livable wage." She blurted that out during the debate, along with a wearisome trickle-down theory rah-rah.

My fingers are crossed for Ossoff.

[woodsprite]

78. I agree, but let's

Tattoo it on each of their foreheads so they see it every time they look in a freaking mirror or otherwise see a reflection of themselves.

[moda253]

111. If it needs to be tattooed on anyone it is Bernie Sanders!

THAT is the guy that needs to understand this.

[JI7]

36. Ossoff would not be considered GOP light anywhere. and Gingrich's district is not the same as when

gingrich held the seat.

it was almost all white when gingrich held the seat.

now there are many more minorities which is the only reason ossoff is doing as well as he is.

Ossoff is running on reproductive rights for women including federal funding for abortion. he supports gun control , minimum wage and just about anything most liberals support.

[tammywammy]

3. I agree with Rep. Emanuel Cleaver

Others are warier: Representative Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat and former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the party should give “some leeway” to candidates to match the politics of their districts. Mr. Cleaver said he recently ran into former Representative John Barrow of Georgia, one of the last moderate white Democrats elected from the South, and recalled telling him, “We’ll know that we’re on the winning track when you can get back to Congress.”

“We are going to lose every possible winnable seat, in a year where there are many winnable seats, if we come across as inflexible left-wingers,” Mr. Cleaver said. “I respect Bernie — I just don’t think we can become the party of Bernie.”
*****************

I believe the 50 state strategy is running the best possible candidate for that seat. Some will be more conservative and some will be more progressive.

[kentuck]

6. +100

[brer cat]

9. I agree, tammywammy.

We are a very diverse country and we can't be crammed into a one-size-fits-all suit. Bashing moderate or even conservative Democrats is fool-hardy. If they represent their constituents, it's the best we will get elected. Running a far-left candidate against them would only result in more republican gains. In other areas, progressive candidates will win easily. Our immediate goal is to take back the House and Senate, and I will be grateful for every D we get.

[tammywammy]

11. I'd take a Manchin over Cruz every day.

Manchin votes with the democrats 70%+ of the time. Cruz 0%.

[kentuck]

13. In the past, progressive ideas have been shut down, even in very progressive districts...

..as if there is no room anywhere for "progressives". At least, it seems that even elected progressives have given up on any type of progressive agenda? Over time, this has created a lot of discouragement within the "progressive" base of our Party, in my opinion.

[brer cat]

23. If even very progressive districts

aren't buying progressive ideas, then maybe you need to either modify your ideas or the way the message is communicated. Over time, the Democratic Party is going to reflect the views of the majority of voters. Looking back over decades, you can see tremendous changes in the Party with regard to civil rights for people of color and LGBTQ and in gender equality for example. Didn't happen overnight, but these people are the base and their opinions were heard and adopted. I know that they went through long periods of discouragement also.

[GulfCoast66]

29. Ever think that is because progressives

Whatever the hell that really means, are a distinct minority, even in the party of the left? Not to mention the nation as a whole.

But a large enough minority that if the take their ball and go home on Election Day we get conservative government.

[JI7]

35. maybe those progressive ideas are not progressive or the district is not progressive. i know in this

past election many who claimed to be progressive actually seemed very similar to right wingers and it turns out many were and are now defending trump.

[Demsrule86]

84. Well...if they can't get elected in progressive districts whatever that means...than

maybe the message is off...you have to win...and right now the far far left, alt left( hate that phrase) whatever you call such folks are not getting elected...in order to have influence, you have to win...and if you act as a spoiler...you will not be liked nor will folks want to vote for you ... not the ones who want to win anyway. I cast my vote for a candidate that I want to win...I would never waste my time voting for a Stein who has no chance. My vote is not a 'message'. If I want to send a message to the DNC, I write them a letter or call. Also, there is a mixed message being sent...you can not endorse candidates like Mello and Perriello while ignoring a much more progressive candidate like Ossoff and not have voters wonder what in the world you are thinking. We desperately need Ossoff to win and it is a tough battle in this particular seat.

[AlexSFCA]

7. I'm getting tired of sanders purity litmus tests

The guy is exactly the candidate we need in red districts if we are even remotely serious of flipping the house.

[Demsrule86]

85. Yet Sen. Sanders endorsed Mello who was a anti-choice...and voted against women's rights in

Nebraska.

[alarimer]

93. That was a purity test in an of itself.

Why are abortion rights a must-have in candidate without even considering any other position? I mean, this race in GA is a case in point. Mello was unacceptable solely because of his stance on abortion. But Ossoff is just fine, even though he thinks rich people should not have their taxes raised to pay their fair share and he doesn't believe in single-payer health care. Yet we are urged to vote for him anyway (I don't live there so I don't have to make that decision, but I likely would have held my nose and voted for him).

To me these are both candidates who fail purity tests, just different kinds.

Each candidate is a mix of good, bad and, sometimes, frankly appalling, as are most of us.

