How about we save the purity tests for blue states?

[DanTex]

By all means, if Mary Landrieu was senator from California or Massachusetts, primary her, get rid of her, and get a liberal elected. But liberals don't win senate elections in states like Louisiana. Someone Landrieu is the best we can hope for there. I don't like some of her politics any more than most other people here, but I like them a whole lot more than a teabagger's.

In fact, her win in 2008 was huge for Democrats, and also for liberal causes. Without that win, there would have been no supermajority, which most likely means no Obamacare.

Frankly, getting anything except for teabaggers from deep red states is a bonus. It's like when your pitcher is at bat. You expect a strike out, and if you get a base hit, that's great. You don't complain about not getting home runs, as you would from your cleanup hitter.

[Vincardog]

1. How about we don't. When anyone chooses to run as a Democratic party candidate why don't

We require them to stand with Democrats to support Working People?

Having weak right-wing leaning democrats offered as an alternative to real RW-Nutz blurs the lines.

Vote GOP and your get NUTZ vote with us and we are not nutz is a weak message and the last election shows the result.

[alp227]

48. exactly. similar thing can be said about Republicans.

In CA, the Republican challenger (Neel Kashkari) to the popular (D) governor Jerry Brown was criticized for being a "RINO". Because CA has all-party primaries for office, the "RINO" candidate got 2nd place while the more conservative candidate (Tim Donnelly) got narrowly 3rd. And Jerry Brown - a very progressive governor - won big.

However, if a Mary Landrieu type ran for guv in CA, I could see a situation where the "RINO" wins. In MA, a "RINO" (Charlie Baker) won over an ineffective Democrat (Martha Coakley). In KY, Mitch McConnell (who even got a Tea Party challenger because the Tea Party doesn't think he's conservative enough) beat a not-so-bold Democrat in Allison Lundergan Grimes.

And speaking of Massachusetts, although Mitt Romney is said to be a RINO, he won the 2002 MA guv election because his (D) challenger wasn't very marketable. However, in the 2012 presidential election, a bold, pull-no-punches Obama beat Romney.

The bottom line is that if candidates distinguish themselves from each other, they get more voters out because voters will see the wide range of ideas pitched.

[Jamaal510]

148. +1

[roguevalley]

116. if mark begich had run as a dem instead of a craven

dino he might still be senator. Purity tests is the new word for be a dem. Sad.

[Dustlawyer]

141. You don't bring people around to the Democrats side all at once. People don't change their stripes

overnight if they are going to change at all. If they like her enough to vote for her they may be more willing to listen to what she has to say about things they would normally be against and she has a chance to change their mind-set. Now they will have Johnny Reb representing them and convincing them that all Democratic policies are bad.
I was never a fan of hers, but living in Texas 25 minutes from the Louisiana border I think I know the people she was representing pretty well. Some is better than none, it just is. Now we will get nothing at all out of Louisiana.

[moriah]

2. I used to say that regarding Arkansas.

No one listened, and now all of our Reps and Senators are teabaggers. It'll be hell getting them out, too.

But given the response when I used to say similar things...

[LiberalArkie]

124. I can understand Pryor loosing, he never stood for anything that wasn't run by a focus group

first. But James Lee Witt, it had to be not enough money. I was sure he was going to win, he was everywhere. Just not enough money to fight the Koch heads.

[moriah]

137. Yet Pryor took Tim Hutchinson out of office, a huge favor.

Pulaski County is now represented by a Republican representative to Washington. It's shocking the change from when I was growing up and now.

[rpannier]

140. Pryor was dead in the water no matter he did (IMO)

I don't think he lost because he distanced himself from Obama like some others here seem to think or because he stood for nothing
He had the most popular politician in the whole damned state there almost everyday (Bill Clinton) and that couldn't save him
There are regions of the country where being of one party or the other is toxic
States like Arkansas are more noticeable because they are small.
When one party does really poorly it looms brighter than if a larger state like Texas, California or Florida has a shift because there are more districts. A two seat shift in Arkansas is a big deal, while in a large state is a meh.
If the San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley/San Jose/Concord area were one state all the House seats, Senate seats and state races would be won by Democrats (90%) of the time
Look at Hawaii

[99Forever]

3. How about we try running actual liberal Democrats with actual STRONG backing of the...

... national Democratic Party BEFORE we declare they can't win.



Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[MADem]

20. And watch them LOSE LOSE LOSE south of the Mason Dixon. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

79. Exactly! They just refuse to get it... eom

[sabrina 1]

86. It's never been done. So where are you getting this certainty from? We do know now

that running Republican lite isn't working anymore. So why NOT try something new and fresh that will inspire Democrats in those states and attract some of those non voters who need something to vote FOR.

I love how we keep being told 'it won't work' when it has never happened so you don't know that at all.

[MADem]

93. Landrieu lost because she was painted as "running from Obama." You know, that right winger

you guys are complaining about all the time?

Who are you going to inspire? All of the liberal leaning Dems who aren't living in LA anymore, because they've been run outta town by Katrina, couldn't afford to come home, and have put down roots elsewhere?

SMH...

[pa28]

147. As opposed to what is happening now?

We have no senators or governors in the deep south and a few conservative Democrats hanging on below the Mason Dixon line like Terry Mcauliffe.

We're already losing and if the trend holds "lost" is just around the corner.

Instead of defining ourselves as a party we've relied on the strategy of increasing the gradient of our triangulation. That strategy has failed in epic fashion.

[MADem]

149. Landrieu wasn't conservative, though. That's just a fact, no matter what a few people

who don't know her record (or don't care about it) say. Yes, she had a few biases--her state is very Catholic, and they rely on the oil industry in a BIG way--but on issues like equality, unions, health care--all the key Dem check blocks--she voted with our team.

Maybe if she HAD been more conservative, she would have fared better...?

I can tell you right now, a liberal Dem running in LA will fare as well as McGovern did against Nixon in 72.

[pa28]

153. I noticed your argument in another part of the thread involving industry bias.

Your point was noteworthy and I spent some time considering it myself. I used to live in Washington and the senators from that state were always jokingly called "Senator from Boeing".

I just don't see much evidence of being liberal if you ignore her regional bias toward the oil industry. She is a bona fide, declaration signing, third way Democrat. She voted with the caucus around 85% of the time. That's great but it ranks her as a Lieberman type Democrat.

Here is the problem the way I see it. We've triangulated as much as possible. What are we supposed to do now?

[MADem]

156. She's pro-choice. Shes pro-equality. She voted for the ACA. She's pro equal pay for equal work.

Unions like her. The NAACP likes her. Humane societies LOVE her. The NRA does NOT like her.

What more do you want? No "evidence" of being liberal? She comes from a heavily Catholic state that relies on the oil industry. They don't like that pot or any other drugs down there (though I'll bet they'll see the light when they see other states getting rich on the kind bud) and they aren't real "green" because that cuts into their oil bottom line. They like the death penalty down that way, too--it's what they do. They just aren't screaming progressives down that way. That's how people roll down there. They aren't going to "see the light" on those issues. They are local, cultural, ingrained. You gotta dance with the ones what brung you, after all.

I'd rather see her voting for the next Supreme Court justice than the nutcase who will be taking her seat in the Senate come January. And that's not "triangulating," that's being pragmatic.

