5 Most Highly Vulnerable Senate Dems Signal Consequences of Right Turn by Democratic Party

[Time for change]

A recent analysis of 2010 US Senate races by Nate Silver provides bad news for Democrats. Among the 9 Senate seats most likely to change parties, 8 are currently held by Democrats. Those seats include 4 that will be open, including 3 currently held by Democrats (ND, IL, DE) and 5 that will feature Democratic incumbents. The Democratic Party fares no better in the House, for which recent polls show the national electorate leaning Republican. That means the House could easily change parties, unless something significant happens between now and November.

Given that our corporate media, Republicans and conservative Democrats are trying to spin the Democratic Party’s declining fortunes as being due to over-reaching too far to the left, it would be instructive to consider the nature of the five Democratic Senators whose chances for re-election appear to be most seriously endangered for 2010.


Consideration of the 5 most highly endangered Democratic Senators

According to Nate Silver’s analysis, the five most highly endangered Democratic Senators are:

Blanche Lincoln (chances of re-election if she survives the primary 21% to 39%, depending upon opposition)
Harry Reid (chances of re-election if he survives the primary 10% to 20%, depending upon opposition)
Arlen Specter (chances of re-election if he survives the primary 27%)
Michael Bennet (chances of re-election if he survives the primary 27% to 47%, depending upon opposition)
Evan Bayh (chances of re-election 63%)

One could argue about the precise chances of re-election for each of these Senators. But I think there is little doubt that each of them is in substantial trouble.

The other Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2010 are Boxer, Inouye, Mikulski, Schumer, Gillibrand, Wyden, Leahy, Murray, and Feingold. Each of those Senators was ranked ideologically among the 33 most liberal US Senators in the 110th Congress, according to a frequently cited political analysis of US Senators. By contrast, only one of the five most highly vulnerable Senators (Reid) was ranked among the 33 most liberal Senators of the 110th Congress, and one other (Bennet) was not a US Senator in 2008. Further consideration of the individual vulnerable Democratic Senators provides additional clues to the trouble in which the Democratic Party now finds itself.

Blanche Lincoln
Blanche Lincoln was ranked among the 7 most conservative Democratic Senators of the 110th Congress. But probably more important than that in her likely political demise was her insistence on fighting against meaningful health care reform. Having the option of government administered health insurance has long been very popular with the American people. An August 2009 poll clearly made that point. The poll asked:

In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance – extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?

The poll results showed that 77% of Americans feel that it is either “extremely important” (58%) or “quite important” (19%). All demographic groups and categories of Americans believe this, even including 67% of self-identified conservatives and 71% of Republicans – as explained in this post.

Yet, Lincoln apparently felt that currying favor with the health insurance industry was more important than what her constituents wanted. She was one of 9 Democratic Senators who made an active (and successful) effort to ensure that federally administered health care (the public option) was left out of any health care “reform” passed by Congress. Specifically, in November 2009 she said about the Senate health care proposal:

I’m prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included.

Her intense opposition to the public option is now very well known. That wasn’t previously the case. In July 2009, Lincoln wrote in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: "Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals as those of a public plan.” At that time her Senate seat was not considered to be highly endangered. Now her US Senate career appears to be near extinction.

Harry Reid
Reid is the only currently endangered Senate Democrat whose voting record in the 110th Congress was not substantially to the right of most Democratic Senators. But his situation is precarious because of his position as Senate Majority Leader. In that position Americans holds him substantially responsible for what Congress accomplishes or fails to accomplish. Currently he is unpopular with the Right because he’s a Democrat, and he’s not very popular with the Left because Congress has fallen far short of their expectations.

But it’s more than that. It has to do with what many progressives/liberals see as his lack of leadership on important progressive issues – especially healthcare. Chris Weigant summed up some of the most important problems with that leadership in this November post:

Reid has shown over and over again that he simply does not know how to negotiate in a timely fashion. He usually begins negotiating by publicly stating he will be throwing away all his best leverage in the negotiations – making it much easier for his opponents to defeat him. He has put up with so many delaying tactics on healthcare… Meaning Reid has left everyone with very little elbow room. Which makes it all the easier for opponents to defeat the whole effort… The buck stops at Harry's desk, as the leader of the Senate Democrats.

