I am so sick and tired of people saying 'We need those moderate Dems to win Red States'

[LynneSin]

BOO-FUCKING-HOO

In 2008 we won a slew of new Senate seats upsetting several incumbent republicans and winning races that were predicted to be tight but came out ahead. And you know why we won those seats - because of the outpouring of new voters thanks to Barack Obama. Voter turnout was at it's highest in 2008 and Obama's popularity helped to seal the deal in several states giving us 58 Democratic senate seats plus the 2 independents.

So you know first off it's bullshit about Obama's 'Unpopularity'. Guess what - people think way worse of congress than Obama. At least Obama is in the 40% range which isn't bad whereas congress is around 10%. But it's the media that makes it SEEM like Obama is sooooo unpopular. No he's not - it's just bullshit from the media.

These democrats in moderate to red states ran away from the one person that actually helped them to get elected in 2008 and you know what - that is why these democrats lost! And honestly they deserved it. By straddling the middle, shunning way from their own party and the working class they ended up standing for NOTHING. And since there was no big name on the ticket to help bring out the votes (aka Obama) these people turned away their own voters who just decided they had other things better to do.

You stand in the middle too long you end up representing nobody. I don't care about voting records, in the end the voters saw someone who didn't act like they cared or represented them so the voters said we don't care either.

Democratic voters aren't like Republican voters. Republican voters will show up every 2 years and vote like clockwork. Democrats need to be inspired and if they aren't they stayed home. That's what happened in 2014. The democrats had one person who could help them inspire voters and most of those democrats said 'Barack stay home'. Now many of those democrats are staying home permamently

[Warpy]

1. Thank you. People in red states no longer know what Democrats stand for

except the business as usual that is slowly strangling them.

[beerandjesus]

19. I agree... as a Democrat in a Red State.

[Thinkingabout]

2. All other problems aside, if you are thinking a far left candidate is going to win in red

states better get a better plan. In red states there are old Dixiecrats who vote for the candidate who is going to "hold down those of color", they would never vote for a far left candidate. A lot of the voters in red states are voting on the single issue of no abortions. Only a moderate candidate will have an opportunity to turn any heads to even be able to get anyone to listen and realize this person wants to help the citizens.

We can wait until the angry old white men die and we don't have to compete for enough votes to out vote them. Yes we have to have a sellable product. We have to convince the two thirds voters who did not vote how important it is to vote. I t may be possible to turn states from red to blue with these two thirds voters, a big motivation has to be to realize not voting will never change anything except for the allow the GOP to run everything, they vote.

[LynneSin]

21. The thing is we had a plan with Howard Dean

The plan was that we ran campaigns in all 50 states and it worked. We had great years with Howard Dean. He said he had to stop ignoring those 'red states'. But Dean is gone and we're back to ignoring red states again and we wonder why we keep losing.

[Thinkingabout]

23. Let me give you a short lesson about voting in Southern states.

In 2008, Houston, Harris County, Texas, Obama was on the ticket, lots of people went to vote, pulled the straight ticket and kicked out the local judge positions in Harris County. Why did this happen, simply because there are more Democrats than Republicans. When two thirds of eligible voters stay at him Republicans win. Lots of Democrats came up with "nothing excited them", "we don't want to vote for Democrats who act like Republicans" which is just crap, lazy excuses foes not elect Democrats. These same people provided wins for Republicans so they might as well voted Republicans.

If Democrats wants Democrats in office, get a reliable candidate to run and then go and vote, we have the numbers now we have to find the will.

[yeoman6987]

3. I know. Reality sucks!

[RKP5637]

4. The more democrats in essence side with republican ideals to try to get elected, the more those

republican ideals will be the norm for the country. What they are doing is cementing those ideals in place. I venture to say many in the populace have no idea WTF democrats stand for. The messaging is all over the place. Hell, I'm not even sure sometimes. The clever democratic strategies sure failed in 2014. I think even many democrats are fed up with the power brokers in the democratic party. And this is NOT a bash against Obama.