You aren't going to elect anyone "more liberal" than Landrieu from that state, no matter how many earnest "All we have to do is CONVINCE them of the rightness of our vision" arguments that well meaning people (and some folks having a shitstirring laugh, I suspect) propose--it's just not going to happen. It's like expecting Vermont to elect a Klansman as their next governor. Some things just don't make sense, and a more liberal Senator from LA isn't going to happen until the demographics of that state change in a big, big way.

[pa28]

157. Her vote for the next SC justice was a primary reason I hoped she would win.

Unfortunately she didn't and now we find ourselves in a position of starting from zero in the south. In my opinion it's a good time to sit back and take stock of the situation.

You mentioned there aren't many screaming progressives around that way. Yes, that's true.

I don't think you'll ever earn their votes by promoting liberal stances on social issues. I think you can earn their votes with economic populism and as far as I know we have not tried that approach.

I just want to point out that Bernie Sanders wins by large margins in his home state even in Republican counties. Republicans vote for him because they know he has their back.

[MADem]

158. Well, Warren sure tried it with Grimes in KY. It didn't get her over the top there, either.

I hate to say it, but "Republican counties" in VT are like screaming liberal parishes in LA. Jumping Jim Jeffords, even when he was sitting on the GOP side of the aisle, was more liberal than many conservative Democrats.

It's impossible to compare, with the exception of a few craven assholes like Scott Brown and Paul LePage, New England Republicans with the rest of the GOP crowd. They're different. Even the ones that pretend to be hardasses get squishy when challenged by their own constituents. They know they balance on the razor's edge.

[Union Scribe]

171. She lost too!

So now what?

[MADem]

175. So now we're fucked for the next six years--heckuvajob.

All that shitstirring by some of the "not left enough" crowd discouraged turnout. In my neck of the woods, Democrats help Democrats get elected. That's a mysterious concept to some, apparently.

The bashing and trashing of the candidate here, on election day, was a ToS violation. But since this place has been overrun by people who apparently aren't interested in electing more Democrats and fewer Republicans, that's just not surprising anymore.

[JonLP24]

196. I do recognizd the tricky balancing act of midterms

They have to appeal to the older, wealthier, white, and conservative that show up for midterms but also not do it in a way that discourages turnout from you know, Democrats. Really, the "not left enough" crowd does not have that sort of the power over something which is a consistent and reliable trend. I will ask how does Obama bashing ads help when it comes to turnout from Democrats?

It strikes me as so bizarre that the criticisms of Democrats which have policy/idealogical criticisms of certain Democrats--basically shut up and go blue team in the context of Democrats that are bashing & trashing Obama. Why is it OK to say OBama isn't "right enough" and why the "not left crowd" should point it out?I seem to understand bashing Democrats is OK as long as you're a phony about it. How was Gene Taylor helping Democrats get elected by endorsing Bush?

[MADem]

198. Gene Taylor is now (formally) a Republican, so there's your answer!

He was an old "southern" Democrat who never got the message about the Southern Strategy, apparently. Maybe he thought it would blow over...?

The bottom line is this--people are not going to vote for "high falutin' ideas." They are going to vote for politicians that tell them that their support is going to result in benefits for THEM. Like I have said, people who can't afford to pay the light bill could really give two craps about solar panels. You need to answer immediate needs first, and then, once those needs are met, lead people to those "idea" and "vision" places. Coming at people with a finger wag about industries that are the constituents' lifeblood just isn't "on" yet some here think that's the way to go. It isn't.

Landrieu was outspent, outgunned, out-media'd and ostracized by her own party that pulled the plug on her financially. She was left to twist in the wind. The GOP saw her as vulnerable and they pulled out all the stops. They got a lot of help from bashers and trashers from within the Democratic party, sadly, who thought that crapping on ML was going to "help" somehow. All it did was elect a lunatic who will sit in her seat for six years and vote on any Supreme Court vacancy.

I don't know if any effort could have helped Landrieu, with all the cash the GOP invested in getting her out, but I thought it was unfortunate that so many Democrats aided and abetted the GOP by crapping on her with such unbridled glee.

Oh well...two years from now, Vitter's seat comes up. Supposedly Diaperboy wants to run for governor...we'll see!

[JonLP24]

195. They LOSE LOSE LOSE because they appear weak

They don't necessary have to be far away from the center but stand for something.

Instead they run Obama bashing ads, run on Republican policies (I can't speak for the general voter it strikes me as an obvious charade), run away from the President. Won't give an answer to if they voted for him or not, they end up appearing cowardly.

Watch -- depending on Obama's end term popularity polling, you'll see main stream party candidates like a Hillary Clinton set up an Obama bashing campaign while a Bernie Sanders would be the sort of candidate that would defend him, based on honestly the job he's done as President. He is very specific in what he praises & what he criticizes and generally defends Obama's record which is based on policy rather than a narrative to appeal to whatever demographics.

[MADem]

199. I think they're spending too much time telling people how they "ought" to think

instead of telling people how Democrats can HELP them in their daily lives.

The whole "running against Obama" theme was crafted by the GOP, taken up by the "lamestream" media, and aided and abetted by some easily-led Democrats who will buy any bullshit. That trifecta of naysayers pushed candidates into a "With him or agin' him" theme -- and some allowed themselves to be bullied.

I think it is foolish, as well, and I agree that politicians shouldn't buy into it. They should tell people to go straight to hell when they try to box them into that gotcha corner.

[Kalidurga]

4. I would rather skip purity tests altogether

not on the huge issues like income inequality I won't vote for someone who robs from the poor to pay the rich. I won't vote for someone who isn't pro choice. But, we can have disagreements in other areas. Maybe because I am as far left as it comes I recognize not everyone is going to be able to meet my expectations.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. But what you are saying is that you have your standards but that anyone else's are negotiable.

It's sort of funny reading that. No tests, except for my two tests.

[Kalidurga]

42. Well in a relationship there are deal breakers

same thing in politics

[MFrohike]

5. Boring

This whole line of argument over conservative Democrats was a lot more interesting before they started going extinct. The simple truth is that they're almost entirely gone and only, ONLY, Landrieu can be remotely blamed on some kind of purity test. If conservative Democrats were such great candidates, they'd have won in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014.

[JI7]

11. Landrieu did win multiple times before but I don't consider her a conservative

[MFrohike]

17. She is and was

She's a fiscal conservative, which is the real defining line of liberalism and conservatism. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative already has a label: libertarian.

That being said, my point is that the conservative wing of the party is dying because they no longer can win. They didn't get primaried, they didn't get outspent by the left, they lost general elections.

[JI7]

60. then so is Schumer who certainly is not going anywhere

And he is in a state that's far left compared to LA

[MFrohike]

72. True

I didn't really feel like writing a long post delineating the differences between the different regions of the US and how that affects elections. I should have mentioned that limousine liberalism, social>fiscal, has reigned in the northeast for very long time and that lunchbucket liberalism, fiscal>social, is the dominant form in the southeast. When viewed through that prism, it becomes apparent why Schumer, more than a little Republican on economics, is continually re-elected. It also explains a good portion of why the Blue Dogs are dead and why Mary Landrieu will be job hunting.