[AlexSFCA]

96. exactly

the reality right now is to get the house and senate back so democrats can regain power. Blocking each and every federal and Supreme court nominations until next president is elected. And blocking every GOP proposal.

[Demsrule86]

101. Why is economic policy a must have? And abortion rights are civil rights.

We stand up for civil rights. Also Mello voted for the pipeline so he was unacceptable on environmental standards as well. As for Ossoff...you can't win in Georgia if you are for tax increases...and people like ACA...single payer will not pass for a while. Running on the ACA makes a great deal of sense...I point out to you that Bernie did not endorse Ossoff but did endorse Mello...why?

[mcar]

8. The article's main premise is false

Bernie supporters are not the Democratic base. POC and women are. The whole piece is worthless "Dems in disarray" trash.

[kentuck]

12. Progressives believe themselves to be the "base" of the Party, whether accurate or not.

I think the article questions whether strict ideology is the best way to go?

[mcar]

16. I couldn't get through the whole thing

When it's based on a lie, it's not worth reading, IMO.

[pnwmom]

28. Good point. Women and minorities are the base,

not the far left.

[mcar]

34. NYT loves its Dems in Disarray memes

[JCanete]

61. do women and minorities not come in the far left variety? But clearly the left of the party is maybe

half of it at most, and probably less. I'm not disagreeing with questioning the notion that the far left is THE democratic base. if that statement is in the article, its a very interesting claim that could fairly be refuted by the primary results, even if Sanders was a relative no-name at the start of the race by comparison.

[pnwmom]

64. Sanders lost by 4 million votes, so it makes little sense

to call his supporters the "base" of the party -- particularly when he bragged about the fact that he was attracting independents and new voters.

[JCanete]

68. yeah, I agree with that.

[Me.]

30. Exactly

[DeminPennswoods]

24. It starts with unwinding gerrymandered districts

Even in staid old Pennsylvania where it's hard to make change (bill must pass 2 straight legislative sessions, before going on the ballot for a statewide referendum), Fair Districts PA, an organization started to undo the extreme gerrymandering here, is making significant progress.

There are already companion bills in the state house and senate to estable a non-partisan redistricing commission. The house bill has nearly half the state house (93 of 203) as co-sponsors and the senate has about a quarter (13 of 50) of its members as co-sponsors.

[Tatiana]

25. I believe in running candidates appropriate to their districts/states.

For example, should we be running a candidate like Joe Manchin in California? Hell no. I would not support that. But if there was a Joe Manchin-like candidate with "D" next to his/her name running in Alabama. I will hold my nose and support that candidate all day.

We are in a very perilous situation right now. We just have to get the job done as best we can. We can worry about fielding better candidates when we have a clearly-established majority in the House and Senate.

In the meantime, we need to have a 50-state strategy to bring progressive values to constituents at the local level.

Honestly, I am starting to regret that we didn't support Howard Dean for DNC chair. But, alas, we have to press on.

[Demsrule86]

86. +1000

You are exactly right.

[JI7]

31. districts are different. there is no one way to win. you have to know the district

And what matters to people there.

Ossoffs district has a growing number of minorities and tends to be more educated than other areas.

[CentralMass]

56. While not so much here, it should be noted that Bernie is extremely popular in this country

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-country-poll-says/

"Bernie Sanders Is the Most Popular Politician in the Country, Poll Says"
"According to a new poll, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America. The Harvard-Harris survey, published first in The Hill, found almost 60 percent of Americans view the Vermont senator favorably.

Among certain demographics, the progressive politician’s ratings are even higher: 80 percent of Democratic voters, 73 percent of registered black voters, and 68 percent of registered Hispanic voters view Sanders favorably."

[Demsrule86]

87. It should also be noted that candidates he supported have lost races...thus his popularity does not

necessarily translate into primary or electoral wins. Also, people who say they 'like' Sen. Sanders still might not vote for him or his candidates.

[cwydro]

73. Sanders would never have won. nt

[beachbum bob]

74. Ossoff is running a smart campaign for voters of HIS district and we should NEVER lose sight

of the fact that the democratic party is a big tent party, If I was in his shoes, I would be saying and doing the same. America is not leftwing country, its a center/left and their is a vast difference between the 2/ Liberal and progressive democrats often lose sight and understanding that their morals, values and ideas are NOT universal for america.....

I dare say, I agree about whether to support Nancy Pelosi or not. She has been a train wreck as a democratic leader in the house

[kentuck]

75. I do believe that a perceived change in the Party could be good for the Party.

The Party has been negatively branded in the minds of a lot of Americans, whether or not we care to admit it. A change in the leadership might be good for the Party?

[beachbum bob]

76. one reason conservatives win, they APPEAR to be "stronger"....democratic leaders

like Harry Reid ( formerly) and Nancy Pelosi now appear more "whiney" than "strong" and they come off that way to great number of americans. We need democratic leaders that aren;t afraid to rock the boat. I watched Sen Gillibrand and talk in a manner that we need to talk. Playing warm and fuzzy is NOT a winning strategy if we want to change direction of our country. BTW Gillibrand has moved to the top of my list for 2020 contenders.

