The solution to the Blue Dog Democrats is not Primaries in most cases

[AllentownJake]

The solution is educating voters in those areas on how the Progressive agenda is better for them.

I know some people on here the first reaction is Primary the bastard to the likes of Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, etc.

The fact is the problem is complex and the solution isn't always "Primary the bastard."

You have to take a look at a state or district and see what the vote totals were for the last Presidential Election. In a state like Nebraska which Ben Nelson represents John McCain won by 15 points. Indiana was won by the slimmest of margins.

These Democrats have been elected in these states for a reason. They are representative of the populace they were elected by. The problem isn't the Senator, it is the populace of that given state is not open to more progressive representation.

In cases where you have a big vote for President Obama and a big vote for the blue dog, the Primary solution might be viable.

To put it another way, Pat Toomey probably can't win a General Election in PA. However, he'd have no problem winning in a place like Arkansas or Nebraska. The reason is, Pat Toomey's brand of extreme conservatism is a non-starter in PA. When looking for candidates on our side of the political spectrum we can't be stupid like the GOP just was with Arlen.

If we want to get rid of the Blue Dogs we need to move the population they move to the left first and than, field a more progressive candidate. This is not field of dreams, just sending a more progressive candidate out there doesn't mean they will get votes in a given state or district.

[cali]

1. that takes time. and also, people who are adherents to fundamentalist

Christianity probably aren't really open to being educated.

[Zodiak]

2. One good eay to educate the public in those areas....

...is to primary that candidate whether it results in a win or a loss.

In this way, both sets of ideas are on the table to be debated, and the pubic is encouraged to engage in said debate.

If we leave the Blue Dogs completely uncontested, the populace has no chance of learning anything in that election cycle and will undoubtedly continue to vote simply on personality.

It's a matter of where you think the cart and the horse go.

[AllentownJake]

3. That leaves you with one of two things

An angry Blue Dog who wins election anyway who feels even more emboldened to buck the progressive agenda

or

A GOP Senator or congressman

That solution is not acceptable to me.

Making a smaller tent to make a point has given the GOP 40 Senators.

[thunder rising]

4. The best way to educate the public (and incumbent) is with a good primary challenge

[AllentownJake]

5. Arlen Specter

If he wins re-election has set a precedent. For our side as well.

[AtomicKitten]

23. I agree. And when the challenger wins, the party MUST back them.

The whole Lieberman mess set a rotten precedent.

[quiller4]

24. No. That is the surest way to turn a seat Red..

Moving popular opinion is a long-term process that involves lots of difficult community organizing around specific issues. There isn't a short cut.

[glowing]

6. You forgot Money. The real motivation behind many votes.

If the bank owns you, you will vote for the bank and hide behind some pretense of Conservative values. The bank is an evil blood sucker.. Doesn't matter which party your in, nobody likes the bank.

[AllentownJake]

9. Money is a huge problem

Its also a reason this "Primary" solution is a bad idea unless your taking out a Blue Dog in a progressive state.

The amount of money that is needed to successfully take out an entrenched Blue Dog is huge. The amount than in a non-progressive state to win the General Election against a GOPer is even more.

We have a limited amount of resources, we should use those resources to target areas we can win.

[mmonk]

7. And sometimes, its people thinking they are voting for something

different than a Republican.

[AllentownJake]

8. I don't think states that have elected Democratic Senators

but have voted overwhelmingly against a Democratic President have a secret yearning for a progressive democratic Senator that isn't being fulfilled.

[mmonk]

11. I don't think states that voted overwhelmingly against

a Democratic president have that many Democratic members of the Senate anyway. They may have some Congressional members from liberal districts but Senators aren't elected the same way. While it's true you can look say at a West Virginia and make the case, in other instances its harder.

[AllentownJake]

14. Nebraksa, Arkansas, West Virginia, Indiana

Name a Blue Dog and you generally have a purple or red state with few exceptions.

Indiana is an odd state. Having lived there in 2004 I know its very conservative, however I also know the state is heavily influenced by Chicago. I think the fact that Indiana is a very short drive for volunteers from Illinois to pour into to help elect their Senator President plus the access to Chicago media that has been covering the President since his Senate run in 2004 pulled that state blue.

However, John Kerry lost there...big time.

[mmonk]

28. Indiana is a hard to read state at times.

But I don't think Dems have to be so close to Republicans in policy because I think people expect some differences.