[JI7]

77. no. because republicans winning are fiscal conservatives

It's the race issue which is hurting democrats in the south

[MADem]

102. Oh please--that's the "real defining line" -- because YOU say so?

Fiscal conservatives are people who believe in (shock) paying their bills. George Bush was a "fiscal liberal" then, the way he ran up the deficit and burned through the national credit rating with his spend-spend-spending on his favorite wars.

You're very inventive with your definitions. Good thing they're not controlling.

[MADem]

25. But Landrieu was not a "conservative" Democrat. She was a liberal Democrat with

a bias favoring one of her state's Big Industries. That's the same bias anyone who runs in that state has--regardless of party.

[MFrohike]

34. Hahaha

I guess when the American Conservative Union gave her a score of 40% in 2007, they were thinking of the other Mary Landrieu. Incidentally, she rated more conservative than 2 Republicans in that year.

[MADem]

87. OK, we're gonna play a numbers game, are we? And go back seven years to do it? "Ha ha ha?"

The Human Rights Campaign gave her an 89% score. Liberal enough for you?

The NAACP gave her an 86% rating. Liberal enough for you?

She was given a 91 % score by the NEA for her "liberal" POV towards education. You feel me?

The Christian Coalition hated her--they only gave her a 16% rating.

The Humane Society Legislative Fund gave her a 100% rating for her pro-animal welfare views.

The NRA gave her a "C-" ... guess she's not a darling of the gun set.

She supports unions sufficiently to get a 77% from the AFL-CIO.

Mary Landrieu is a Moderate Liberal.

And that's about as good as you are gonna get south of the Mason-Dixon. No amount of exhortation will improve that -- there is no appetite for far left liberal politicians in that neck of the woods.

She was WELL to the left of the guy who beat her. And she's well to the left of the current junior, soon to be senior, senator from LA, Diaper Boy Vitter. You think LA will elect someone more liberal if you stomp your foot and insist? Dream ON. They just aren't wired that way.

[JI7]

55. She was pro choice and supported same sex marriage

[Scootaloo]

75. And she lost. do you think the democratic party should abandon those platforms, in order to win?

[JI7]

82. no. I was giving an example of her liberal positions

[Scootaloo]

99. And you argue liberals lose in red states.

Well, Landrieu lost, and you just outlined her liberal positions.

Do you want to win or not?

[JI7]

107. I'm happy with someone like Landrieu

In LA

She lost mostly due to racism and loss of some black people from the state after Katrina.

She won multiple times before.

[Scootaloo]

114. Katrina was nine years ago, and Landrieu didn't lose in 2008. That thesis doesn't work

Landieu lost this election. Presumably if he ran, hse would lose th next one as well.

So, Landieu's a loser. and you insist that we cannot even entertain the notion of running someone more liberal than her (and there is a lot of room to be "more liberal" than Mary Landrieu, frankly)

well, that only leaves one option - more conservative. As I explain to DanTex, if we're going to run more conservative candidates, that means, by definition, sacrificing liberla positions in those races.

I want to know what positions you're cool with burning, in order to "win."

After all, winning is all that matters.

[JI7]

115. landrieu lost some of the racist white voters who

Previously supported her.

[AgingAmerican]

117. AND

Which Republican crap 'ideas' do these folks suggest we must embrace?

[Scootaloo]

127. That's what I'm trying to find out. They get very tight-lipped when you ask

[MADem]

159. Maybe it would have helped if some of the people trashing her would have gotten out the vote for her

instead.

This website, for example, was a bashing/trashing/depressing turnout festival against Landrieu ON ELECTION Day. People were quite pleased with their "Don't let the door hit her in the ass" posts. Never mind that pesky ToS, they just had to shit on her during a general election runoff.

With friends like that, Mary didn't need any enemies.

All she needed was a few Democrats to stand up and vote, to support her, to urge others to support her because she would have been a vote for OUR TEAM on things like cabinet officials and the next Supreme Court justice, instead of the usual "too cool" snarking and mocking.

No need for her to change her positions--just for a few Democrats to see the forest for the trees, and help her to GOTV.

Too late now, though. The Pyrrhic victory belongs to the Know-it-Alls who didn't find her sufficiently "liberal," I guess.

[AgingAmerican]

169. So you're saying....

She lost because 'liberals' didn't like her policies? Well then perhaps she should have changed them?

[MADem]

181. No, I'm saying what I said. nt

[MADem]

98. The poster is responding to the suggestion that Landrieu is some kind of closet Dem wingnut.

It's not true, but these falsehoods tend to travel halfway round the world before the truth gets outta bed in the morning. And people who should know better tend to repeat them. I can only wonder why.

[Andy823]

120. I wonder why also.

Seems like there is a lot of post these days with falsehoods about the president, the party, and democratic politicians. Posters put some BS remark in a post but when asked to back it up the can't so they just seem to keep ignoring those who ask for some actually facts. The sad thing is there are a lot of followers who simply accept what their favorite "anti" everything poster posts and then they spread it around as fact. Like you I have to wonder why.

[moriah]

135. You forget the events surrounding Arkansas sending only its second red Senator ever in 2010?

I lived here during that time. In this very conservative Bible-belt state, having a Senator with a 89% rating from the HRC and a 16% rating from the Christian Coalition, and a 0% from the National Right to Life Committee rocked, and I was proud. She had her issues and I wrote to her myself begging her not to take certain votes near the end, but I also knew how people around me felt about those issues and was aware my voice was probably drowned out among those here like who thought like the lady holding the sign that said "No Pubic Option".

People either took for granted that Arkansas's Democratic base would continue to send up blue senators, or decided that it didn't matter if we lost the seat in the feelings of victory after having a majority in all three branches, and sent a ton of money in to smear her during a vicious primary, damaging Blanche for the general election. Halter didn't win the primary, and couldn't have swung Arkansas anyway. John Boozman, her opponent and my representative at the time, was viciously pro-life, along with every way a teabagger conservative and all it entails. I knew absolutely I did not want him as my Senator. Republicans realized they could gain ground here after we decided to turn on our own, and used it to their advantage. Now the entire fucking state is red after Republicans decided it was worth spending real money here, including all of the people we're sending to Washington.

I continue voting Democrat, and I hope that it can change. Even if my state can not send up Dems like Elizabeth Warren, Pryor and Lincoln were far better than the two who will be answering my letters in January. It's all I can do. But when we eat our own in primary debates -- at the state level and elsewhere -- rather than trying for real discussion and comparison and contrast of beliefs and how we want the party to go, we're screwing up to the other party's advantage.

[JI7]

6. it's mostly internet talk. look at feinstein in california

And nobody is actually going to put in the effort to try to get Someone more liberal.

And considering the wingnuts republicans keep running almost any dem will win.

[pa28]

7. Conservative Democrats don't win Senate elections in states like Louisiana either.

All Senate seats in the south and all governorships are now controlled by Republicans and no amount of political triangulating could stop it.

If you are guaranteed to lose anyway why stick with a losing tactic. Why not stand with working people for a change.

[stevenleser]

45. She won three times. Can we stop pretending that this never happened? nt

[pa28]

62. I was stating fact. Not trying to pretend. n/t

[stevenleser]

64. Your attempt to state fact failed. She won three times. nt

[pa28]

70. I never claimed that.

She lost decisively this time. That is also fact.

[stevenleser]

71. You used the phrase "they don't win". That implies always. You were wrong. nt

[pa28]

97. I was talking in the present tense. So I hate to break it to you but you are wrong.

That is unless you can show me some conservative southern Democrats who will sit in the Senate or occupy govenorships next year. If you want to continue along with the semantics arguments just save it.

