Pledge to Primary! Occupy the Democratic Party!

[Indyfan53]

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:22 AM - Edit history (1)

I admit, I am disappointed by the proposed cuts President Obama made for our safety nets, but we still have a chance to order our senators and representatives to not play along. We have the power to replace them.

That fact that Alan Grayson, Mark Takano, Elizabeth Warren, and other democrats spoke out against the CPI shows that we still have people on our side. We just need to send a clear message to the ones who are giving in to the republiCONs.

If your dem senator or representative votes against the CPI, however, please vote for them again.

Giving up is NOT an option. Sitting out for the 2014 primaries and midterms will only make things worse. Don't forget 2010.

We should NOT abandon the democrats, but Primary them. Let's vote in the primaries and mid-terms in 2014.

Take these pledges, showing that you will vote in 2014, and you will replace any DINO's with real, progressive democrats in the primaries. Even if that means YOU will run against them in the primaries.

Here's the pledge from Bernie Sanders and the other 98%

http://other98.com/if-you-cut-social-security-i-will-primary-you/

Here's the Grayson-Takano letter

http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_ss_grayson/

Don't sit out. Vote them out.

[elleng]

1. Its the REPUGS who should be challenged,

and we have to get our heads, hearts, and actions together and recognize exactly WHO has caused our current problems, it is NOT (largely) Democrats, its the damned repugs, largely elected in recent years.

[A Simple Game]

8. If I were a registered Republican, I would vote in the Republican primaries.

I'm not so I can't. Can you?

I believe the OP is saying we need true liberals to run against the Republicans, not conservative Democrats.

[elleng]

9. Yes, that may be what the OP is saying,

and as I and most here are Democrats, I said what I said.

I do NOT think the major problem of the day is 'conservative Democrats,' but the outlandish majority the repugs garnered recently, due to t-party etc., so my suggestion is that Dems do whatever we can to diminish repug numbers. Dinos do cause problems in some situations, no doubt.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

11. Democrats shouldn't vote in primary elections?

[elleng]

12. I don't think I said or suggested that,

but it is important we recognize how our best success will be realized.

[illegaloperation]

50. We need to maintain the majority.

We should vote for the Democratic candidates that can actually win the generally election.

What use are liberal candidates that cannot win the general elections?

[elleng]

58. Yes, and this will be determined district by district.

[illegaloperation]

59. Exactly.

Some districts are more conservative that others.

Obviously, we are NOT going to be able to run liberal candidates in very conservative districts and win.

[elleng]

60. Right, so we should live with less liberal candidates,

regain the majority, and win back some battles we've lost due to power, in House, of leadership. Remember how GOOD Nancy was in accomplishing things?

[illegaloperation]

61. Republicans have a natural advantage in the House of Representatives.

The problem with liberal voters is that they tend to cluster densely in small areas (ie cities). Even without gerrymandering, Republicans naturally have advantage in the House of Representatives.

If we want to control the House of Representatives, we have no choice but to win a lot more conservative districts.

[tabbycat31]

21. Thank you

I wish some of these progressives put half as much into challenging Republicans as they do Democrats.

[limpyhobbler]

2. It's about time people remember we have a 2-phase election process.

The primaries are just as important as the general elections.

Ignoring the primaries is part of what got us into this situation.

[No Vested Interest]

15. Do you realize that in many congressional districts

the Dems have a problem finding and fielding one candidate, much less two viable ones?

Case in point, SW Ohio, where Chabot, Boehner, and newly-elected Wenstrup (all Rs) hold sway.
They all have money and a well-established system behind them.

In 2012, the Dems had a no-name Wm. Smith as their candidate in Jean Schmidt's former district; Smith gave not one speech or one appearance; also had no money and apparently little interest in winning the office.

[limpyhobbler]

18. That's part of the problem. The solution should be a popular grass roots movement.

If we have a popular movement it will be easier to force the Democrats to do what we want.