As if all of this weren't enough, Reid just announced that he's no longer even considering reconciliation as a last resort. Once again, Reid takes the most powerful weapon at his disposal and, instead of wielding it forcefully, actually chucks it over the side of the boat instead. This seems to be Harry's standard operating procedure – surrender before the fight begins.

Arlen Specter
Specter was rated as the fifth least conservative Republican of the 110th Congress. But that’s not saying much, as he voted for whatever George W. Bush wanted the good majority of the time – as did virtually all Senate Republicans. And his voting record was to the right of any Senate Democrat.

Specter must have seen the hand-writing on the wall, as he recently switched to the Democratic Party. His record has been mixed since that time, and he now seems less conservative than the Blue Dog Senate Democrats, such as Lincoln and Bayh. But his party switch have been too little too late. It seems unlikely that after 44 years as a loyal elected Republican, including 29 years as a Republican US Senator from Pennsylvania, that many Pennsylvania Democrats see him as a true Democrat.

Michael Bennet
Bennet was not part of the 110th Congress. He became a US Senator from Colorado in January 2009, when Ken Salazar was appointed Secretary of the Interior. So Bennet doesn’t yet have much of a record. As a freshman Senator who has never previously run for elective office, Bennet faces special difficulties in his re-election bid. Nate Silver rates him as the second most conservative of the ten current Democratic freshman US Senators.

Evan Bayh
Bayh was rated the most conservative Democratic US Senator of the 110th Congress. Worse yet, he was the initiator of the Blue Dog Democratic caucus in the Senate. Worse still, he has been one of the 9 most obstructive Democratic Senators on health care reform, as he even opposed getting around Republican filibusters through the reconciliation process.


Conclusion

Political parties often face difficulties and do poorly in mid-term elections, especially when the economy is not doing well. In that respect, the Democratic Party of 2010 is no exception to the rule.

But the Democratic Party needs to recognize that moving to the right – in other words, kowtowing to corporate interests to the detriment of the American people – is not the answer to their problems, and is likely to result in massive losses in Congress if it continues. To the contrary, it has been the failure of the Democratic Party to do more to improve the lives of ordinary Americans – as did President Roosevelt and his New Deal Congress during our last depression – that has disappointed so many Americans. This failure has pulled down the whole Democratic Party. But it is mostly the more conservative Democrats who are in endangered, not the more progressive ones.

Health care especially is likely to be a major factor in the mid-term elections of 2010. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman summarized this issue last summer:

Voters are ready for major change. The question now is whether we will nonetheless fail to get that change, because a handful of Democratic senators are still determined to party like it’s 1993… The Republicans, with a few possible exceptions, have decided to do all they can to make the Obama administration a failure. Their role in the health care debate is purely that of spoilers who keep shouting the old slogans – Government-run health care! Socialism! Europe! – hoping that someone still cares. The polls suggest that hardly anyone does. Voters, it seems, strongly favor a universal guarantee of coverage… What’s more, they overwhelmingly favor precisely the feature of Democratic plans that Republicans denounce most fiercely as “socialized medicine” – the creation of a public health insurance option that competes with private insurers…

The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by “centrist” Democratic senators who either prevent the passage of a bill or insist on watering down key elements of reform. I use scare quotes around “centrist,” by the way, because if the center means the position held by most Americans, the self-proclaimed centrists are in fact way out in right field.

What the balking Democrats seem most determined to do is to kill the public option, either by eliminating it or by carrying out a bait-and-switch, replacing a true public option with something meaningless… Honestly, I don’t know what these Democrats are trying to achieve… If I had to guess, I’d say that what’s really going on is that relatively conservative Democrats still cling to the old dream of becoming kingmakers, of recreating the bipartisan center that used to run America. But this fantasy can’t be allowed to stand in the way of giving America the health care reform it needs.

Well, they already have killed the public option. And they’ve fallen short on other needed progressive changes as well, such as producing an inadequate stimulus bill and an inadequate energy bill. If they continue to fail to use their huge majorities in Congress to put the American people ahead of their corporate donors the mid-term elections of 2010 could produce huge Democratic losses in Congress that shut the door to meaningful progress for a good long time.

