In Issa's GOP-leaning district, Democrats have a math problem that makes a win tougher

[Zorro]

For the last year or more, Rep. Darrell Issa was the guy San Diego County Democrats could all agree on.

Each Tuesday morning they could assemble with like-minded folk outside his 49th District headquarters in Vista and make the nine-term Republican the punching bag for their problems with Washington. They taunted him with satirical retirement cakes and a giant inflatable chicken with a Donald Trump hairdo.

So when Issa announced earlier this month that he wouldn’t run for re-election, Democrats were left with nothing left to swing at.

“They’ve been doing a really good job of raking and dragging him through the coals,” said Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, a vice president at the state Young Democrats and the president of San Diego Democrats for Equality. “But his departure is not a good thing, if you look at it from a strategic point of view.”

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-congress-democrats-20180128-story.html

There is this downside to California's jungle primary system -- too many Democratic candidates splitting the progressive vote.

[Cary]

1. The stakes couldn't be higher

If this doesn't motivate Democrats to put down the ideological bullshit and win elections then we deserve what we get.

I'm sick and tired of bickering with people, with whom I have no policy dispute, over process. I used to think we were.smarter than that.

And when I say "bickering" I mean certain people being extreme and then attacking me simply because I want to defeat fascists. If we can't stop this nonsense, not voting or voting for the likes of Ralph Nadir or Jill Stein, then we are no better than the morons whom I oppose.

No, we can't have it both ways. Sorry.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

[GaryCnf]

3. One solution might be

for centrists to stow THEIR ideology and coalesce around a far left candidate.

[Cary]

4. Incorridgable.

[stevenleser]

5. Nope, there aren't enough people we would gain on the far left for all the center left we would lose

It's pretty much always like that.

[GaryCnf]

8. Well then, I guess the converse should also be true

In other words, there aren't enough people on the far left for you to blame the "far left" when your "we need to attract the center left (aka center right)" ideology turns out to be incorrect (and leaves us without a simple majority of popular votes in EVERY election beginning in 1992 save for the two where our candidate, Barack Obama, refused to run a center right campaign AND costs us an electoral majority in every election where third party candidates got less than 8% of the vote)

It's NEVER "been like that." Centrists have CLAIMED it's been like that.

[stevenleser]

9. Nope, it's not. Democrats who have won did not go far left. nt

[GaryCnf]

10. Are you seriously claiming

that Obama did not run well to the left of Kerry, Gore, and Hillary Clinton?

Make that case.

Oh, I get it, you're using a caricature of "far left" . . . some clown like Jill Stein . . . as a straw man. You don't want to talk Obama's decidedly liberal campaigns.

[stevenleser]

11. Are you seriously claiming that Obama ran far-left? nt

[GaryCnf]

12. Once again, the straw man

I am claiming that Obama ran a campaign far to the left of the campaigns of Gore, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton AND, by doing so, received over 50% of the popular vote and solid electoral majorities.

So, do you want to try to change the discussion again or make your case for how we can win with the centrist playbook without a right leaning third party candidate receving 8% of the vote?

[JI7]

13. no he didn't. Obama was pro free trade, he held back on talking social issues , and pretty much

similar to others. he did not run far left.

when he brought up how black men are unfairly targeted by police once he was already president his approval ratings among whites went down.

[dsc]

14. He most certainly didn't

on health care he was to the right of Hillary Clinton in the primary and to the right of her in 2016. He opposed the individual mandate up until the moment he realized he couldn't get a health care bill that would work without it. He was far to the right of them on education policy in both campaign and governance. He favored charter schools, merit pay, and other reforms of education that unions oppose for good reason. Teachers in NC defacto lost tenure under his administration at this education secretary's behest (to get race to the top dollars). He favored a grand bargain which would have cut social security (thank God the GOP refused to go along). He also was enamored of bipartisanship long after it was clear that for the GOP bipartisanship meant the Democrats should bend over. No he was no far left candidate, not even close.