[No Vested Interest]

20. How does one create a popular grass roots

movement?
Sounds easier said than done.
Remember no money, little interest shown.
Local political/governance problems with no answer at present; i.e., city can't balance budget due to mistakes of past elected officials of both parties. Police & fireman to be laid off in June.

[limpyhobbler]

23. Maybe people could talk to their friends and then start a regular meetup.

http://www.meetup.com/create/

I like meetup.com, but there's facebook and stuff too.

[illegaloperation]

51. What grassroot movement do you want?

Do you want something like the Tea Party movement that produce a bunch of candidates that cannot win the general election?

We can have our own version of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.

[limpyhobbler]

68. Would running candidates who would cut Social Security and Medicare help win general elections?

nah

[AnotherMcIntosh]

3. Good idea. Start preparing now.

And just be prepared for a tactic or two. One is that the powers-that-be will run a stalking-horse candidate or two in each primary of any signifigance to upset plans to replace 3rd-Way Democrats with FDR-Democrats.

Do you remember the 2008 presidential primaries in which we only had two anti-war candidates, with the options being Obama and Kucinich? Except for Obama, all the Senators with the (D) after their names voted for the Iraq War resolution. Biden did. Clinton did. Edwards did. Dodd did. Congressman Kucinich was against that, but many said that he could not win and that Obama could.

How did that work out?

At a minimum, start preparing now.

[zeemike]

25. May I just make an observation?

But if you want to start now then start going to your party meetings and git involved at the local level...
IMHO that is how the people with power and money control politics because they control the local parties...they have the time and the connections to do it.
Most people here I would bet don't know who runs the local party and probably never even heard of them.
But that is where the grass roots are... and the Tea Party used that to win the 2010 elections.
We could too if we acted in the organized manner that they did.

[illegaloperation]

53. Just say no.

The Tea Party causes the Republicans to lose a bunch of winnable seats - which is good for us.

Do you want us to start losing winnable seats?

[limpyhobbler]

4. Grayson: 170 Democrats need to get primaried

via http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017111159

[WillyT]

5. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[WillyT]

6. BTW - Did You See This:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022667811

[loudsue]

7. One of the BIGGEST problems with the primaries is the DNC

They will NOT put their money behind any progressive candidates. THAT is where our biggest problem is.

[OKNancy]

16. it's because "progressives" can't win in many districts.

sad but true.

[Cleita]

35. It's because they don't want them to win.

It's the same old DLC types keeping the power to themselves and their money friends.

[TDale313]

52. ^^^ this ^^^

[illegaloperation]

54. OK, then.

Tell me how you plan to win a seat in North Dakota with a liberal Democrat.

I am listening.

[TDale313]

62. We've spent decades...

Allowing liberal to be turned into a dirty word, especially in those red parts of the country. If we want to make inroads, we have to make the case and we need to stop hiding from progressive/liberal ideals that poll after poll show are incredibly popular, even with voters who don't identify as liberal. Republican lite is not the way to get good policy or frankly to even win in these red areas. And we won't get anywhere if we're too scared to even make the case. The right has spent decades pulling the country to the right. Time to talk about how we pull it back. This country is not as far to the right as our leaders believe/pretend it is.

[illegaloperation]

63. People rarely changes their mind.

You are NOT going to be able convince those people to vote for liberals. There is as much of a chance of you convince those people to vote for liberals as there is for someone to convince me to vote for conservatives.

Also, the way the US government is set up isn't really fair. Both the Senate and the House are set up in a way that favor smaller rural white states.

[TDale313]

64. I agree that the system is weighted

in favor of less populated areas. I somewhat disagree that people rarely change their minds- look at the change public opinion on same sex marriage/gay rights in recent years. I think there are reachable people, and I believe the unreachables aren't gonna vote for a blue dog anyway. I wouldn't vote for a Moderate Republican. But a HUGE part of the problem, IMO, is that we've allowed the right to frame these debates. We keep fighting on their terms/turf. When the fact is public opinion IS with the Left on many of these issues, both economic and social.