[villager]

1. since the Dem powerbrokers won't learn from the coming electoral bloodbath,

...will it be time to form a new party?

[Time for change]

25. I think it is. I Really do.

I wrote an OP about that a couple of months ago. But it was locked after a while by a moderator, with the rationale that my post "also could be seen as 3rd party advocacy". So I won't link to that post here, because I don't want a repeat experience of that.

[pattmarty]

26. Green Party.

[w4rma]

48. The heck with those nuts. (nt)

[mod mom]

54. Yeah...those nuts-look at what their radical party platform supports:

Grassroots Democracy

Social justice and equal opportunity

ecological wisdom

non-violence

decentralization

community based economics and economic justice

feminism and gender equality

respect for diversity

personal and global responsibility

future focus and sustainability

Now I would like to suggest that progressives and Gs work together. Instead of creating a wedge by hateful rhetoric, perhaps a constructive dialogue would be more appropriate.

[Time for change]

58. + 10

[w4rma]

64. I would suggest that progressives destroy the Gs, because they exist to create a wedge and hurt

progressives in Democratic primaries.

[mod mom]

75. bs-they exist because they were tired of a party that failed to deliver it's promises.

I'm a registered Dem and worked nearly full time on both Kerry's and Obama's campaign (so much that I worked events where I got to meet them) but I've crossed over and voted for Greens where the Dems were corporate sponsored.

BTW Greens don't run against Dems in primaries. They are a separate party.

[w4rma]

76. That's nice. Did you ever get involved in a primary campaign for a progressive? (nt)

[mod mom]

82. Absolutely. I was working on a progressive candidate's bid for senator until

my husband suffered a spinal chord injury in early June that left me his caretaker and sole transportation for the family. Unfortunately it's the corporate Dems (not Greens!) w/in the party who are undermining her chances.

[pattmarty]

57. Oohhhhh? Then where the fuck ya gonna go? Republican?..........

.........You already know what the Dems are going to do for you (hint: bend over).

[w4rma]

62. Democratic primaries. The DLC won't like being challenged there. (nt)

[pattmarty]

67. You still need an "alternative" organization, money, ground troops etc.

You would almost have to "build" another whole Democratic party apparatus. The Greens are organized and the biggest problem they have (other than money) is getting on the ballot in a lot of states. Ya gotta start somewhere and my belief is the Democratic party is no longer the party of FDR, it has become in Howard Dean's words "Republican lite". We pretty much now (and it will be worse since the Supreme Court ruling) have what the Soviets had in the 60's & 70's, a one party system. You still have the right to vote, but only for "selected" candidates in BOTH (2) parties. In the USSR the citizens could vote too, but only for "selected" candidates.

[w4rma]

74. The Greens are nothing and not organized. They'd do better by directing their "organization" towards

primaries. You don't like the candidate, then get off your butt and help "select" them. That's what primaries are for.

[eridani]

81. Their biggest problem is that they don't take elections seriously

As in establishing an ongoing voter database, for starters.

[olegramps]

37. What is required is a Workers of America Party.

The working class must come to the realization that the Democratic Party has abandon them. I would favor a party that would use the existing Labor Unions as the core upon which to build a party that is dedicated to the protection of the working class.

It would totally disassociated itself from both the Republican and Democratic Party and run its own slate of candidates. Those Democrats and perhaps a handful of Republicans and Independents who are firmly committed to the party's agenda would be welcome. The party should be dedicated to the protection of workers' jobs, anti-outsourcing, fair wages, repeal of usury interest rates, universal health care, reigning in the military-industrial complex, firm regulation of banking and corporations, a progressive income and inheritance taxes that have allowed the wealthiest to impoverish the average worker, etc., etc. In short, a party that truly represents 90% of the nation's citizens' interest rather than it most wealthy 10%. I can only concluded that the present administration that offered so much hope to the working class citizens has been a miserable disappointment and that the only thing that could affect the status quo is a dramatic change.

[Enthusiast]

55. I'm with you Gramps! nt

[rucky]

77. You're in luck, gramps...

http://www.thelaborparty.org/

[Political Heretic]

80. It's simply time to start casting votes that honor workers rather than rulers.

If Democrats field candidates that stand in solidarity with workers rather than rulers, vote for them! If they do not, don't.