[donco]

8. Kinda makes

you wonder what our purists would think of a teabagger setting in Landrieus seat when a Supreme Court nominee comes up eh?

[B Calm]

9. So screw the democratic base in red states?

[99Forever]

12. Yup.

That's the message. Shut up and eat your peas, you don't get a voice or any representation.

The Turd Way has spoken so shall it be.

[MADem]

40. Sounds to me it's the "Far Left or Die" Wing that has spoken. Screw you, south! We can do it

without you!!!! Don't run a candidate that will win in those states and will vote with the Democrats on key issues like health care, Supreme Court nominations, and cabinet picks--instead, INSIST that the Democrats run a far leftie who will be laughed off the debate stage because he doesn't appeal to the LOCAL audience.

Yeah, it's funny how "some factions" think that they can do it without "those people" from the south. Only we CAN'T do it without them--we need representation from all regions, and some of those representatives are going to have the NERVE to represent the business interests of their state. They may not be "liberal enough" for Vermont, but they're just fine for places like LA and TX and VA.

[moriah]

81. Quite well put, MADem. +100. n/t

[SidDithers]

91. 50 State Strategy!!...

How many times have we heard the far-left fringe longing for, pleading for, the return of Howard Dean and the 50 State Strategy?

Are they foolish enough to think Dean would suggest running a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren in all 50 states?

Sid

[MADem]

113. Howard Dean agrees with ME, too--the worst Dem is better than the best Republican!

Howard Dean would be running Landrieus all over the south, and making sure they had the money, the ground game, the advisors, and the field workers to Bring It Home.

They do actually think that a Bernie wouldn't get laughed outta town. They think that what THEY like is what people with a different mindset, a different attitude, a more religious culture, a more conservative culture, would embrace, when in actual fact, still-very-Catholic Louisiana is not going to jump up and kiss these more lefty POVs. They just aren't. And mocking, deriding and demanding ain't gonna change that.

[treestar]

123. Probably

[Agschmid]

136. It's a pretty foolish thought if you ask me.

Good post.

[okaawhatever]

160. Amen. I'm amazed at the people on here who are their own enemies. nt

[MADem]

161. I think some don't understand.

Some do understand, and should know better.

And some have an agenda that doesn't do our national party any favors.

[okaawhatever]

162. +100 nt

[Union Scribe]

172. What did we do that cost her the election?

Fucking hell. You guys run the candidates you want then still blame the left.

[MADem]

174. "You" stayed home, and some of "you" took to the internet to shit all over her on election day.

"You" showed us, didn't ya!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

177. You've got crosstabs to show who 'stayed home'?

Last I heard, her problem wasn't people 'staying home', it was people deciding to vote for the Republican. But maybe I heard wrong. So what are the numbers to show 'who' stayed home?

(And my comments 'on election day' were made after the announcement she'd lost, so couldn't have 'depressed voting'.

[MADem]

183. You don't have access to newspapers or a search engine, is that it?

Every report says that voter turnout was down, and the Black vote stayed home in droves. Her problem WAS "people staying home" and an incessant drumbeat of negativity coming from media assets and internet gadflies. With Democratic friends like that, who needs enemies.

I wasn't referring to you, personally, because I don't track timestamps on your (or anyone else's) posts, but interesting you'd leap to say that. If you doubt this happened, all you need to do is use the search engine in the right corner, type in Landrieu's name, and start reading. Plenty of people who should have known better were "bashing and trashing" her while the polls were open. Not DU's finest hour.



http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/runoff-louisiana-gop-one-more-senate-seat

Also working against the incumbent was the fact that the electorate in runoff elections tends to be whiter than that for regular elections. In early voting for the runoff, Democratic turnout was down 18% compared to early voting for the November 4 election. On the Republican side, it was up 4%.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/06/cassidy-landrieu-senate-runoff/20000201/

Landrieu, 59, focused on maximizing turnout among black voters, but the breakdown of people casting early ballots suggested they would not participate in large numbers.

[JI7]

13. The dem base in Louisiana voted for landrieu

Landrieu won the black vote

[B Calm]

21. and how many stayed home? Also why has the democratic base in Louisiana

Continued to shrink year after year with Landrieu in office? I think it was because she was not giving the voters in her state a choice to vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

[JI7]

36. katrina and she lost some of the racist white vote

That had previously supported her

[MADem]

41. Stayed home?? They never made it home--they're living in Houston and scattered to the four winds

thanks to Katrina....

[SidDithers]

16. Is that the democratic base that chose to make waffles instead of voting for the Democrat in LA?..nt

Sid

[B Calm]

30. They didn't see a democrat on the ticket for the senate!

[JI7]

66. there were more liberal candidates in november

But they seem to have day out that election also

[treestar]

122. The Republicans will be happy to

They aren't the base if they stayed home.

[SidDithers]

10. DU rec...

Well said.

Sid

[BrotherIvan]

27. Ha!

[neverforget]

188. Why was that hidden?

[BrotherIvan]

190. Because Sid is all powerful

[MADem]

14. Are you kidding? And ruin the fact-free ire?

Your point is entirely valid, but don't expect the "There is only ONE type of REAL Democrat, and I OWN the Definition" crowd to buy off on the entirely logical point you made.

If we're going to run far left people in places where even the solid-voting, reliable, check writing, registered Democrats aren't feeling that attitude, we will LOSE.

So you have to wonder, who are these people who want us to lose? And why do they want us to go down with their ship? Why do they insist that their definition of perfect is the enemy of everyone else's good (or good enough)?

The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican, IMO. There's a truth that more people should hold self-evident.

Mary Landrieu was a liberal Democrat who had an "all politics is local" view towards the local industry of oil refining/production/transshipment. It's the same view that the bulk of the population has, there. Instead of having her in the Senate, voting for sane Supreme Court justices, there's a teabagging nutbag in her seat come January. And there are people who call themselves Democrats who are GLEEFUL about that shit.

SMDH.

[SidDithers]

22. I think the right-wing efforts of trolling "from the left" have begun to pay off...

convince enough TRUE LIBERALS™ that any Democrat not 100% pure is not worth voting for, and the Republican will win.

Every fucking time.

Sid

[MADem]

44. It's pretty obvious to me, too. The right wing is nothing if not relentless, and I think they've

hit on a successful formula, and they've enlisted a number of useful tools who bought their spurious argument.

I hope they're happy. They have to live with this shit they've created.

[stevenleser]

47. Sad that more than a few here have succumbed to that not very sophisticated Jedi mind trick of a

tactic.

[SidDithers]

56. Perfect...

"These aren't the Democrats you're looking for"

Sid

[Scootaloo]

59. So, how far to the right should the democratic party move?

Tell me. What liberal positions do you want to see torched and scattered in the name of victory, Sid? I'm certain you have a laundry list of them

[SidDithers]

84. The liberal policy positions that Landrieu held are gone now. You got nothing in their place...

Her energy policy positions, which purists hated, are entirely reasonable in her district, given the importance of the oil business in LA.

She was pro-choice, pro gun control, voted for ACA, and pro marriage equality.

And the waffle making purists, who are so fucking proud to have stayed at home. have thrown those 4 liberal positions away, because the Senator from Louisiana - which is as much an oil state as Texas - also voted in support of Keystone.