[illegaloperation]

65. You have to think about their environment too.

Someone who lives in Michigan who see monthly shootings may think that gun control should be common sense law.

Now let us imagine someone in Wyoming. They probably see their neighbor once a week and for them guns are not the problem.

[TDale313]

66. True enough.

But even on gun safety, the vast majority of Americans support background checks. Yes, different areas have different needs. That said, especially on economic issues, public opinion leans left. Americans strongly support SS, Medicare, fairer tax policies. These are not fringe policies, even in Red States.

[tabbycat31]

38. The DNC only puts $$ into winnable races

With gerrymandering, you have districts drawn for a Democrat (where the progressives usually are) that are so safe that no national group is going to bother wasting their $$$ there.

Then you have districts drawn for a Republican that are so safe that any Democrat running for the seat is a sacrificial lamb. Occasionally, you will get a Democrat in these seats due to the Republican going down in scandal (Kathy Hochul's upset victory in NY is a good example).

Then there are districts that will swing either way, but it's a matter of running the right candidate for that district. This varies greatly depending on where the district is located. In the suburban NY district that I grew up in, you can run a progressive and he/she has a chance of winning (as just happened in November). In a rural, southern district, most progressives are considered 'too liberal' and voters would rather vote for an extreme conservative (I've had that conversation with many a voter). The key to winning these districts is finding the right Democrat who can relate to these voters.

[Triana]

10. That's exactly what we need to do PRIMARY / vote out the damn fake Dems/DLC contingent!

NO DINOS!

"Don't sit out. Vote them out." <--- love that!

[illegaloperation]

56. Sure, do that. /s

And while you are there, install Mitch McConnell as majority leader too.

[dreamnightwind]

13. I wouldn't put Huffman in that list

He's about as far to the right as is likely to be elected here, one of the more progressive districts in the country.

We ran a true progressive against him in the primaries last time but lost out. We'll primary him even harder next time with the same candidate, Normon Solomon.

This seat is safe for Dems, very little risk of a Republican winning here, so it's a seat that should go to someone truly progressive with little or no corporate money behind them.

[KoKo]

41. I wondered why Solomon didn't win...

I've agreed with most of his opinions in articles I've read on the net written by him. But, here on DU when he lost there were some negative things said about him. That he wasn't as Progressive as he seems and that's why he lost.

Did the candidate he lost against vote like the DINO l4 or was he or she more mixed in their votes so they could be seen as solid Dem but not Progressive?

[dreamnightwind]

67. Solomon is very progressive

much more so than Huffman. He lost because he wasn't well funded, and because Huffman was an incumbent, though not in the same distrit (our district was redrawn), still, a lot of money, name recognition and momentum to overcome.

Huffman doesn't totally suck, he's more of a mainstream Dem than a DINO, IMHO. But this is no mainstream district, it should be represented by someone of the caliber of Grayson/Warren/Solomon. He wouldn't sign the Grayson letter opposing entitlement cuts, but according to the OP of this thread he did speak out against the chained CPI. I don't know how solid he is on this issue.

This district is huge, literally several hundred miles long.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/CA_2_certified.pdf

That makes it hard to reach the voters. Just driving around, there was a ton of signage up for Huffman, also for another well-funded wealthy pro-business Dem candidate, and for the Republican candidate. Those 3 all had a lot of TV ads, too. Not much of any of that for Solomon as far as I saw. Many people I talked to didn't know he was running. That was mostly a function of money.

Solomon had a very active grassroots network, for which I did a small amount of work (wish I had done more).

Another part of the picture is that we have an open primary, not a party primary. There were a bunch of Dems and even left-of-Dems running. I remember 1 Republican, though there might have been more. Anyway the point is that the left's vote was split between several candidates, and the Republican snuck in to get 2nd in the primary because of the left dividing its vote.