By doing that, I believe one is most loyal to the spirit of the Party. When the Party betrays the people and then says, "You must vote for this!" The most loyal thing you can do, I believe, is say.... "no."

We must demand that the Democratic Party return back to a party where its presidential nominee stood up publicly and called corporate predators "economic royalist" and declared "I welcome their hatred."

If they refuse to do that, and they continue to hand us corporate sucking pissants, then not only should we not vote for them, but we should turn out en masse at their every campaign stop armed with a bag full of rotten vegetables.

Tar and feathers optional.

[NorthCarolina]

2. Bayh 63% chance of re-election?

Now that's pretty damn depressing.x(

[pattmarty]

27. He has the "famous" name (he is not all that bright) and it's Indiana............

..........., the flattest piece of ground on fucking earth.:sarcasm:






Edit to add: The sarcasm "thingie"

so I don't get hammered and beat up by a lot of people in PJ's that have nothing better to do
than beat up on a poor ole liberal having some literary fun.

[change_notfinetuning]

56. Indiana - the northernmost southern state. As for the "famous name", it's so

famous that Indianans should say it twice, as in Bayh-Bayh.

[provis99]

3. Obama won Indiana for Democrats for the first time since 1964.

Bayh would be a shoo-in if if followed on Obama's coattails. Instead, he stupidly insists on becoming more and more right wing, endangering his chances for re-election because he can't read a damned Indiana poll.

If Bayh were more liberal, given the current ideological sway in Indiana, his re-election chance would be 100%, rather than 63%. 63% chance of re-election is piss poor given that incumbent Senators have a 92% chance of re-election every election cycle.

[notesdev]

7. Obama's coattails were pretty short

in duration, I mean. Olympics, Copenhagen, VA, NJ, and MA... even the sports teams he roots for lose!

[cali]

4. not that I don't agree that it's a huge mistake for the dems to keep swerving to the right

but this analysis is seriously flawed. There is a big difference between Arkansas and Vermont.

[Time for change]

6. As I noted in the OP

Even 71% of Republicans favor a public option in health care. It's unlikely that there is a state in the country whose citizens would appreciate a Senator doing everything s/he can to keep it out.

[Kaleva]

11. Then why would they vote for a person who will fight tooth & nail against health care reform.

Or maybe, health care reform isn't that big of an issue and there will be other reasons why Republicans defeat incumbent Democrats.

[Time for change]

12. My point is

that that is a major reason why she is now losing so badly in the polls.

[Kaleva]

14. However, Blanche isn't facing any credible primary challenge.

Her main threat is from the field of possible Republican challengers of which I have yet to find one who says he won't fight against health care reform.

[Time for change]

15. For Republicans it isn't as important that they support health care reform

They have their right wing ideologues to vote for them.

But why should anyone vote for a Democrat who won't support the needs of ordinary Americans. Republicans are against them because they're Democrats, and progressives are against them because they don't support the needs of ordinary Americans. It's a very bad combination of traits. That's why conservative Democrats are polling so poorly now. It's a signal that most Americans won't support Democrats who don't truly represent them.

[Kaleva]

18. In a state where McCain got close to 60% of the vote, Dems are going to have a hard time.

[Time for change]

19. She won by double digits in her Senate bids over Republican opponents in 1998 and 2004

Then she recently started with this crusade against the public option. But she can't seem to get her story straight. All the while she was threatening to fillibuster any bill with a public option in it, her web site read:

Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goal as a public plan.

A good congressperson, Republican or Democrat, should at least be straightforward about what they are for -- not try to have it both ways, trying to lead people to believe she's fighting for their interests, while threatening to filibuster reform measures that would satisfy those interests.

[Kaleva]

20. Blanch Lincoln still gets majority support from Dems...

it's her tanking with Republicans and Independents that is killer her poll numbers.

"Lincoln still enjoys majority support among Democrats with 61 percent popularity. Sixty-six percent of Democrats think she is doing a good job.

Seventy-six percent of Republicans disapprove of Lincoln’s job, while 18 percent approve.

