As much as I'd like to see truly progressive Democrats

[MineralMan]

elected in every state and federal legislative election, clearly that is not going to happen. Since such elections are always local elections, the voters in each district or state in Senate elections vary widely in their political mindsets.

Sadly, what happens if a progressive runs in some districts and is promoted by other progressives from outside of that area, a Republican wins in the general election. We've already seen that happen in a few special elections. Progressive voices from other areas endorse or campaign for a truly progressive candidate in primary elections and that candidate sometimes ends up on the general election ballot. Then, the Republican wins, because the Democratic candidate was not right for that district.

I happen to live in a progressive congressional district and state legislative districts. We run progressives and they win. Every time. In neighboring districts in my own state, however, progressive candidates who are supported by and campaigned for by strong progressives from my district or the neighboring district in Minneapolis lose. They don't lose by much, but they lose.

Progressive populism is a wonderful thing, but it is not a panacea. Sometimes, a progressive candidate manages to win in a primary race in some district, due to strong support from people outside of the district, but then fails to win in the general election. It has happened often.

Candidates need to be very carefully matched with each district. In primaries where there are multiple candidates on the primary ballot for the Democratic Party, a very progressive Democrat can sometimes win the primary with a plurality, but then has great difficulty getting more moderate Democrats to vote for him or her in the general election. It takes only a small slip in turnout in swing districts to hand the election to a Republican, as we have seen again and again, especially in state legislative races.

In order to increase Democratic majorities and even just to gain majorities, it's essential that candidates in each district are electable by a majority in the general election, rather than simply electable by a plurality in a Democratic primary. Without precise knowledge of the particular political realities in a district, outside interests often fail to recognize this and push through a candidate in a primary who cannot possibly win in November. We need to think more clearly on these choices, I believe.

That's my opinion. I'm sure many people are thinking about elections in places where they don't live. They may be listening to other people who also don't live anywhere near the district in question. Here's what I recommend: Work in your own districts and states and rely on people who live and are active politically in their own districts to choose candidates who can actually win in the general election. I don't know the politics in your district or districts near you, and you don't know the politics near me. Neither do nationally-known, prominent politicians. Let locals choose their own candidates. They know who can win. I don't and you don't, except in our own districts and states.

Vote always to win in the general election. Vote in primaries with that in mind, too. Try not to let pie-in-the-sky promises lead you to vote for candidates who don't have any chance of actually winning in November. Too much depends on the general election results to allow narrow selection criteria to influence our politics.

Work in and near your own area and Vote to win!

[Not Ruth]

1. By adopting the party first position, you devalue your own ideals, creating internal division

The way to have it all is to change the party's platform to copy yours. Which is what Bernie is doing. Once the transformation is done, then everyone can support progressive ideals, because the the party platform will be progressive. No more division. No more issue with moderates vs progressives. Which will then result in progressive Democratics being elected everywhere. It is a long term plan.

[MineralMan]

3. Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

There is no uniformity among Democrats. There never has been, and never will be. There is no uniformity among localities and districts, either. There never has been, and never will be.

We don't have a "long term." We have elections and we have them every two year in every last congressional district in the country, along with every state legislative district.

There is no One America. There never has been, and never will be.

I have no idea what your political experience has been. I know what mine has been and it's been continuous since 1960, when I was a sophomore in high school, knocking on doors for JFK.

Here's a question for you: Have you even read the 2016 Democratic Platform? If so, what would you change in it? If not, go here and read it, and then get back to me:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

[Not Ruth]

7. Pick a progressive goal that is not part of the platform

Single payer, just a random pick.

If the party made it the platform tomorrow, who in the party would not support it and why?

I believe that the vast majority of voters would fall in line and that it would add progressive and independant voters to the total.

[MineralMan]

8. The Democratic Party Platform is

created every four years at the Democratic National Convention. A new one will be written in 2020. The 2016 Platform is the current one and will remain in place until then. There's no mechanism for changing it until then.

Single payer? It's a great idea, and I've been for it for a long, long time. So has my House representative. It's what she wants. It's what I want. It's not universally what people want, though. So, the current platform creates a path toward it, instead of focusing solely on the end goal.

That's why the current platform's healthcare section is written as it is. It's a compilation of all of the positions from the entire country. The platform is created as a national thing, and is designed and adopted by a national convention of delegates from every part of the United States. It's not uniform, because this country is not uniform. It is what it is because that's what the Party arrived at in 2016 at the National Convention.

I wasn't there. I can't afford to go to the National Convention, so I help select my state's delegation to the national convention at district conventions, where I am a delegate.

Politics is always a matter of compromise. What I want, specifically, is not the issue. The Platform will always reflect the entire Party, as it is at the National Convention every four years. If you want to change it, become a delegate to that convention. It's not an easy thing to do, frankly, and takes a lot of hard work for the Party beforehand. I know some of Minnesota's delegates. All are hard-working, active party leaders. That's why they are elected as delegates at our State Convention.

[BannonsLiver]

2. You'll probably be shouted down

And accused of not caring about women but it's a good solid take on the entire (overblown) issue.

This is the sentence that stuck out to me: "Candidates need to be very carefully matched with each district"

[MineralMan]

4. I said nothing about women at all. This is not about

the choice issue. It is about a huge range of issues as they are reflected in districts all across this nation. It's about winning elections, one at a time. Every election is a local election and politics must be done locally or we will fail every time.

There's no single issue. There's no single strategy. There's no single anything. There are only effective strategies that are fine-tuned to each district. That's how we win. Nothing else really matters.

[BannonsLiver]

5. Not sure if you've seen any of the other threads

But anyone who offers the slightest variation from "the DCCC is evil" is accused of not caring about women or their rights. Sad, really.