This site has a good overview of the district, though their map is completely out of date. The wikimedia link above has the correct map.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California%27s_2nd_congressional_district_elections,_2012

Not sure what you saw here re Solomon. I saw some critical posts because of an email he sent out criticizing incumbent Democrats and advocating for progressive renewal of the party through the primary process. Some DU centrists were all over him for that, said he was helping Republicans. But if he was criticized from the left I didn't see it, and I can definitely vouch for his progressive cred, I have met him and worked for him (not just this election, Solomon worked with us peace activists to get alternative information to the public back in the early 90's before G.H.W. Bush attacked Iraq, and I was part of that effort). Also he has a huge body of work out there in print. Unreliable Sources was an excellent media critique that he wrote way back when, good stuff.

Solomon seems to be staying politically active in this district, and I expect he will run in 2014 and he will do better then. We'll see.

Too much info, no doubt, anyway thanks for asking, I hope this wasn't too boring. In my mind it's important for us on the left to try to figure how to get our people elected, so I think of this as an interesting, if unique, case study.

[KoKo]

70. Thanks for that information...it's very interesting.

Open Primaries do allow for manipulation in that the party with the most money can put in "spoiler candidates" who drain votes. On the other hand many argue it allows for more diversification. Yet, with the huge amounts of money from PAC's the system is distorted. Would think it could only work well if there was a level playing field of donations the primary candidates could use to promote themselves. Don't see that happening until we get "Citizens United" overturned or States themselves make rules about election financing. And, you had 12 Candidates running in that Primary... That's too much. Should have been limited to half
that. Wonder if anything could be changed in State Government about that in time for the next election.

Yes...the negative Solomon information was probably from the "centrists here" for that e-mail. The atmosphere here was pretty closed about not posting anything that would reflect badly on DLC/Third Way politics and I think it was that e-mail that was criticized that was the negative feedback here.

Quote from you:

Not sure what you saw here re Solomon. I saw some critical posts because of an email he sent out criticizing incumbent Democrats and advocating for progressive renewal of the party through the primary process. Some DU centrists were all over him for that, said he was helping Republicans.

Hopefully there will be enough "waking up in anger" that Solomon will have a better chance in 2014. He's exactly the kind of Progressive Dem I would vote for.

Again, thanks for the info.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Anyone interested in running for elected political office needs to understand the process.

Too many don't. Too many just throw their name in the hat and think they will get elected.

A good candidate has a good campaign and has activists that will support them. It means networking with the right people.


The alternative is to educate on a regular basis who you already have elected especially if they are Democrats. It is better to have direct contact with the candidate instead of through their aides. Failing that make sure you have a good relationship with the aide that can best handle the issue and you can trust will convey the importance.

[tabbycat31]

22. THat also depends on the district

With gerrymandering (which is worse now than ever before), most seats (with the exception of statewide offices) are drawn to be safe for one party.

Case in point--- I have a very good progressive candidate running in my own legislative district. I will happily support and vote for him. However, the district is rated R+30, which means a generic Republican will win by 30 points. The only way a Democrat will get elected is a live boy or a dead girl (or perhaps some lewd tweets).

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. knr

[bhikkhu]

19. This is starting to sound like the teaparty 3 years ago

...I'm suppose it ruffles feathers here to say so, but I find sacred cows and ideological purity to be embarrassingly dysfunctional. That stance did the opposition no favors, and its just one big facepalm moment lately to see people here heading down the same road.

[limpyhobbler]

24. You don't think we should participate in primary elections?

[tabbycat31]

29. Not discouraging it

However, I want to give you a few examples of what happens on the other side if the candidate was too ideological to appeal to swing voters. All of these races were considered Republican holds or pickups, then the tea party intervened and nominated a candidate too conservative to win the general. As a result the Democrats won/held the seats.