[kentuck]

79. They say doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition...

...of insanity.

I do think we need to make changes in our Party. Whether or not Ossoff or Bernie have the answers, I do not know?

I do believe we need to stand on a bedrock of principles that do not change. If we stand for nothing, we will fall for anything.

[beachbum bob]

82. democrats have principles and the overriding priciples are always centered in

polices that help the majority of americans not just rich, business or special interest. Its a spectrum based ideology that we democrats forget to talk about effectively. We democrats must not feel obligated to have to embrace EVERY single issue from a pure democratic viewpoint or establish litmus test on who or what constitutes a "good" democrat.

I for one have no problem with means testing for any and all govt programs from welfare to social security. I have no problem with death penalties for the most egregious crimes. I also believe that business should not have taxpayer subsidies unless there is a benefit back to the american taxpayer and worker. I believe abortion should be a decision between a woman and her doctor and should always be last resort. I believe people who collect benefits from taxpayers must be held accountable whether if its welfare or subsidies. I believe in responsible gun ownership. I believe in smoking ribs and pork loin but would never force a vegan to consume and I expect likewise freedom back to be able to smoke ribs.

Making everything a petty issue of forcing personal choices on others is what conservatives do and is diametrically opposite for what democrats stand for. We actually stand for greater freedom than conservatives as we should never force....which is not the same as preaching tolerance. We need to echo the message of tolerance and live and let live with in a frame work that allows people to be themselves while not encroaching on others... I actually believe its best to call it Democratic Libertarianism where we encourage individually while embracing a social responsibility to all BY all.

Being born an american come with a pricetag of what we GIVE BACK

[Demsrule86]

89. No, we need a change in attitude from some...you will never make everyone happy.

Those who consider themselves the 'base' are not the base if they criticize Democrats. The true base can always be counted on to vote Democratic. it is time to support the party up and stop the pointless criticisms. Also, we do not need a massive fight before the coming mid-terms. Did we learn nothing from 2016? A new DNC chair was just elected so there is a change in leadership. We have the most progressive platform in our history which won't matter if we can't win elections...now is the time to fight Trump and not the Democratic Party...which by the way there is never a good time for. Work at the grass roots level for the changes you desire...be the change you envision. In the meantime, some need to consider that attacking the Democratic Party enables the GOP, and every time we do it, we lose.

[Mike Nelson]

77. Agree partly with the article...

...while there are national implications and parallels, Ossoff must win locally. As far as Bernie Sanders, he lost the primary but got a lot of media attention and improved Hillary and the Democratic message. What the Democrats should do is win local elections and take the progressive ideals to a general election. Of course, none of this will work if the Republicans continue muck up the democratic process.

[Demsrule86]

80. And how is he different then Mello and Perriello in Virginia...both supported by

Sen. Sanders and I think Sen. Elizabeth warren ? In order to get any bill on the floor, we need the majority. Ossoff's seat is one that has been held by the GOP for more than a generation so of course it will be expensive ... it is Newt Gingrich's old seat for God's sake. Now explain to me why we have primary in Virginia where Perriello is running and was endorsed by Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren...he voted for the Stupak amendment and was proud of derailing single payer in 2009...he claimed to be pro-life then. I can see no reason for endorsing a pro-life candidate in blue Virginia...and Mello from Nebraska also voted to refuse insurance coverage for abortion in the entire state of Nebraska by private insurers; so I do not really think he should have been endorsed by any Democratic leader either. Sen. Sanders 'ideas' are Democratic 'ideas', but if we want the majority we will need a big tent and that means electing some who are to the right of the party in a state like Georgia for a seat that has been help by conservatives for more than a generation...I don't get the selective outrage for Ossoff. We really need that seat in the upcoming congressional battles.

[AlexSFCA]

97. C'mon

the guy is only 30y.o. for god's sake. He'll have plenty of time to adjust his positions in order to grow within the democratic party. Democrats need to be strategic which means certain compromises in red districts. Nothing is set in stone once they are elected.

[Freethinker65]

104. Sounds like Ossoff is running to represent his future constituents

This is how it should be. He has found areas of agreement for people in the district to rally around despite political party preference.

[Orsino]

107. His emphasis on wasteful spending and his bland both-sideism do not excite.

But it looks like it will have been a winning strategy for GA-6.

[Freethinker65]

114. Perhaps it is not strategy, but just who Mr. Ossoff is?

He grew up in the district and knows the common issues important to the communities he will be serving. While he will be voting on many issues with national implications, it appears his knowledge of local concerns will be responsible if he wins (well, that and Handel often appearing as a disagreeable Trump supporting conservative).

[Orsino]

115. Oh, shit. I hope not. n/t