Strikingly, all-important independent voters have a similar attitude as Republicans. Sixty-nine percent disapprove of Lincoln’s job performance; 24 percent approve of how she’s handling her Senate job."

http://www.talkbusiness.net/Weblogs/WeblogItemDetail.aspx?WebLogItemID=4203ff9b-ce17-439d-a657-63e583e291f7&WeblogID=

[laughingliberal]

22. I don't necessarily think 61% popularity in your own party is great for an incumbent Senator

Silver makes a good case in that her seat looked much safer when she was on record for a public option.

[Kaleva]

23. Lincoln was already in trouble last summer

When, according to another TBN poll, her favorable rating was 49% at that time. That poll also stated that the economy and education were higher concerns then health care (23%, 16%, 13%).

[laughingliberal]

24. Perhaps. But it was also during the summer she started to back off her support for the public option

All I know is the conservative Democrats who helped defeat Clinton's health care reform were the ones who lost in '94.

[rhett o rick]

45. That's because she has no primary competition. The Demo Party strongly discourages primary

challenges to their incumbents. This is a huge problem. Democrats are stuck with her.

[laughingliberal]

21. I believe the point is not whether they will fight for reform or not

I believe it is whether they will fight for real reform or not. My belief is people would rather vote for someone who will oppose the current HCR bill. I believe people would vote for a candidate who will support and fight for real reform.

[rhett o rick]

32. I think this is a huge point. The voters will not have a choice. Either right wing Dem or right

wing repub.

[jeff47]

59. They aren't. They simply aren't going to vote.

The problems for Democrats this election will not be Democrats voting for Republicans. The problem will be that Democrats stay home.

The activists will probably still vote, but since they've been stomped on for the last year they won't be putting forth much effort to get anyone else to vote Democratic.

[pattmarty]

28. Tell me, I LIVE in Arkansas.

[SoCalDem]

5. Why vote for a dem who masquerades as a republican?

repubs & independents will vote for a real republican
and dems will sit the election out..

pretty obvious to me

[rhett o rick]

33. There's a quote that goes with that. Dont know it exactly or who said it, but

goes like, "If the choice is between a Democrat that acts like a republican and a republican, people will always chose the republican."

[Tesha]

40. Harry Truman said that (+/-)

He was real Democrat who wasn't afraid of being
a Democrat. For example, he de-segregated the
Armed Forces *WITHOUT* a study, simply because
he understood that it was the correct thing to do.

Tesha

[rhett o rick]

46. Thank you. And yes I agree. A year to study DADT is insulting. nt

[Wardoc]

8. And they aren't going to be able to "shame" those of us who they have crapped on to vote either...

...I for one do not care if I get the whole guilt trip right before election time to "hold my nose and vote" or any of that "the time to protest was the primary".

No, I do not walk down the stairs to vote for them, they walk up the stairs to get a vote from me. My vote is not a guarantee, nor is it an obligation for me to give, and I sure as hell won't be blackmailed with the "then (insert random opponent here) thanks you for the support". If they don't serve MY interests to MY satisfaction (which exclusively is to MY judgment alone) then they don't get MY vote. And I'm not expecting 100% agreement with my desires, but I am expecting a healthy majority and if not, fuck em.

As of today, unless something drastic changes, I am not voting for any candidates only propositions. Everyone else can do what they want, but that is what I'm doing.

[sendero]

9. I've been saying this here for months..

... Obama apparently thinks "hope" will stop a big "change" in Nov.

Once his majorities in congress are crippled, maybe he will wish he had used some of that power when he had it.

[Hissyspit]

10. K&R nt

[The Wizard]

13. Whether or not

the Senate Democrats deliberately derailed health care reform because they were taking insurance lobby bribes is a question that must be answered.
That they couldn't pass health care with huge majorities says either they're not honest brokers or totally inept.
In either case they opened the exit door for themselves.
For reasons unknown, Max Bachus was given free rein to destroy health care reform. He should have been taken into a private room and told in no uncertain terms what needed to be done.
Furthermore, the Senate is an obsolete institution that needs to be scrapped like the Electoral College. It's antithetical to democratic principles. All Senators have veto power over the entire nation, but are only representing one state. That may have worked in a different era, before Republicans realized that in abusing the system they could seize power. Mitch McConnell is playing Harry Reid like a cheap fiddle. Comity my ass.