[salguine]

10. Educating the American public—enlightening the American public in this way—

will be like pushing a car uphill with a rope. It will probably take generations. Remember, this is the public that gave George W Bush a second term.

That the public is "uneducated", as the OP states, is only one part of the problem...the way campaigns are financed is another—maybe the biggest—problem. Once somebody is in office, it's virtually impossible to pry them out again, because they have all the money and connections, and money and connections—not voters—are pretty much the way elections are settled under the system that we have.

Ballot access is also a big part of the problem. Outrageous and unreasonable barriers are placed in the way of third-party candidates in many states (one of the few instances in which Democrats and Republicans enthusiastically cooperate) in order to make sure voters never get to hear a truly progressive message.

Anyone who doesn't believe that corporate America controls elections is in denial...and they make sure that genuine progressive candidates don't have a chance. How do you explain the fact that Dennis Kucinich, who was a legitimate Democratic Party candidate—couldn't even get into some of the primary debates? Corporate sponsorship of debates and other electoral processes makes good and sure that no candidate who won't "play ball"
ever moves beyond the early stages of the primaries.

And, the Democratic Party itself—the machine—needs to stop supporting Blue Dogs. And you know damn well that ain't gonna happen. The focus is not on advancing a progressive, people-centric platform or agenda; the focus is on making sure anyone with a (D) after their name—even a Blue Dog—stays in that seat. Which often—perhaps usually—means that the best interests of The People are ignored and forgotten.

[AllentownJake]

12. I agree and disagree with you on some things

Its a pragmatic vs. emotional approach.

Dennis was never running for President. I know I'm going to piss off a lot of Dennis' supporters by saying that but he was never running for President of the United States. I don't see Dennis running for statewide office in Ohio recently to build the electoral history to be given a legitimate shot at that office. Both times he ran for statewide office in the 80s he lost. There is a reason why Govenors and Senators tend to become Presidents. They show they can win an election in an area bigger than a congressional district. Dennis was running to highlight progressive issues. The only difference between Ralph Nader and Dennis is Dennis doesn't upset General Elections by running against his party. I like Dennis and I agree with him on a lot of things but don't tell me he's a serious Presidential candidate. He wasn't allowed in one debate because the network made a decision it was time for the side show to stop and only the people who were really trying to win the office to debate each other.



Money in politics is a huge problem.

George W. Bush's re-election is our fault as much as it is the American voting public. John Kerry ran a bad incoherent campaign. I don't know if it was stolen or not but it was close enough to steal and that is our fault.

[jody]

22. 10X post, politics is about winning elections and controlling the House and Senate. n/t

[stray cat]

13. States elect people that they think most represent their interests

and that seems like they understand them so if you want to change things you have to prove that that person is someone other than a republican, independent or moderate and really is the type of progressive DU approves.

[jody]

15. Voters in congressional districts identify with Blue Dog Democrats they elect. Perhaps you

might start by opening your mind and really understand why voters feel the way they do about divisive, polarizing political issues and vote for candidates who support their views.

There are some issues for which compromise is not possible between pro-choice and anti-choice positions, e.g. anti-Abortion and anti-Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA).

There are over 80+ million gun-owners in the U.S. and they make up a substantial portion of the 130+ million voters in the last election.

That's why Obama tried to change his anti-RKBA persona by promising voters, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Obama partially succeeded and many pro-RKBA supporters voted for Obama.

IMO if Obama had adopted the anti-RKBA policies of people like Diane Feinstein, his margin of less that 10 million votes against McCain of the 130+ million votes cast would have been much lower.

Obama also tried to straddle the fence on GLBT by saying he believed marriage was for a man and woman and at the same time encouraging voters to vote against Prop 8, a "No" vote that would have allowed same-sex marriage.

[AllentownJake]

16. Obama stays away from symbolic shit that doesn't change anything

I don't care about guns one way or the other. My only issue with guns is gun dumping where people go to states with less restrictive purchase laws (number of guns you can buy at one time) and dump them into inner city areas.

Laws like the Freedom of Choice Act are mostly symbolic gestures to appease a special interest group, the same can be said about the assault weapons ban. I don't think that made anyone safer, all it did was piss of gun owners and give a talking point to the NRA.

Barack is smart because he tries to stay away from the symbolic bullshit that changes nothing, but makes a special interest group feel special and rallies the opposing special interest group.

[jody]

17. Your OP challenged Blue Dog Dems, 49 congresspersons who represent their districts. You do know that

if we Dems lost those seats, control of the House would shift to Repubs with 227 seats and Dems 208 seats, don't you?