As you pointed out, it's about winning elections one at a time.

[MineralMan]

6. I'm aware of those threads, but this thread is not

about those threads. It stands on its own. It's about one thing and one thing only: Winning elections.

[TheBlackAdder]

9. Blue Dogs are a necessity in certain districts. I despise pragmatism, which requires all parties.

.


My tag line says "A Blue Dog Free Zone" but they are required as visions of Democratic values change based on the cultural areas of this country. Mypoic views, based on people's own intersectional backgrounds, cause rigidity. That being said, there are certain core values which remain common between Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. They are safety, shelter, food, health and other items to needs the needs to make people content. I will leave religion out of this, else I will write a 20 page dissertation on the distortions of religion and its influences on politics.

Pragmatism is a perversion that was pushed onto the Democrats by Republican groups. If I name them, I will get my post flagged by some of the participants here who subscribe to those same values. You cannot have one party in a negotiation set steadfast in their extreme positions and the other side demonstrate pragmatism and start their negotiations from the 50 yard line. The best case is remaining on the 50, the worst case is a complete loss, and the average is a loss of 75 yards.

Your post describes what the DCCC does when they send in outside contractors to head local congressional campaigns. These people are moderately skilled, yet run the campaigns in a way that ignores demographics and the advice of locals. I've seen this in action, and they are filled with a false hubris that is more destructive to a campaign than beneficial. But, to tap into the funds, a candidate is essentially forced to accept their "help."

.

[MineralMan]

12. Yeah, I've dealt with some DCCC operatives, myself.

In most cases, it would be better if they stayed at home, frankly. The money is needed, of course, along with helpful information on campaigning, etc., but they tend to bull their way in and seem to believe that they are the only people who know anything.

Where I am, they are completely ignored, frankly. My district's party organization is quite competent at electing people to represent our district.

It is in swing districts, particularly, where finesse is needed if we are to win. Local finesse.

[leftstreet]

10. Or, the Party could get off its ass and address GERRYMANDERING

LOL it's so amusing to me to see the early running of anti-progressive apologist threads here about the 'sensitivity' of individual 'districts,' but no discussion of how the Democratic leadership is IGNORING why so many districts are have become so 'sensitive'

[MineralMan]

11. The Party can do NOTHING about gerrymandering.

That's a matter for state legislatures, or whatever other group draws district boundaries. The only thing the party can do is help elect Democrats to those legislatures. The national party has no impact on gerrymandering. There is some federal court oversight on the practice, but it remains a state function. Winning elections is the only way to change that.

[leftstreet]

13. Oh, so letting GOPers run statewide unopposed is a problem?

The party has failed to support state and local races, and they know it

Chickens coming home to roost

[MineralMan]

14. The national party, in particular the DCCC, doesn't

do anything except for congressional elections. Other elections are the purview of the state and district party organizations. In some states, those are very weak at best.

I have never understood why any district is left with a Republican to run unopposed. Where is the state and district party organization? There should be a good Democratic candidate on the ballot for every last freaking office in the country. Even if a win is unlikely, there are Democratic voters in every one of those districts, state legislative or otherwise. They need someone to vote for, or they won't bother going to the polls at all, and that's a big problem.

I suspect that Democratic Party organizations are either non-existent or non-functional in many of those districts and areas. I can't do a damned thing about that. Local Democrats need to handle that problem, frankly. If they don't, I can only wash my hands of it.

[rgbecker]

18. Seems pretty harsh, MinMan.

Why not support those areas with some outside help? Maybe Republicans win consistently in some areas, and maybe progressives and even "Mainline" Democrats stay home, hopeless. Wouldn't it make sense for people like you and me in secure Democratic districts to help get strong Democratic candidates in the race and draw the hopeless out to the polls? Look at the number of people who don't vote. They need leadership not people who simply "wash their hands of it."

Thank goodness we have progressives who are willing to carry the message to every district, even those which can't find any bootstraps with which to pull together a party organization.

[MineralMan]

19. Sure. I do that here in Minnesota, in districts

that could be flipped to a Democrat. We have three of those in my state. So, that's where I work. I'm far more useful here than I would be anywhere else. The same is true almost everywhere. If you're in a secure district for Democrats, look around nearby. Find a place where a Democrat has a reasonable chance of winning and get to work. You'll be close to home and understand the local issues better.

I can tell you this: Sending $5 or $50 to some race in some distant state is not going to do the job, but a few hours of work doing GOTV in a district near you just might.

My definition of a "Strong Democratic Candidate" anywhere is one who has a reasonable chance to win. I know no other definition that makes any sense at all, frankly. In most swing districts or flippable districts, it's very likely that such a person is not as progressive as the one in my own district, but better any Democrat than any Republican, every time.

What will happen in some district in Mississippi or Tennessee is never going to depend on me. I have no business doing anything politically there.

[Amishman]

15. Gerrymandering is real, but is far from the only problem

If gerrymandering were the primary issue, we'd have the Senate and a lot of governorships.

If voter suppression were the primary issue, we wouldn't have Republican governors in states with Democrat held legislatures like Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Illinois

The big problem is there are still a lot of conservatives and geography matters. I've harped on this before, but our current base is cloistered in major metro areas and there is not a single political office in this country determined by national popular vote. Until we start appealing to a wider base, we will remain stuck on the outside looking in.

Trump's idiocy is a golden opportunity to change minds, but it will take flexibility and a revised message to do it. The recent economic message is a step in the right direction.

[TexasProgresive]

16. Once again I find myself standing with MineralMan.

I believe strongly in progressive values, but I am a pragmatist as well. I would rather get closer to the mark than miss the target completely.

[MineralMan]

17. Thanks. Progress is rarely a one-step process.

In fact, it almost never is.