[bertman]

16. The Senate was established as a means of maintaining patrician control of Congress. It's doing

very well at that, thank you. All snark aside, you are absolutely right, but that's not going to change anything. The parties no longer even try to act like they serve the interests of the people. They only SAY that they do. Never act like they do. That's why no one took Max aside and snatched a knot on his ass. He was doing his job. I'm sure his DLC approval rating is high.

[bertman]

17. Sad news that you have delivered to us, Time for change, but certainly not unexpected.

Rec.

[Time for change]

61. Sad, but still possibly could be turned around

Rahm has to go, along with all his fucked up ideas.

[DisgustedInMN]

29. Suppose any of the *#*#heads at theDLC or the WH are..

...listening? I seriously doubt it. It hard to imagine that it was just a year ago that We the People were filled with hope for a fair shake and a decent future.

WTG, Team Obama. :woohoo:
:sarcasm:

[tomp]

30. the problem is the two party system and the media...

..and brainwashed americans who think their only choices are dem or repub. they will very likely punish the dems by voting repub. it's just stupid.

a third party is the only way short of revolution.

[yurbud]

31. People are angry at Wall Street, and Dems let their corporate owned pols take the lead

that about sums up the post and the problem with the party right now. They have adopted the DLC motto: we'd rather be corporate compliant than win.

[lonestarnot]

34. Turn right motherfuckers and you're done. But anyone who knows knows that they never were left.

Pugs in dems clothing or now w/o clothes.

[rhett o rick]

35. This is a huge problem for the Party. It's an even bigger problem for

the left. With the republicant party self destructing the conservatives are moving to the Democratic Party. It appears that the DLC loves it. The Democratic Party machine (Rahmbo) is wooing the new Conserva-Dems at the expense of the left. The public will find their choices at the ballot box will be Conserva-Dems vs. reich wing wackos. Kiss HCR and all other progressive legislation goodbye. CorpAmerica is loving it. The left is completely marginalized.

[Time for change]

66. Yes, it's such a shame that with the Republican Party self-destructing, even then

the Democratic Party couldn't take advantage of the situation to accomplish the things that were expected of them by their base who worked so hard for them.

I guess that the corporate powers got their hands on enough Dems to derail everything. I often wonder if they actually made threats -- and how many they made.

The American people need to recognize quickly when their elected representatives turn against them -- and then vote them out of office.

[kentuck]

36. How many of them are "liberals"?

If none, good riddance. Take their neo-con asses home.

[Time for change]

73. True, but I'm afraid that they may take some of the liberals with them

[Overseas]

38. K&R. The sad consequences of Dems not even uniting around basic compassion

in a time of supreme economic turmoil.

How different things could have been if the Democrats, including Blue Dogs, had united around bottom line compassionate government and pushed public option healthcare from Day One.

"We were forced into the Bush Bailout after the Bush Crash and now we need to help the people with Medicare for All as our public option, along with letting those who want to go private have the insurance exchange Congress gets," could have been their plan. The Bush Bailout after the Bush Crash followed by Democratic Compassion. We the People. Band together as a block to give our new president that one item without compromise.

They could have protected their corporate bribery (aka campaign support) on other topics. Just give their party longer term stability through a firm, uncomplicated public option-- expanding Medicare, and they could have waffled on tons of other things-- the boon of freedom from medical terror would have done a lot to ensure their seats in 2010.

Basic compassion. And modern Brand Reinforcement -- Democrats are more compassionate. Instead, they let the foolish Blue Dogs compromise their brand, even when majorities of all parties supported a strong public option.

But it seems like the President's team didn't come in with that idea either. To band together on the very clear marketing opportunity that just also happened to be desperately needed after the Bush Crash and Bush Bailout.

Instead of seeing Democrats united behind basic compassion, the public has been treated to The Wimps vs The Bullies.

[Time for change]

65. "Basic compassion" -- Such a simple idea, and yet I think right on target

And so obvious that I am very perplexed as to why the Democratic Party won't pick up on it. Perhaps they're scared that they will be pilloried by the corporate media if they do that (and they will be). Or perhaps some of them are worried that they might meet the fate of Paul Wellstone (or JFK or RFK) if they go too far. There are mysteries here that are very difficult for me to grasp.