[Scuba]

10. +1

[Thinkingabout]

24. The more Democrats fail the more Republicans win. why do you think the GOP has fought

Hard for voter ID, because it keeps Democrats from voting, they know we have the larger numbers, we just have to convince ourselves we need to vote.

[demosincebirth]

5. You'll never get a liberal or a progressive elected, in the south, on a state wide or national

election. Lets not fool ourselves in thinking otherwise. We need moderate dems to run for office in the South and in many other parts of the country where states are purple. Colorado, was a good example.

[okaawhatever]

6. +100 nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. We don't seem to be getting conservative Dems elected there either now.

Or 'moderates' if you want to call them that.

[demosincebirth]

30. There is big difference between moderate dems and conservative dems. For all I know all the

conservative dems have all turned right-wingers in order to stay in politic in the 'ol South.

[CTyankee]

33. The problem is how do we define "moderate"?

Every time we get that moderate to run the GOP comes out with all guns blasting about that candidate's "extremist" ideas. No matter what. We are dealing with places where evolution is considered to be "extremist," fer gawd's sake.

[demosincebirth]

39. You have point. Also, many still belive the sun revolves aroung the earth.

[pacalo]

7. Left-leaning Democrats would never win in red states.

But I do agree that media brainwashing has a lot to do with it.

So you know first off it's bullshit about Obama's 'Unpopularity'. Guess what - people think way worse of congress than Obama. At least Obama is in the 40% range which isn't bad whereas congress is around 10%. But it's the media that makes it SEEM like Obama is sooooo unpopular. No he's not - it's just bullshit from the media.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Convenient

How, right after the election, the media is now publishing stories about Obama's supposed "comeback" and how his policies that have been horribly maligned over the past year are working (or at least aren't harming us). Nobody (but us) also seem to mention the fact that the Ebolapocalypse never happened. There was an excellent article (in TNR I believe) that talked about how Obama's politics and policies are often at odds and how the media and pundits freak out about his policies or his apparent slowness to respond though how effective his policies still wind up being. Of course, it's never early enough for a midterm election to show that Obama was right and his critics are wrong.

[pacalo]

20. When the media is owned by just a few conglomerates & the GOP has their own

propaganda network, the Democrats really need to step it up to get their message out as much as they can. I'm surrounded by Fixed News viewers who parrot their lies & misinformation -- I know firsthand how big a problem the brainwashing is.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. When was the last time a left-leaning Democrat ran in the South?

I don't mean a yuppie Democrat who is all about reproductive rights and gay rights but brags about being "business friendly" and "for a strong defense." Being "business friendly" and "for a strong defense" is what Republicans are for. What was Wendy Davis doing centering her campaign on reproductive rights in a state where most of the women are Southern Baptists or Roman Catholics?

I mean a populist Democrat who soft-peddles the behavioral issues (while advocating them, but not making them the centerpiece of the campaign) but goes around suggesting solutions for real problems instead of repeating vague slogans about "policies that benefit working families." A Congressional candidate who already had strong personal ties, understood the problems of people in the district, and could speak the truth so plainly that everyone would have to recognize it might have a chance.

At least such a candidate, even losing, would bring Democratic ideas to the district.

If the Dems go around saying, "I'm business friendly and for a strong defense," what kind of selling point is that for someone who is under-employed, has no health care, and lives in a rundown shack?

[OKNancy]

8. Jim Inhoff or a Moderate Democrat? I'll take the Democrat every time

What I am sick and tired of is people who don't understand politics. Real politics.
I'd rather have someone to represent me who votes 50% with the progressive side instead of 0%.
I'd like to have someone who wouldn't be an embarrassment.

Democrats in red states don't need inspiration. What they need is a reasonable alternative to the RWNJs.
...and money. Democrats in red states need money!

[MBS]

9. + 1000 n/t

[brooklynite]

11. You conveniently ignore who won in 2006...

Claire McCaskill
Bob Casey
Jim Webb
Joe Lieberman

As well as a generous number of Blue Dog House candidates.