[GaryCnf]

15. Your history needs some updating

Obama's health care proposal was not just attacked by the insurance companies and rabid conservatives, it was also attacked by Blue Dog Democrats who insisted on canning the Public Option and crafting legislation to pander to the insurance industry financing their political careers with the individual mandate. THAT'S NOT TO THE RIGHT.

And while Obama was wrong on education policy, HE WASN'T RIGHT WING. He was just part of the "Waiting for Superman" liberals.

Apart from that, you're not talking about the campaign, you're talking about governing.

Obama's campaign was FAR MORE LIBERAL than what we saw in 2016 and infinitely more liberal than what we saw in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.

Now give us a hand and tell us how centrist campaigns win elections.

[dsc]

16. Hillary was in favor of the public option

Gore favored Medicare buy in as did Kerry. Hillary favored the same public option he did. The difference was on mandates where he took a right wing position in the campaign. Union busting, which is what supporting charter schools is (AND IS SOMETHING HE EXPLICITLY CAMPAIGNED ON) is right wing. I am a teacher, I follow this issue, and he was to the right of all of the people you mention on education (that was one of my big beefs with him in the primaries). The fact is Obama wasn't significantly different on the issues than they were and in some cases the difference was to the left and in others like the ones I mention, they were to the right. I don't need a history lesson, I was there.

[GaryCnf]

18. The fact that education reform

Was of particular importance to you does not erase the fact that the "Waiting for Superman" attitude was NOT RIGHT WING and calling it that does not put the Obama campaign to the right of Hillary.

Nor does calling the individual mandate, a gift to the insurance companies, a "liberal" position.

[dsc]

19. Union busting is union busting

and that is precisely what he supported. It is right wing clap trap no matter how many films are made about it. As to the individual mandate, it is avoiding free riders which is a liberal position.

[Cosmocat]

17. JHC

I voted Bernie in the primary knowing full well I would vote for Hillary in the general.

I WANT a strong progressive with two functioning gonads like him or Warren, but this kind of "logic" ignores the simple reality that there are tens of millions of voters.

You can't will people to think differently.

End of the day, in a national election, 95 out a 100 times, there are going to be more of the "centrist" dems you deride than folks who are more stridently progressive - the older voters, the blue collar voters, these are the people who show up and actually vote every election.

You want stronger progressives to get elected, find that magic elixer that gets younger voters to take the time to show up at the polls.

[GaryCnf]

20. I understand exactly

What you are saying. By definition, almost, the philsophical "middle" will be larger than the edges. What is, however, also undoubtedly true is that centrists, while a larger group, are not large enough to win ANY election. In other words, they need non-centrists (whether on the left or right) to vote in order to beat the GOP.

Here is where I am of the opinion we have been making a mistake since 1992. A certain segment of the party, a segment some call the "party establishment," decided that we should look to the right of centrists for the votes we need. Ever since then our campaigns have pushed issues that play in the suburbs . . . education reform, the 1994 Crime Bill, Welfare reform, helping "good" (in the eyes of white folks) immigrants like Dreamers, values issues, gun control etc. At the same time our campaigns have stayed away from stuff like criminal justice reform (a/k/a letting black folks out of prison), Black Lives Matter, "socialism," pretty much anything that makes white suburbanites nervous. Their dogma is that black folks, brown folks, far left white folks have no where else to turn and don't vote at a high enough rate anyway. They are so devoted to this belief that some will actually come right out and say it.

The problem with this ideology is that it has been an utter failure. The voters to the right of centrists have proven time and time again that they will not vote Democratic no matter how much we pander to them.

In our black communities in our brown ones in the dregs left behind our decaying middle class we are trying to figure out how long it will take before our campaigns turn to us instead.

[Wounded Bear]

2. There are reasons why I don't like the "top two" primary system...

This article expresses some of them. Sure, it's great when two Dems win the primary, but the opposite is also possible in many districts.

[oasis]

6. Nationally prominent Democrats (Obama, Biden, Gore) should step in

and annoint the most qualified.

[gabeana]

7. Pretty insightful article

for the sake of the seat, the Dem candidates need to get together decide on one candidate
easier said than done with ego's involved