[AllentownJake]

18. No my OP said if you want a more progressive congress

You need to have more progressive populace electing the congress critters. Therefore you need to educate why the progressive agenda is better than the conservative agenda. You don't need to primary blue dog democrats out of representation and hand over seats to the GOP.

Therefore you need to educate a populace why a progressive agenda is good for them. Symbolic acts and laws meant to appease a special interest group in the progressive coalition is not my idea of pushing a progressive agenda.

Real change to Healthcare, business regulation, gay rights, and securing a Supreme Court that supports reproductive freedom pushes a progressive agenda.

[jody]

19. What do you mean by "Progressive agenda"? Your examples are health care, presumably paid for

by others; business regulation, presumably replacing competition for allocation of scarce resources with centrally directed choices of which goods and services are produced; GLBT rights; and pro-choice for abortion.

What do you oppose?

[AllentownJake]

20. I'm a liberal

I'm also a pragmatist.

The Health care system in this country is broken. Its not paid for by others that is the biggest problem, you have a middleman driving the cost up and enriching themselves at the cost of the public at large.

Unregulated capitalism results in depressions.

I'm liberal on most of the social wedge issues.

[jody]

21. Still, your OP targeted Blue Dog Dems who represent 49 congressional districts. I live in one of

those districts and I understand a little bit about the way voters view various political issues. My knowledge comes from friends in all cultures and ethnic groups.

There is no single issue that would shift them from being fiercely opinionated with Dems and Reps each having about 40% plus or minus and Ind about 20% more or less.

Our congressperson is a Dem but IMO he could easily lose in 2010 if he opposed just a few of the values that Blue Dog Dems represent.

[PassingFair]

33. What "values" are those?

I'm curious.

[annabanana]

35. hmmm

[jody]

47. One is RKBA protected by the Second Amendment that is a thorn in Obama's side because of his

anti-RKBA history and his continued support of renewing the assault weapons ban.

That in spite of candidate Obama's attempt to change his persona by promising voters "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Any candidate for this district's congressional seat would be defeated overwhelmingly if she/he said "I DON'T believe in the Second Amendment. I DON'T believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I WILL take your shotgun away. I WILL take your rifle away. I WILL take your handgun away." which is the position of people like Diane Feinstein.

I rest my case on that one example of a few divisive, polarizing political issues.

[PassingFair]

51. Feinstein is NO progressive.

I don't expect a DLC-type to win in the south,
but progressive-populists CAN.

The trouble is, the Blue Dogs and the "New Dem/DLC"
representatives join up to kill progressive legislation.

They certainly grouped together to help
the bushies attack Iraq....

[jody]

52. You asked "33. What 'values' are those?" I answered you. Name one of the 49 Blue Dog seats you

believe a progressive-populist can win in 2010 and on which side, pro or con, do you expect them to win on key divisive, polarizing political issues?

Blue Dog Coalition Members

[PassingFair]

55. Lets START with Jane Harman.

And then work on any others that are North
of the Mason/Dixon Line.

[jody]

56. OK, on which side, pro or con, do you expect Harman's opposition to win on key divisive, polarizing

political issues?

[PassingFair]

57. FISA, AIPAC, TORTURE, HEALTH CARE, etc, etc. etc. n/t

[jody]

58. OK, you want a candidate to vote against Harman's position on the following:

* More {Candidate LESS} congressional oversight of counter-terrorism needed. (Jul 2004)
* Voted YES {Candidate NO} on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES {Candidate NO} on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO {Candidate YES} on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
* Voted YES {Candidate NO} on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)
* Voted NO {Candidate YES} on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
* Voted NO {Candidate YES} on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
* Voted NO {Candidate YES} on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES {Candidate NO} on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES {Candidate NO} on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)
* Voted NO {Candidate YES} on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
* Voted YES {Candidate NO} on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
* Voted YES {Candidate NO} on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
* Establish {Candidate OPPOSE} a Women's Bureau in Dept. of Veterans Affairs. (Aug 1993)
* Restore {Candidate OPPOSE} habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. (Jun 2007)
* Recognize {Candidate OPPOSE} women veterans; assist military families. (Jul 1999)

See Jane Harman on Homeland Security (On The Issues)

[PassingFair]

59. Of course I don't want someone to just vote OPPOSITE her every vote.

:crazy:

But I'd love one that didn't
cover for SPIES...

Or doesn't support the invasion of
a country pre-emptively.

No one is going to take your gun, Jody....