Now, a pro-life, pro-gun, ACA-hating, anti same-sex shitbag has the seat. And his position on energy is the same as Landrieu's.



So, the better question to you is, how many liberal positions held by Landrieu are you and the other purists willing to throw away, because a Senator from an energy state voted for Keystone? Louisiana still has someone who's going to vote for Keystone, but they've lost everything else.

Nothing. Not a fucking thing, was gained by liberal purists, in trading Landrieu for Cassidy. And much was lost.

Sid

[Scootaloo]

95. You're the one arguing that we must run conservatives and liberalism has no chance.

So. I want specifics. What would you cut out of hte party platform in order to win in "red states" sid?

[SidDithers]

101. No, I'm the one arguing that staying home and making waffles instead of voting in a run-off election

is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

Nothing had to be cut from the party platform for Landrieu to beat Cassidy. All that had to happen was for voters to vote.

Instead, purists decided to stay home - as evidenced by one of them boasting about their choice to do exactly that, right here on DU earlier today.

Sid

[Scootaloo]

106. Actually the voters DID vote.

Louisiana was one of the few states that had a higher turnout than was predicted.

So. Again, please outline what liberal platforms you think candidates need to scrap, in order to ensure wins in red states.

Come on Sid. let's see what you're willing to burn to the ground in hopes of a democrat win

[SidDithers]

112. I already answered your fucking question...

Nothing needs to be removed from the party platform. Democrats in Louisiana are always going to support the oil industry. That's a given.

But so are the fucking Conservatives - so that issue is a wash.

On the other important issues, Landrieu supported Democratic position. And purist Dems hung her out to dry.

Dems need to support Dems. Especially in a run-off election.

Would you have voted for her, Scootaloo? Or would you have sat it out, and made yourself some waffles?

Sid

[SidDithers]

138. Would you have voted for her, Scootaloo?...

Or would you have sat it out, and made yourself some waffles?

Sid

[neverforget]

83. Lol!

[alp227]

63. MADem, do you know why "RINO's" win statewide elections in Massachusetts?

I'm talking Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, and most recently Charlie Baker. They don't exactly get much praise from our FRiends. And every gubernatorial candidate in the 1990s. Funny thing is that in the same election in 1994, William Weld (R) won re-election as governor with near 70% of vote, AND Ted Kennedy (D) won Senate re-election over Romney's challenge with 58% of the vote. Although MA is a reliably blue state normally, it seems that voters there would rather have a moderate Republican in office than uninteresting Democrat.

[MADem]

129. Because MA is a SEXIST STATE.

Look at the OPPONENTS of those three you mentioned. Notice anything, particularly?? Hmmm?

What was their gender, again? Hint--they weren't packing meat and two veg.

You don't have a sense of the reality in MA. You're thesis is way, way, WAY off.

Ted Kennedy won elections with EASE in MA since 1962 when he went to the Senate-- even when he was high as a kite on coke and booze, before he did the rehab thing. Why do you think this is remarkable that he could beat some clown from Michigan by way of Utah that pretended he had a connection (beyond pillaging companies) in MA. If you're a member of the Kennedy clan, that's good for twenty points before you even start campaigning. If you have a record of constituent services going back to the 1960s, you're NOT going to lose. Ted was part of the fabric of MA politics since Jack was a Congressman. I mean, why even bring him up? Romney spent a fortune on that race and STILL got his ass handed to him by a guy that was seriously messed up on booze and Colombian marching powder.

As for Bill Weld, look who he was RUNNING against, why doncha? No local Dem even wanted to oppose him because he was to the left of most of them in many respects. Your example. again, is illustrative of nothing. A carpetbagger with no ties to MA, from PA and OH, who never spent a minute in the state. No one knew that guy--and since Weld was such a screaming liberal (relatively speaking) anyway, it was six of one, half dozen of the other. Why fix what ain't broke? Having a GOP (fake) governor kept MA out of hot water in GOP presidential years (remember Jesse Helms' refusal to vet Weld as ambassador to Mexico?). And you apparently don't realize that in Weld's time, the MA governorship was a "weak executive" model. To some extent, it still is, though more authority has accrued to the corner office. Anything that the governor does that the OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURE doesn't like gets shot down. If the governor vetoes something that the OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURE wants, they override.

It sucks that we have to deal with Money Boo Hoo Baker because of the sexist nature of our Commonwealth, but the MA state legislature will keep that empty suit in check.

[Scootaloo]

18. "liberals don't win senate elections in states like Louisiana" - neither does Mary Landrieu

So. How far to the right do you want Democrats to go for that seat? Are you advocating running Waymire next time, DanTex?

Oh! I know. Maybe we can woo David Duke back to the democratic party so he can aim for that seat. The dukester's bound to be conservative enough to win, don't you think?

[BootinUp]

24. How do you explain her holding the seat---

Just curious.

I was way off, she was Senator for 3 terms or 18 years not 30.

[Scootaloo]

33. I don't know. Could be any number of things

I do know that this argument of "we must right-wing the fuck up!" is a horrid, disgusting idea, though.

[DanTex]

26. She won three times, I think. Against the odds.

I don't know who Waymire is, but I'm glad that Landrieu won in 2008, otherwise there would have been no Obamacare. Would you have preferred running someone like Elizabeth Warren in Louisiana who would have had no chance?

[Scootaloo]

51. and she lost this time. You insist liberals can't win, so we shouldn't bother

So. your center-right candidate lost, and you refuse to entertain the notion of even trying to run a liberal. The only solution is to run someo0ne to the right of Landrieu. and if htey lose, run someone to the right of that and so on and so forth.

[DanTex]

61. I don't think liberals can win in Louisiana. It's tough even for conservative Dems.

I'd be all for running liberals in red states if they could win. But I think that's delusional thinking. When was the last time a liberal won in a deep red state?

[Scootaloo]

68. What liberal policies and positions do you advocate abandoning in order to "win"?

[DanTex]

78. None. The exact opposite, in fact.

More liberal policies will be enacted if more Democrats are elected to the Senate. That's the whole point of this.

The real question is, what conservative policies are you willing to see enacted by Republicans as a consequence of running only liberals in deep red states.

[Scootaloo]

89. Running more conservative candidates menas dumping more liberal positions

You can't have both. and you clearly REFUSE to entertai nthe notion of running liberals.

So I want specifics. What liberal platforms are you willing ot see burned, in order to "win"?

[DanTex]

96. Only in conservative states. In blue states, we should run liberals.

I'm not willing to see any liberal platforms burned. But I would rather have a Democrat with some conservative views than a Republican. What conservative views? Take your pick. I'd rather have a pro-life Dem than a Republican (who is also going to be pro-life). I'd rather have a pro-Keystone Dem than a Republican (who is also going to be pro-Keystone). Etc.

Now your turn. What policies would you be willing to have Republicans pass through congress for the luxury of running liberal candidates that lose in red states?

[Scootaloo]

103. So you'll abandon women and the environment. That's two things. What else?

Remember, DanTex, YOU are the one making the argument Liberals can't win and we shouldn't bother. I know that you're uncomfortable outlining what right-wing teabag bullshit you're willing to sell off on in order to get that all-important win, but this is your position, your argument, and you need to be willing to back it up.