[LynneSin]

22. Bob Casey is NOT a moderate

You take away his stance on choice and he's one of the more liberal guys in the Senate. I use to hold his stance about choice against him until I read about his policy about Labor and Union. He's very strong supporter of both. In the end with choice, when Casey ran in 2006 he basically said 'There are enough laws on the books'. Casey is one of the few people out there I will honestly call pro-life because even though I know the guy is against abortion I also know that the guy will fight for the fetus after it is born. He fought for ACA, for Unions, for Education, for Jobs and has been a strong supporter of Barack Obama. For that I'll let his stance on choice slide.

[Thinkingabout]

25. Sometimes a liberal gets mislabeled and a bunch jump on the wagon yelling

They are not liberal, I wonder if we need to educate some on liberal ideas, true ideas.

[amandabeech]

34. Casey is a good guy on so many topics that it's hard to get upset about his stance on abortion.

I used to live in Pennsylvania, and I loved him. As you said, he actually wants to help all babies grow up to be productive adults. It was easy to vote for him.

[LynneSin]

35. Like I said - he is truly one of the people I can call pro-life

Now if he'd only do something about that damn unibrow.

[amandabeech]

37. Unibrows are difficult to defeat.

My entire family on my Dad's side, including me, have waged that war for many years. I wish Sen. Casey well, in his battle, but my bet is that the brow will win in the end!

[blkmusclmachine]

13. GOP versus GOP-lite. How inspiring!!!

[JoePhilly]

14. Why do Democrats need to be "inspired" to vote?

When will the progressives come up with candidates they approve of in the red states?

Where are these awesome candidates?

[Liberal Veteran]

17. And what does that say about us that we need to be "inspired" to vote?

Something is wrong with us if we need JFK or Obama to get us off our asses and flocking to the polls. Are we in need of the Pied Piper of Hamelin fluting the way for us to the polls?

Great inspiring speakers and leaders aren't exactly falling out of the woodwork with blazing sword in hand and rousing speeches. To be honest, a lot of those turn out be unmitigated disasters in the long run.

Really, I think our problem is reminding our side that EVERY year is an election year. Convince our own side that who we vote for city treasurer is every bit as important as who we vote for the Oval Office every four years. If we are in such dire need of "inspiration" to get us to the polls, perhaps we need to stop heaping that responsibility onto the shoulders of one person and placing that inspiration in an idea and playing the long game instead of thinking we can toss it all onto one person, cast our ballot, and then point our fingers at his or her shortcomings when they can't live up to our impossible expectations because we ceded our responsibility the moment we elected them to office.

[JoePhilly]

18. Yup, searching for inspiration, go to church.

Or take a self-help class.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Very well said Liberal Veteran, Democrats has the numbers, we just need voters to vote.

[CTyankee]

31. Yes, but we shouldn't underestimate what we are up against with the GOP.

I've seen this again and again in the South. They know how to "play" the voters to where we are unable to get the progressives' voice heard. So many of the Southern voters are sold a bill of goods by the GOP and they keep voting against their own best interests. Solve that problem and we might have a chance to win eventually in the Southern red states...but I dunno...

[Thinkingabout]

32. We need to return to Democrat ways and nit run off on tangents which is not focuses

On developing the middle class.

[Cal33]

36. One big problem is that Rekpublicans own 90% of the news media. The only way for Democrats

to catch up and counteract this is to build up and increase the numbers of their own news media.
Democrats are not doing it -- not by a long shot!!

[CTyankee]

38. Having gone thru a recent gubernatorial campaign as a volunteer for Dan Malloy, I can

personally attest to the importance of a strong ground game and GOTV in the cities where the Dems are stronger. It meant phone banking and neighbor to neighbor organizing. Malloy also had our own version of Romney running against him. The richer suburbs voted for the guy early in the day. Later when the working people got home the tide turned. It was my city, New Haven, that actually won it for Malloy at literally "the end of the day." The repub. also "slept walked" through the campaign, looking bored and hugely entitled. Malloy hit him HARD on his yacht and fancy Greenwich mansion.