Christine O'Donnell
Sharon Angle
Todd Akin
Richard Mourdock

[limpyhobbler]

30. Because those people are lunatics.

We're saying challenge politicians who won't protect Social Security and Medicare. Our position is wildly popular with the American people.

[tabbycat31]

31. And I guarantee you the other side (and some centrists) think some progressives are lunatics

Think about it, if they think that Obama is the second coming of communism, imagine what they think of Alan Grayson.

To win an election (2 way), you have to get 50% +1. In some states or districts, a lot more of the 50%+1 are a lot more conservative than in others.

I work on Democratic campaigns. Every campaign I have worked on has been in a Blue Dog district (the progressives are usually in safe Democratic districts and do not need staff).

[limpyhobbler]

32. Large majorities of all parties want to protect Social Security and Medicare.

There is no advantage to running a candidate who would cut those programs.

It would be for the good of the Democratic Party to cut out that cancer now.

People willing cut Social Security are a political liability and the Republicans will use it against them in the general election.

Refusing to protect Social Security is no way to appeal to "centrists" or anybody else for that matter.

Alan Grayson is a good example of how a progressive can win in a swing district by having some guts and being bold about defending our values. Grayson represents a district that voted for John McCain and George W. Bush.

Voters don't respect wimps who don't take strong positions.

[tabbycat31]

39. I know that Grayson's district changed in reidstricting

And I can't speak for his new district. He won in 2008 as a Democrat in a Republican district in a pretty close election (52-48). Then the national right successfully framed him as a 'crazy liberal' and lost 56-38 in 2010.

I'm not sure what his new district looks like, but he's an example of someone who was helped by redistricting. I don't think he could have won his old district in 2012.

[limpyhobbler]

40. If you vigorously defend social programs you will become a target of big money special interests.

That's a reality.

The lesson many elected Democrats seem to take from that, is that they should not defend progressive economic and social programs.

I think it's the wrong lesson to take.

A better lesson is that we need a popular movement of the people to counter the big money.

[Cleita]

27. I guess the same old money DINOS are okay with you.

I want the party of labor and the common people to be just that. Let the DINOS become Republicans where they belong.

[bhikkhu]

33. I have no idea what a DINO is

...some kind of code for something I'm supposed to hate?

Or maybe its like the RW types going off about communists and socialists and so forth, tired old terms that mean nothing these days except to some "in" group that closed its mind and closed its ranks ages ago.

[Cleita]

34. Democrat In Name Only. Now you know. We have been using it forever

here on DU.

[illegaloperation]

49. Gread idea /sarcasm

If all the DINOS become Republicans, Mitch McConnell would be majority leader right now.

He would be going on TV about how his party is about to repeal Obamacare.

[CTyankee]

43. but the Tea Party had BIG money behind it! That, more than anything else, made for

REAL electoral success...

[Cleita]

26. Time to bring in the real progressives. n/t

[illegaloperation]

47. Great idea /s

Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:36 AM - Edit history (2)

After you primary out a bunch of blue dog Democrats, Mitch McConnell will be sending you a thank you letter because he become majority leader.

Also, don't worry. We won't ever be able to win back the House of Representatives under that circumstance.

[NorthCarolina]

28. Don't Sit Out, VOTE THEM OUT!

I like it.

[illegaloperation]

48. Bad idea.

Those states would not vote for liberal Democrats so you are just throwing away seats.

Will you like it when Mitch McConnell becomes majority leader?

[NorthCarolina]

69. That's a silly load of BS

that the DLC types like to spread as a means to justify their existence in the Democratic Party. Let the progressives run FAIRLY on the issues like Social Security, Medicare, Healthcare, etc., and they will likely fare better than the DLC New Dem even in the red areas.

[Babel_17]

36. This might ignite the base and generate funds and a great turnout

for Democrats willing to risk pissing off the "serious people".

Lol, been signing a lot of petitions and even got on the phone with a person at my congressperson's office.