[DanTex]

111. LOL. No. I wouldn't abandon anything. Like I've said many times.

I'm saying I'd rather see a pro-life Dem than a Republican in the Senate. Which would you rather have? Are you going to answer?

A pro-life Dem versus a Republican isn't "abandoning women" because the Republican is also going to be pro-life. On the other hand, opting for a Republican rather than a pro-life Dem is effectively abandoning every other issue except for choice. In fact, it also means abandoning choice to a certain extent because it gives the Republican party more power period.

Also, the argument I'm making is that liberals can't win in deep red states. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Go ahead, convince me that a liberal can win in Louisiana or Oklahoma or Wyoming.

[Scootaloo]

125. Convince you?

The only way for liberals to win in these places, is for them to run, with party support - including from people like you. When you carry the Tea Party's water for them, by insisting Liberals are losers, you make it self-fulfilling.

There's this thing called "principles." My principles tell me it is better to make the effort of running a Bernie Sanders liberal and losing, than running a Bull Connor conservative and willing.

The only way for liberalism to prevail, is to push liberalism, to advocate liberalism, to run and endorse and support and vote for liberals.

You want liberalism? You're not going to get it by filling congress with conservatives. What a dumb fucking idea that is!

[DanTex]

132. Yes. Convince me that it's possible. I don't see it. At all.

I don't see any shred of evidence that a Bernie Sanders liberal could win in a state like Louisiana. Yes, I get that if liberals don't run there, they can't win, but the problem is, they also can't win if they do run. At some point, we need to deal with reality.

The reality we saw in 2008 is that Obamacare, the most significant social legislation in a generation, would not have passed if the Dems didn't have a supermajority which included some conservatives/moderates. If the Dems had insisted on liberal candidates across the board, there would be no Obamacare today.

I agree with pushing and advocating for liberalism. I don't agree with sacrificing actual policy objectives in favor of some quixotic attempt to get a Bernie Sanders elected senator in Louisiana.

[Capt. Obvious]

168. Against the crushing odds of

having the biggest name in LA politics and massive war chests.

[alp227]

74. I wonder if Huey Long would win in Louisiana nowadays.

The Louisiana Democratic Party has been pretty much irrelevant since Jindal's first election. In 2007 and 2011, the Democrats who ran in the "jungle primary" gubernatorial elections managed to get only 30% of the vote. Way down from 2003, when NINE Democrats got over 51% of the vote (Kathleen Blanco won the runoff vs. Jindal).

Before there was Bernie Sanders, there was Huey Long as the most outspoken populist Senator of his day.

[AverageJoe90]

133. There are few Southern Dems from that era who wouldn't be Repigs today.....

Huey Long is probably one of only a very few, and Claude Pepper and Lawton Chiles in Florida, and maybe a couple of others I'd missed.

[RufusTFirefly]

23. I question the fundamental premise

You mean to suggest that people in Lousiana don't want clean air and water, safe streets, safe food, a decent education and future for their kids, a living wage, the prospect of retiring with comfort and dignity, and the knowledge that an unexpected or extended illness in the family won't bankrupt them?

[DanTex]

29. I'm suggesting that people in Louisiana, on average are more conservative than people in say

California, which means they aren't going to vote in a Bernie Sanders. Do you disagree? With what part? Do you not think that some states are more conservative than others?

[RufusTFirefly]

37. Which goal that I listed would not sit well with regular folks in Louisiana? n/t

[DanTex]

38. They'd agree with the goals. But not the policies that you and I think will achieve those goals.

[RufusTFirefly]

46. Democrats should run WITH these ideals not run AWAY from them

Quit pulling your punches out of fear that if you don't you'll lose. That's exactly why we DO lose.

[alp227]

76. The state that once elected Huey Long wouldn't vote for a Sanders?

If anything, elections should be about competing ideas, not similar ideas with different party labels.

[DanTex]

80. That was a long time ago. I'm talking about the present.

[on point]

28. No. How about we get dems that will actually fight for the dem positions and make the case for them

instead of 'agreeing' with pukes and helping to legitimize their horrible positions. Fight instead. This is a long term effort and requires that the repuke nonsense be called out always and everywhere so that people know it is junk science, junk economics, and is against the interests of average people and only for the .01%

[DanTex]

35. I agree with the fighting, but I disagree that the Louisiana senate election is the right place for

this battle to take place.

[B Calm]

43. How do you know if we don't try? Apparently running a right winger as a democrat didn't work!

Did it!

[RufusTFirefly]

50. Maybe if we run even FURTHER to the right, that will finally do the trick

[B Calm]

69. That's their message. Beam me up Scotty!

[DanTex]

57. It worked 3 times before this. Like I said, without wins by her and other conservative Dems in 2008

there would have been no supermajority and no ACA.

[OilemFirchen]

108. Like Wendy Davis!

Excuses to follow...

[still_one]

31. You mean like New Jersey, where many wonderful local democratic politicians supported Christie?

[stevenleser]

53. And what conclusion do you think we should draw from that? nt

[still_one]

67. That we Democrats have a major problem, and it isn't just in the red states. When Lieberman a life

long Democrat endorsed and worked with mccain against the Democratic party, something very wrong is happening.

When Chuck Schumer trashes the ACA along with President Obama, joining other so-called Democrats, one really has to wonder what is happening to our party, and what values do they stand for?

My point, our party needs to be cleaned up. We need new blood that actually stands for Democratic values.

[alp227]

85. wow...didn't know this about schumer

Top Democrat says Obama focus on healthcare in 2009 was mistake

Sheesh no wonder people are turned off by Democrats. They lack the courage to stand by their convictions.

[still_one]

100. It sure is depressing

[JI7]

121. But shouldn't that have resulted in those dems losing

[BrotherIvan]

32. MOAR RIGHT!

Or maybe, people who wanted to vote against her were more motivated to go to the polls than those who would vote for her. Or maybe it's voting out incumbents. If your life hasn't gotten any better during a politician's term(s) should you vote for them again?

[onecaliberal]

39. Landrieu wouldn't stand an ice cubes chance in hell

Of getting elected in most California districts.

[stevenleser]

54. And what does that suggest to you? That California and Louisiana have very different voters. nt

[onecaliberal]

90. That's a big fat sack of duh!

Our party supposedly has a platform of things that we are for. When you run people who won't even admit they are also for those things, don't be surprised when they lose.
I don't know why this is so difficult. How about you stop doing the same things over and over and wondering why you're getting the same stinking results....

[stevenleser]

109. Obviously it's not a 'duh' because you still don't get it. First of all, Landrieu won three times.

Please feel free to point me to another Democrat who has won three statewide races in a row in the deepest of red states like Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana.

I'll save you the trouble. We don't have any. So insomuch as we are looking for a template for someone who can be successful, Landrieu is it.

The moment you find someone who represents your side of the argument, you tell me.

Until then, you've lost the argument.

[onecaliberal]

142. People in LA saw her for the corporate puppet she is.

After she threatened POTUS with the budget to protect her rich oil buddies what the hell do you expect?
We can't keep doing the same things over and over and wondering why we lose. She couldn't even be counted on as a sure dem vote on civil rights issues. Your argument is a loser, it will continue to be a loser. If you can't run someone who agrees with our platform you will lose. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that simple reality. People are done with third way corporate 1% protectors.