[jody]

60. ROFL, when you try to defend your position with gun-trash you admit defeat.

:rofl:

[PassingFair]

61. I don't even know what that means.

:crazy:

:rofl:

:wtf:

[jody]

62. Your answer makes sense given your apparent knowledge of political issues.

Have a good day and good bye, :hi:

[PassingFair]

64. Later, Mr. Non Sequitur!

:hi:

[totodeinhere]

25. We don't need a "solution for Blue Dog Democrats."

The Blue Dogs are a welcome and vital part of the party. We can't make the same mistake the GOP made and apply an ideological litmus test to our candidates. To remain in the majority, we must have a big tent.

[CBR]

26. I totally agree.

Lincoln Chafee said this on Rachel the other night -- do not run primaries against moderate senators in states controlled by the other party. Do not primary Arlen Specter if you are the GOP and do not primary Ben Nelson if you are the Dems. More importantly, as you stated, we cannot make the mistakes of the GOP -- the purist ideology purges.

[FLAprogressive]

29. they should be about as welcome as farts in an elevator.

most of them are vile homophobes and right-wingers.

[totodeinhere]

31. It's easy to make unfounded accusations like that.

Can you provide a link or two to substantiate your claim that most Bluedogs are "homophobes and right-wingers?" Your extremist rhetoric reminds me of the sort of thing that right wing purists have done to the GOP.

[FLAprogressive]

34. All Dems who voted against the hate crimes bill were Blue Dogs.

[onenote]

37. that would be 17 Dems out of nearly 50 Blue Dogs

Interesting way you have of calculating "most".

[FLAprogressive]

42. the Blue Dogs also voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment and against ENDA

[jody]

48. 10X answer and I wonder why that's not obvious to some DUers? n/t

[xxqqqzme]

27. Well I guess that might work for me IF

Nelson was casting a vote ONLY for the people of Nebraska but he isn't. He is deciding if the troubled mortgages of bankrupted homeowners in ALL states get their mortgages re-negotiated.

The House of Representatives are your value reflectors. The Senate is not.

[dionysus]

30. awesome post!

:thumbsup:

[PassingFair]

32. The best way to educate them is to get an effective candidate out in front of them...

How will they believe if no one is
giving them an alternative.

If their "dogs" or "new dems" are never
called to account for their votes?

Primary them.

Primary the CRAP out of them.

Even if they win, they will have gotten
the message.

[jimmybama]

36. But,

all of this assumes that the elected official gives a rat's
ass about what his or her constituent wants.

[onenote]

38. Here is a little phrase to remember: All poltics are local

Guess what -- one of the reasons that incumbents get elected is that most voters care more about the little things -- constituent services -- than big picture issues. If their congresscritter brings home the bacon, helps their kids get into West Point or the Naval Academy, appears at local events etc., he or she is going to win 9 times out of ten.

I live in a district in VA that over time became solidly blue. But we had a repub congressman up until the time he decided to retire. While his races had gotten closer, he was still winning pretty handily. I worked for the Democrat who ran against him in 2006 and I told my guy, who was running on an anti-war platform, that being an anti-war candidate would get him only so far. His opponent, while supporting a war that most in the district opposed, was ever present. If there was a neighborhood civic association meeting -- he was there. If there was a neighborhood ice cream social, he was there. On Fourth of July, he hit more local parades than I could imagine, brining bottled water (with him name on the label), hand held fans (with his name on them) and candy for kids in one pocket and biscuits for dogs in his other pocket.

People liked him. He was not aloof. He was considered part of the community. So he won time and again even though repub candidates for president or senator or governor lost the district.

That is how a lot of Blue Dogs keep winning. They are viewed as part of the community. And that is hard to overcome. Not impossible, but it takes more than simply announcing that you are the progressive candidate and your opponent is not.

[PassingFair]

39. All it takes is a progressive member of the community to run...

and run HARD.

[onenote]

40. if it was that easy, why does it hardly ever happen?

Not saying it can't be done. Just that its easy to forget how difficult it is.

[PassingFair]

41. It happens when things get bad enough...

they call it "populist" movements.

It's bad enough....

[quiller4]

43. But if a community isn't progressive-and many aren't- a progressive

won't win and an R will take his/her place. is that really what you want.

[PassingFair]

44. Yes, let them marginalize themselves enough and they will be

even MORE insignificant in the long run.

In most cases, the progressive will never
win the primary, but they should still TRY,
so the issues will be heard and this will
push the incumbent away from voting like
a republican.