[Overseas]

78. And our Democratic legislators just couldn't jump together as a team to give their new president

that important win and necessary safety net for people. I was really amazed that the Obama Team would not have rushed in with that goal more solidly in mind. Medicare for all. Democrats bond tightly to push that through and we people would be so glad we wouldn't have noticed lots of other capitulation.

But instead of seizing the easiest, most glaring example of corporate abuse of power-- insurance companies raising rates and dropping coverage and reveling in their soaring profits-- instead of picking that one item as an immovable Democratic team, after the Republican Bush Economic Crash and Republican Bush Bailouts, the team came in talking about compromising with the greed of the private sector. Millions of desperate uninsured citizens be damned.

2009 was the perfect time for it. Republicans had totally screwed up and millions of citizens recognized that and definitively voted them out and STILL the Democrats didn't seize the time and just push that one fabulous but just basic human compassion of universal health care through.

Instead of firmly criticizing the Republicans whose party had failed miserably, the Democratic administration chose to belittle those of us who really longed for Democrats to reclaim some of their legacy-- basic human rights and more economic justice.

How odd it was to see my dear new Democratic Supermajority grovelling for Olympia Snowe's vote by tossing out all the best ideas of the Democratic team, and hear them talk about resisting the extremists in their own party. Extremists were those who wanted us to have what Canadians have loved for decades now-- Medicare for all.

It has felt almost as if my Democrats wanted to undermine our party. And I feel so foolish for not having worked harder on moving overseas again. I kept waiting and hoping for the Democrats to reclaim their power, but it seems like capitulating and playing it weak has been much more lucrative for the individuals.

[The Magistrate]

39. An Excellent Analysis, Sir

Conservative Democrats cut their own throats in their opposition to liberal and progressive measures in Congress. It happens time and time again, yet people of that stripe seem unable ever to learn the obvious lesson: people vote for Democrats over Republicans because those people, no matter how relatively conservative they may be, want policies from the government to the left of what the Republicans will provide, and when the Democrats they elect fail to provide these, they will see no point to voting for them, and they will lose elections. The margin of their defeat will always be the disenchantment of solid left and liberal Democrats n their states or districts, who can see no point in voting for someone determined to act like a Republican once in office.

"If you run a fake Republican against a real one, the people will take the genuine article every time."

[Time for change]

71. Thank you Magistrate -- That's largely the way I see it.

It seems so clear sometimes that I have trouble understanding why the Democratic Party leaders can't see it. It seems so perplexing that I often think that there are strings being pulled somewhere that we just can't see.

[bigtree]

41. maybe

. . . but this is a predictable effect of the energizing of the opposition and the laxity of our Democratic supporters in response to our Democratic majority and Democratic WH. The mass energizing of conservative voters in each of these vulnerable Dems' states in these off-term and mid-term elections is a predictable blowback effect of our party in power right now. It's happened before and it will be the case this election as well. Their survival depends on how many Democrats they can energize behind them or how many conservative voters in their red states they can dissuade from voting for their challenger. It stands to reason that their conservative stances have alienated many in their own voting bloc and that they will be challenged to either draw Democrats back into their fold and energize them or continue to cater to the republicans and conservatives in their states in the hope they'll squeak through.


another excellent analysis, btw! :hi:

[Time for change]

72. Thank you bigtree

:hi:

[ThomThom]

42. so then it is just more realignment ....seats with Dems acting like

republicans will turn republican. Not much difference except who is Majority leader and Speaker.

[Time for change]

43. It's worse than that

The ConservaDems are pulling down the whole party, including those who are much more liberal than them. People like Feingold and Boxer may lose their seats because of this, which would be a disaster.

[bvar22]

44. Worth repeating:

"it has been the failure of the Democratic Party to do more to improve the lives of ordinary Americans – as did President Roosevelt and his New Deal Congress during our last depression – that has disappointed so many Americans. This failure has pulled down the whole Democratic Party. But it is mostly the more conservative Democrats who are in endangered, not the more progressive ones."