[Recursion]

154. And voted overwhelmingly for a bigger corporate puppet?

Doesn't sound like the "corporate puppet" thing is what bothered people

[Spitfire of ATJ]

191. Being a wolf in sheeps clothing was what turned people off.

[Recursion]

192. No. It takes a lot of gymnastics to argue that a state

dumping a Democrat for someone much more conservative means that being too conservative was what they disliked about the democrat. I realize your narrative depends on those gymnastics, but still. If you step back, it doesn't sound even a little silly to you?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

194. What's silly is pretending liberal ideas are unpopular.

[B Calm]

143. So with that type of logic the next Democratic Senator from Louisiana will have to be even more

right wing than Landrieu, if that's even possible!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

105. It suggests to me that we still have people believing Republicans,....

....even though they lied us into a war. That's because they are CONVINCED the alternative is "Demoncrats".

It's the churches they go to, the radio they listen to and the TV they watch all agreeing with each other that their very freedom is at stake and if the Dems win than Jesus will hate America because blacks will get welfare and all the kids will turn queer.

All hail Reagan.

[stevenleser]

110. Nope, see my #109. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

119. That's the same argument the DLC shoved at us with Bill Clinton....

It was pretty much, "Sit down and shut up, we won twice as Conservadems, America has rejected Liberal ideas."

[onecaliberal]

144. Exactly! I'm done with corporate candidates and reps.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

146. They would tell you to hush up as they go to a fundraiser with Exxon/Mobil....

Then flash the cash as proof of how "wrong" you are.

[sadoldgirl]

49. As far as I can judge

all this does not make much sense.

The party decides who shall run after they have been paid
sufficiently. So just forget democrats and vote for the D.
Just do what you are told, and no more questions.

[elleng]

52. Yes, THANKS!

[DonCoquixote]

58. hey

I am all for taking blue that are supposedly in Blue States and slapping them into pulp because they vote right wing.

[stevenleser]

65. That makes way too much sense for some here. nt

[B Calm]

73. Really sad. .

[aspirant]

88. Just a thought

How about we stir up the pot a little bit. Let's take the south and run black progressive dems, maybe even preachers. We won't have to worry about black turnout, plus the true white progressives either. Then we will see the purity of the centrist third-wayers when it comes to allegiance to the dem party.

Maybe this will wake-up some of our northern brothers and sisters after they see some of the shenanigans that ensue. It may also keep alive the outage of police killings.

We're losing now, so what more do we have to lose!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. And without her we would have had single payer.

[B Calm]

150. BINGO!

[moriah]

152. You truly believe that?

Please show me sourcing, because I missed that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

155. Trouble using "the google"?...

Last edited Mon Dec 8, 2014, 02:43 AM - Edit history (1)

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64301-landrieu-blasts-public-option

http://singlepayerhealthcarenow.com/2009/06/09/mary-landrieu-opposed-to-public-health-care-option/

http://www.correntewire.com/mary_landrieu_lies_about_single_payer_on_her_way_out_the_door_so_good_riddance

http://blueamerica.crooksandliars.com/tags/mary-landrieu

She teamed up with Lieberman at one point.

Here's another:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/landrieu-under-very-few-if-any-circumstances-would-i-support-a-public-option?ref=fpb

[moriah]

163. I later on, after I posted, saw her comments, but she was far from the only one....

... against a public option. So if you were being factual, yes, I was wanting to know why you believed her vote was somehow pivotal. Sorry, as I said, I obviously did miss something. Guess you can see what I think of her claim based on my "news to me" reaction to it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

164. Keep in mind that ANY Dem that votes with a Republican is used for the "bipartisan" claim.

[DanTex]

166. Umm, no, without her we would have had nothing.

Single payer was never in the cards, period. If we replaced moderate/conservative Dems in 2008 with liberals, we would have had a public option, which is not the same thing.

The problem is, without Landrieu, we wouldn't have had a liberal Dem from Louisiana. Instead we would have had Republican that would have joined a filibuster, and the result would have been no Obamacare at all.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

173. Okay, that's funny calling her a liberal Dem from Louisiana.

[DanTex]

176. I didn't call her a liberal Dem. Go back and read it again.

I said the choice wasn't between Landrieu and a liberal Dem. It was between Landrieu and a Republican.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

186. Oh sure, I feel SO much better having Landrieu killing single payer than a Republican.

[DanTex]

187. Do you understand that with a Republican there would have been no ACA at all?

I'm not happy about the public option being killed either, but I'm still glad that ACA passed. That's my point.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

189. Do you understand that the big battle to get it passed was fought Dem on Dem because of her type?

[DanTex]

200. Yes. Of course. Now your turn.

Do you understand that with a Republican in her place there would have been no ACA? And also, that the options for states like Louisiana are between people like Landrieu and Republicans?

Because if you do, it's pretty simple. Go for the lesser of two evils. Try to push the party as a whole to the left, and make sure that liberals get elected in blue states. But in red states, take whatever we can get.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

201. Uh huh, sure. It was less of a battle to get Olympia Snow than it was to get Landrieu....

She put up such a stink there were Republicans on Sunday Talk claiming the bill HAD to be bad because "members of the 'democrat party' opposed it".

[DanTex]

202. Yeah, but bottom line, without 60 Dems, no Obamacare.

The Republican replacement for Landrieu wouldn't have been an Olympia Snowe. And Snowe voted against Obamacare.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

203. So what you are saying is only a con artist can win in the South....

Pretend to be a shitkicker until actually needed and then vote with the party.

I don't agree.

But then I know liberal ideas can win in the South because I don't run away from them.

[DanTex]

204. Well, I wouldn't put it in those words, but basically, yes.

I don't think a liberal can win in the South. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but I think it's delusional to think otherwise. At least right now. Maybe in 20 years things will be different.

I don't think we should let people like Landrieu drive where the Democratic party is going. Quite the opposite. But, as far as the South and deep red states generally are concerned, I say if we can get anyone in there with a "D" who caucuses with the party and votes with the Dems on most issues, that's a win.

The movement to the left should take place in blue states. For example, Joe Lieberman. There's no way that the Dems should have tolerated someone that far right in a state like Connecticut.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

205. The demographics in the South have changed. The old white racists are dying off...

They're being replaced by a new generation of young people who don't see the need to keep the whole redneck, good old boy, talkin' with a rag in yer mouth archetype alive. Plus there's the mobility as people look for work. A lot of people from the South are moving out of the South and people from the North are moving in.

Then there's the constant propaganda flooding the South. To them it's a choice between being a patriotic American or voting for a party that wants to take away your right to smoke outside in your own yard.

[DanTex]

206. Well, I hope you're right.

When I lived in Texas, I could feel the greater conservatism vs now when I live in NYC. That was only a few years ago, and I am a young person (umm, let's say "relatively young" at this point...).

[MisterP]

94. Landrieu's campaign was "you can hardly tell I'm a Dem!": no "purity test" hampered her

from getting as much oil money as she could fundraise

Landrieu's loss in fact disproves every character of your OP--if its intent was to get more Dems seated and not keep dragging the party further right, as it's been since '89

[vkkv]

104. Ignorance or lazyness to get out and vote is

no excuse for Red State voters.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. What about the liberals in red states? Should the candidates ignore them?

Which is what Landrieu and her ilk usually do.