[forestpath]

37. K&R Fuck ANYONE who wants to cut SS and Medicare.

[MrSlayer]

42. When I suggested this at OWS rallies I was shouted down.

Because "voting is part of the problem" and "we need to move to a resource based economy" and other stupid, nonsensical, pie in the sky reasons.

Occupy absolutely should have taken over the Democratic Party. Running 99% candidates for everything from dog catcher to President. The opportunity was there and it was lost.

[Hekate]

44. That's right. Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Dems are SO good at that.

Primary the fucking REPUBLICANS, why don't you?

[illegaloperation]

46. Exactly.

Running a bunch of liberal Democrats in red states? They won't win: it's simple as that.

[illegaloperation]

45. This is a STUPID, STUPID, STUPID idea.

A lot of the blue dog Democrats (so call DINO) are from conservative places that liberals cannot win.

If you primary out Mark Begich (AK), Mark Pryor (AR), Mary L. Landrieu (LA), Kay Hagan (NC), we will lose those seats to Republicans.

Do you want Mitch McConnell to be majority leader?

[TekGryphon]

55. Utter and complete lunacy.

Chained CPI is DEAD.

Republicans demanded it, but they wanted it to be slipped in through backroom negotiations. By putting it in the initial budget proposal (which has a 0% chance of being passed) Obama put it on the spotlight.

NO ONE wants to touch Chained CPI now. Democrats hate it because it's immoral and uneconomic. Tea Party republicans (to the horror of their masters) hate it because they're too spiteful to keep their mouth shut. Even the media can't find anyone to say nice things about it beyond "it sucks, but we need a compromise that Republicans will agree to".

Obama did what no moralizing by Bernie Sanders or economic theory by Paul Krugman could do: he brought Chained CPI into the spotlight. There it died a painful and very quick death.

[Indyfan53]

72. I hope you are right.

This is why we need to always vote. My hope is that this will light a fire under the asses of democrats.

[denbot]

57. Done and a kick

What the heck, a rec too!

[treestar]

71. This again?

We heard it in 2010.

Then we heard it in 2012, but then Obama was running, so Congress was forgotten. How many threads were there demanding to primary Obama?

So now we're hearing it again.

[brooklynite]

73. So, you want to Primary Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren?

Or is "Primary!" short-hand for "just the ones that I don't like"?

[treestar]

77. Where did you get that?

I'm not the one saying primary the Democrats.

And quit lionizing those two. If they were President, they'd have the same limitations. Quit looking for a Lord and Savior out of the Presidency.

[Jamaal510]

74. What we should be focusing on first

is giving Obama a House majority and a Senate supermajority he can work with so he won't have to keep negotiating with domestic terrorists across the aisle. I'm as liberal as the next guy, but we can't just brush off the moderates and the Blue Dogs of our party in the sake of purity. They're not the problem. While they don't side with the base of the party on every single policy, they are much more cooperative than the vast majority of Republicans we have in D.C. Plus, unlike more liberal Dems, moderates are much more likely to win in rural Red states. IDK about anyone else, but I'd rather have more Heidi Heitkamps than Michele Bachmanns in Congress.

The Republicans in Congress are our real enemy.

[Indyfan53]

75. Well, let's see what happens.

Let's make sure the currentdemocrats in congress vote no on the CPI budget and we'll go from there. Contact them and tell them to protect our safety nets.

[Rowdyboy]

76. Uh, my rep is a reliable liberal Dem representing a 65+% minority district and you want

I should work to primary him? Hell, I'd send him money if he needed it and I don't have shit! Bennie Thompson (MS 2nd district) is that good and I'll vote for him come hell or high water. Good luck with your idiotic crusade.....

[Indyfan53]

78. If he stays reliable, vote for him.

[Rowdyboy]

80. Thank you SO much for your approval....I'll give it exactly the consideration it deserves....

See you around-or not.

[Cal33]

81. An excellent post, and welcome to DU. Will pass on your post to friends.