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED Massachusetts

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Vidar]

47. Sadly, Spector is the best of that sorry lot.

[kenfrequed]

49. That is the wild part!

I suppose Spector has been more liberal than many of the conservadems for awhile.

[libodem]

50. Anybody

Seen the Wyoming billboard with Bush asking, "Miss me, yet?" Disgusting.

[FunMe]

51. Democrats going to the right is a LOSING strategy

To Ralph Emanuel and the other dumb DLC corporate whores I say: so much for your going to the right strategy.

We are getting rid of the CONservative who have infiltrated our Democrat Party!

[kenfrequed]

53. you won't have to

They have been trending towards losing elections and they will continue to gradually disintegrate as the DLC and blue dogs will have fewer and fewer elected officials in office.

The justification for listening to them or attempting to appease them will evaporate, and at that point there will be a more progressive democratic party comprised of liberals and REAL moderates who aren't just using the term to front for being republican lite or to cover their slavery to the corporations.

[dysfunctional press]

52. barring some type of miracle, the IL senate seat once held by obama will be going to mark kirk(R).

actually- obama would have had a hard time winning that senate seat in the first place, until it was revealed that jack ryan, the good-looking, charismatic winner of the republican primary for the seat, had once taken his then wife, Seven-Of-Nine(jeri ryan) to a swinger's sex club in new york city, and had certain such...proclivities...that had led to their divorce.

alexi ginnoulias(D) is going to need a scandal of that caliber to befall mark kirk if he's going to have ANY chance of winning election to the u.s. senate.

[Kablooie]

60. So maybe we'll get a Republican majority and then they may be able to pass something.

I'm sure the Republicans will be able to pass legislation with only 51 votes.
While the Democrats couldn't do it with 60.

Our government is a messed up messy mess.

[tonysam]

63. The way GOP possible candidates are dropping out to go against Harry Reid

he may actually end up being re-elected by default.

Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki has declined to run, and a local attorney has dropped out. There are about a dozen GOP candidates wanting to take on Reid, but none of them are really marquee names.

[sulphurdunn]

68. The idea that you can have Evan Bayhs

and Dennis Kucinichs in the same political party is absurd. One type has to go. The Democrats would wield more real power as a minority party without Blue Dogs like Lincoln, turn coats like Liberman and Specter and appeasers like Reid or Wall Street money than they do now as a majority party with power they refuse to use.

[Turbineguy]

69. If there should be one good thing

to come out of the Mass. fiasco it's getting the Party leadership off their dead, arrogant, complacent asses and come up with some viable candidates. The question of course is will they? What is needed (and wanted) is fairly obvious. By sending the special interest money to the repubs only, instead of sharing it, they make the repub candidates look bought and paid for. I think that the ordinary person would be willing to provide some financial support if the knew the candidates were not going to turn around and stab them in the back once they got in. There must be somebody out there who is good and wants to be a member of the world's most exclusive club. Maybe Alan Grayson has friends.

The conservatives may have more money to spend but they have to give $38 million per year to that prize-ass Rush Limbaugh off the top. When you think about all these expensive cranks they have to support, it's a wonder they have any money left over.

The Democratic party fund raisers who call me get an earful and no money. They tell me they are getting a lot of that. Good. Let's see if it shows. Maybe they can convince the incumbents who are on the skids right now to clean up their act in time for the primaries and the main elections. If I see some progress and get the idea that I'm not just throwing money away, I can do something.

[TexasObserver]

70. We could lose 2-4 senate seats.

I would like to see some of our incumbents beaten in the primary, but that seems unlikely, except perhaps for Sphincter.

[JCMach1]

79. For the moment our chances are shifting from bad to worse

If the election were held today, I think we loose both chambers in one of the worst electoral debacles ever.

The only cold comfort I take is that it is STILL many months until Nov. There is still time to right the boat.

Poll after poll shows independents melting away faster than Antarctic ice.

:scared:

[Robb]

83. Oh good, let's start lists of Dems to target.

...Where the fuck am I??

[Greyhound]

84. Auto K&R.

Sorry I missed the rec window.

Overall, I think the party would be better off without any of theses parasites, but their replacements are worrisome.