[LynneSin]

126. I call BULLSHIT!! She won in 2008 on the back of Obama's popularity and high voter turnout for HIM

Else she would have sunk 6 years ago.

Six years later she thanks those voters who supported her 6 years ago by saying FUCK YOU and turning her back on them. I don't feel sorry for her.

[moriah]

151. Really. Her state voted 40% for Obama, yet 52% for her.

If anything, Bill Clinton's victory over Bob Dole is what carried Mary Landrieu into office, in 1996.

[LynneSin]

180. She had a serious boost from Obama and the numbers do not lie

2008
988,298 - Landrieu
867,177 - The Republican


2014 November Election
619,402 - Landrieu
603,048 - The Republican
202,556 - The 2nd highest republican

2014 Runoff Election
561,099 - Landrieu
712,330 - The Republican

What are these numbers showing you.

Simple from 2008 to 2014 Mary Landrieu lost 37% of her votes between those 2 elections whereas the GOP only lost about 7% of their vote since 2008 (and I only combined the top 2 Republicans, there was about 4-5 GOP that ran in that election). You look at her other 2 major elections she has never come that close to 1 million voters. You talk about Clinton carrying her in 1996 but she only came out with 852k votes and in 2002 she dropped to 573k but luckily she picked up enough extra votes in the runoff that she managed to pull out the win that year (638k).

So yes, she really did get a huge boost from Barack Obama in 2008. Those Clinton numbers from 1996 would have put her in a runoff election circa 2008. Consider this - every election since she first won in 1996, she has always been at risk for a run-off election because of the Louisiana law that says that the senator must win by 50% of the vote. So the GOP stacks the ballot with 4-5 candidates to help force the run-off because in the end they know that democratic voters tend to not show up for these special elections. The reason that Mary easily won in 2008 was because of all those extra voters registered for Barack Obama in 2008. Because of them she pretty much became a safe seat. But because she pretty much ignored them this time around she lost that seat.

[TerrapinFlyer]

128. Running a a Republican Lite is a losing strategy, no matter what state you run for office

we need a strong unified message as Democrats.

[AverageJoe90]

130. I understand your point, I think.

Indeed, the purity calls didn't help us much in this election. But, unlike in 2010, some of our candidates did have some genuine major problems standing up to the Teabaggers and their ilk; it's not that people suddenly became much more conservative, it's that folks who otherwise might have voted Democrat couldn't help but want to stay home, partly thanks to that.

To be fair, however, the Party didn't exactly do the best job, either; Alison Grimes might well have won in Kentucky, if we hadn't gambled on Mr. Weiland in S.D.(I mean, I like the guy myself, but let's face it, he never had the chances she did!), instead. That was a truly grievous error. And then there were these B.S. voter ID laws that also kept plenty of folks home, too.....so, no, it wasn't just one thing.

[Maedhros]

131. How about we take this "purity test" bullshit and bury it?

Landrieu is a threat to Democratic progress. Show her the door.

[MADem]

139. She's been shown the damn door--and her replacement makes her look like Bernie Sanders crossed with

Nelson Mandela and Ghandi, combined. Yeah, that's some great "Democratic progress," there--putting a GOP nutjob in her seat for the next six years.

SMH.

[Martin Eden]

134. Who, exactly, is demanding a "purity test"??

I've been a voting Democrat for nearly 40 years, and I don't know what that means in the real world.

I've never seen a candidate I would consider "pure" and I do not how to define "purity" except someone who conforms to a rigid ideology. Those who defend Republican-Lite Democratic politicians like to throw that term around, but I don't think it has much real world application.

Furthermore (and more importantly) the mindset that derides criticism of Republican-Lite Democratic politicians as a "purity test" does not lead to electoral success. The slow but steady move to the right makes the Democratic Party look weak and lacking in core principles, blurs the distinction between Democrats and Republicans, and contributes mightily to voter apathy.

Democrats lost badly last month because 63.7% of eligible voters did not vote. Part of that was voter suppression, but a much bigger part was that millions of citizens perceived there wasn't much to vote FOR.

When a Democrat embraces rightwing policies to win an election, very little has been won.

And, ultimately, much will be lost.

[JonLP24]

197. The Republican war on voting should really have more focus

Especially when very little of it was mentioned when complaining about the turnout gap.

Obama won states such as Ohio & Florida behind strong turnout in early voting (which benefits the poor urban Democrats who would have the trouble of making it to the polls on election day) so they made sure to significantly curtail that.

New voters Obama had a decisive advantage so several states creating new regulations which makes it difficult for an organization like Rock the Vote to do their job with criminal penalties.

There is a strong active push for barriers to voting, ACORN was their first casualty but very little of the outlandish claims made against them were viewed in the proper focus. They're so good at marketing that the narrative is "voter fraud" when it is really about having less voters participate.

[Warpy]

145. How about we stop wasting time on bland people who STAND FOR NOTHING?

Your way of having these utter zeroes run is a losing strategy and has been since southern conservatives first promised to overturn the Nixon strategy by running a bunch of non challenging empty suits.

It's not working, champ, so it's time for something else.

[JustAnotherGen]

165. We had a flawless liberal and progressive run for Governor in NJ in 2013

Her voting record, beliefs, and values were flawless.

Still she lost to Crispy Cream.

bravenak made a point in the AA Group here re the outreach of Rand Paul into the black community . . .

People don't care WHY you want to help - they just see that you do.

I think in my very blue state - people were snookered into believing that Christie wanted to help more than Buono - regardless of his passion for inflicting sadist pain on the people of this state.

[Capt. Obvious]

167. If only Landrieu wasn't primaried

she would have won easily.

Thanks liberals - your purity tests cost another Senate seat.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

179. Primaries are now a 'purity test'?

Go figure, I thought they were part of Democracy, as opposed to Monarchy.

(And, btw, most of the folks who discussed the primaries pointed out that most of her competition in the primary were actually more conservative than she was, that only one of the candidates was arguably more liberal than she was.)

[Rex]

170. Moderates can win in red states.

They just have to appeal to their blue collar base and not run as republican-lite in the hopes of picking up some extra votes from indies and reps. Then again, some red states can never be won due to gerrymandering.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

178. How about you run candidates that actually can appeal to voters?

The only 'purity test' applied to Landrieu was applied to her by her own constituents, at the polls. She was not 'run out of town on a rail' by 'liberals'. She chose to target certain types of voters, and there weren't enough of them to win her her seat back, especially since a good chunk of them were already voting Republican.

[malokvale77]

184. Your name suggests...

you are from Texas, which makes this OP very suspect. Every Democrat I know here is crying for good old fashion "Yellow Dog" candidates. The few we have had the party has ignored.

The Democratic Party allowed Karl Rove and his Bush cabal to steal this state.

LBJ was the last Texan in high office to have the guts to do right.

[B Calm]

185. Purity or Reality? We have tried the DINO's way to victory in the south and it flopped!

[JonLP24]

193. Well there isn't much I can do to directly help her

I also can't vote for her but technically we use some form a "purity test" in voting for candidates, Republicans fail the test which is why we don't vote for them for the most part.

I usually vote for my favorite in the primary and the better one in the main election. At a city level and state legislature district, either Republicans run unopposed or against each other. Sometimes I vote for the other Republican if they're running against one I really don't like Russell Pearce. The school board elections typically feature charter school lovers running against each other so I don't vote on that one either.