[Tim01]

45. Any *real* democrat is vegan, pagan, pacifist,and gay.

There, I said it for you. No sense in beating around the bush.

[PassingFair]

46. What a ridiculous post.

I'm neither vegan, nor pagan, nor pacifist,
nor gay.

But I believe that vegans and pagans and pacifists
and gays are all people, with viable viewpoints.

Anyone whom claims that any of them are
sub-human or weird or "going to hell", can BITE IT.

[jody]

49. Perhaps the post forgot :sarcasm: ? n/t

[PassingFair]

50. I hope so! n/t

[Tim01]

53. And anybody who disagrees with any of them should get out of the democrat party.

Right?

[PassingFair]

54. Er...right.. because I've seen that big push by vegans to kick meat-eaters out of the dem party....

:crazy:

[Drunken Irishman]

63. My congressman, Matheson, is a conservative Democrat.

And there is no way a liberal Democrat is going to win that seat. It's just not going to happen. It's a district that Bush won with nearly 80% of the vote in 2004 and Obama lost by like 30 points.

[PassingFair]

65. So....how does Rocky Anderson thrive?

I think the terms liberal/conservative/progressive
are blurred.

[Drunken Irishman]

67. Because he's in Salt Lake City.

Possibly one of the most liberal cities in the western United States. It's night and day between Salt Lake (pop. 180,000) and the Salt Lake metro (pop. 2 million) and the state (pop. 3 million). Anderson thrives here, just as every Democrat, because the city is demographically different than the rest of the state.

Firstly, Salt Lake is only like 30% LDS, compared to about 65% for the state. Of that 30%, I'd wager maybe 20% of that is very active and even they tend to lean left.

Secondly, Salt Lake is 70% white, compared to about 95% for the state.

Thirdly, Salt Lake City has a fairly large and growing gay population and most intermountain gays locate here (from the rest of the state, Wyoming, Nevada and Idaho).

Fourthly, Salt Lake has a large outdoors population due to the mountains.

Add that all up and you've got an extremely liberal community.

Look at it this way: Rocky Anderson ran for the 2nd congressional seat against Merrill Cook in 1996. This was when that seat actually leaned more left than it does now (since it was originally most of Salt Lake County until the Republican legislature here gerrymandered it into what it is today). Anderson lost that race 55-42, though won Salt Lake City. That was the only city he won in the district and he decided to run for mayor for that reason.

The fact is, if Anderson ever ran for state-wide office, he'd win Salt Lake and lose every other region in the state.

[jody]

69. You use facts to fight ignorance and closed-mindedness, how unfair of you.

:thumbsup: :hi:

[PassingFair]

70. Then someone with political leanings BETWEEN Matheson and Anderson should run.

Keep pushing to send people to Washington
that will make a positive, progressive
difference in our country.

When I get angry at my representatives,
it's because they have screwed us on
the federal level, not because they
tanked some local job base, I ASSUME
they are doing that job their best to
avoid that.

[Drunken Irishman]

71. Then we'll lose that seat.

Matheson has only kept this seat because A) he's a conservative and B ) because he's an incumbent. Trust me, no Democrat is going to win that seat unless they're a bit conservative. I know you think it's possible, but it just won't happen.

[PassingFair]

72. A bit conservative is fine. Extreme war-mongers like Lieberman

and Harman and Bayh should be primaried
so that the issues are in sharp relief.

[Drunken Irishman]

73. I love your enthusiasm.

And can see why it trumps reality, but it's not going to happen. These guys, even if they rum in a primary, are still going to win over the more liberal candidate.

You might not like it, but it's reality. These seats would be solid Republican if it weren't for them.

[PassingFair]

74. Good, let them win, but let them go on record with their views...

drop by drop things will change.

[jody]

66. Agree! What's hard to understand that if Dems lose 49 Blue Dogs, control of the House would shift to

Repubs with 227 seats and Dems 208 seats?

Anyone who doesn't understand those political facts of life are no different than fringe groups in the Republican party who congratulate themselves over losing Specter in the interest of narrow political purity.

[Drunken Irishman]

68. Just look what's happening to the Republican Party as we speak!

They're not losing these seats because they ran to the middle, they're losing these seats because they're running extremely conservative Republicans in left-leaning and moderate areas and getting clobbered. They lost the NE that way and if the Democrats want to do the same, you can kiss goodbye much of the midwest, west and south.

Do we really want to follow the Republican's path to destruction?