I think this could work as a strategy for the presidential in 2016. Malloy hammered constantly in his TV ads on the theme of "who represents YOU?" We have to make economic disparities a HUGE issue everywhere, but also in the South because it respects the people who do our economic system's hardest work and who are most often distracted by the constant "God, guns and gays" focus of the repubs.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. Why should it matter?

The reality is that they apparently DO need to be inspired to vote.

So from a purely electoral standpoint, if non-progressives want to actually win with 'their' candidates, they need to either do some inspiring, or get used to losing.

You go to the polls with the voters you've got, not the imaginary ones you wish you had, who don't need 'inspired'.

[whatthehey]

15. And you think none of those voters were moderates? Why?

[MisterP]

16. it's just like the Pubs (since the conservadems openly take Koch money, push their policies, and

adopt their internal party control techniques): it's total reverse-land

ask a Republican which President raised taxes, amnestied illegals, allowed crack into the country and backed Saddam, Khomeini, Pol Pot, Videla, Pinochet, African Maoists who declared they were God, and funded Osama and the Taliban and they'll say Clinton; ask a RWer which state gives the most back to Washington compared to the taxes they get and they'll say LA: if you show them the facts they'll just dredge up some chain letter or predigested think-tank blastfax that "proves" that *you're* the one reversing the facts

ask a con who's been in charge of the Dems and they'll tell you that the purists have been dragging the party further and further left (I mean, we endorsed global warming 1992 and gay marriage openly in 2012: you can't say there's no progress!); every time they start a purge they start kickin' and hollerin' that all the cons are gonna get flushed from the party and we'll lose lose lose: liberals are then targeted for withdrawal of all national-level money or full-on redistricting; they tell us to vote in primaries rather than third party and then Connecticut, Arkansas, Colorado, and Pennsylvania get sabotaged--or they even endorse a third party rather than have a grassroots Dem who can win! whenever a conservadem loses it couldn't be because they were unappealing--it had to be because of "purity tests" or "circular firing squads" or ...

[onenote]

40. The 2008 Senate elections: by the numbers

Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Five Republican incumbents lost to a Democrat. Three open seats previously held by a Republican were captured by Democrats.

The States:

Alaska -- incumbent Stevens lost to Begich
Colorado -- Udall picked up open seat
Minn. -- Incumbent Coleman lost to Franken
NH -- Incumbent Sununu lost to Shaheen
NM -- Udall picked up open seat
NC -- Incumbent Dole lost to Hagan
OR -- Incumbent Smith lost to Merkley
VA -- Warner picked up open seat

Other than Alaska, these states aren't exactly deep red states. They're purple to light blue.
In fact, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and Virginia already had one Democratic Senator in 2008. North Carolina and New Hampshire had a Republican in the other Senate seat, but Shaheen was the former governor and North Carolina has had a number of Democratic governors in recent years. That's seven of the eight.

In addition, while Obama clearly helped, it obviously was possible for the right Democrat to get elected to statewide office in these states. Alaska was an anomaly because Stevens was badly damaged goods at the time.

Finally, in four of these eight states: Alaska, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Virginia, the Senate candidate outperformed Obama. And in Minnesota, where Franken was perceived as probably being to the left of Obama, he underperformed Obama by nearly 12 points. (In contrast, Warner, in Virginia, perceived as more moderate than Obama, outperformed Obama by more than 12 points).

The long and short of it is that generalizing from the results in 2008 to the results in 2014 is risky if you don't consider the details. Yes, Obama helped elect these Democrats, although it could be suggested that another Democratic candidate might have helped some of them just as much or more. And there is no question that dissatisfaction with Obama (along with dissatisfaction with the candidates themselves) helped defeat some of these candidates in 2014.