How do you expect Democrats to get excited when either way, their senate seat will move to the right

[FLAprogressive]

When you push through an establishment center-right corporate Democrat.....what is there to get excited about? Especially when said center-right Democrat has been nominated to replace the "Liberal Lion".

It's too bad that Democratic primary voters are as easily duped by establishment candidates as Republicans....MA Dems could have had Capuano as their nominee, a great progressive. When will the "base" ever learn?

[jillan]

1. I will take the WORST Democrat over the best Republican ANYDAY - especially when that repug is a

teabagger.

[FLAprogressive]

3. Democrats lose elections when they put up center-right candidates. It's a lose-lose

The center-right candidate will still be a "liberal" to the right-wingers and centrists.....and the Democratic base doesn't get excited.

it's the DLC election strategy.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLAprogressive]

5. Yep! I hope Coakley wins but I will not be the least bit surprised if she loses.

[Xipe Totec]

4. Shouldn't you be worring about getting rid of George LeMieux?

Tend to your field first.

[FLAprogressive]

7. what's there to get rid of, he's a seat warmer. He'll be a footnote in political history....

[TayTay]

6. This has exactly nothing to do with the race in MA

Not a single voter I have talked to in MA in the last month has expressed anything even approaching these sentiments or gives a damn about left/right/center.

[Jennicut]

8. Well its either a center-right Dem or a lunatic Rethug. The answer is pretty clear.

[FLAprogressive]

10. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to vote FOR someone rather than against another person?

Usually people go to elections to vote FOR people, not against others.

[gateley]

12. Yes, in a perfect world. But that's not the case, sadly. Gotta do what you gotta do. nt

[Jennicut]

17. Exactly. Reality is reality. We live in a capitalsitic system where people are easily bought.

But a moderate type Dem rarely has the same nutso social views as a crazy Rethug. You do what you have to do keep the crazies out of power.

[invictus]

9. K&R

[BzaDem]

11. Why should any single Democrat spend one minute worrying about wheter you are "excited"?

After all, regardless of how progressive Coakley actually is, people like you are still going to BS and call her an "establishment center-right corporate Democrat." There's no pleasing people like you. If Ted Kennedy himself were running you would write your same BS screed.

The only thing that gets people like you "excited" is by having Republicans win elections. Armchair progressives like you who are all in favor of fighting but not in favor of actually getting anything done can easily sit back in good times and talk about punishing progressive candidates to "send a message." The only thing that can focus your mind like nothing else is actually seeing Republicans win. It is easy to complain that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, but it is much harder to do so when you actually have Republicans in office disproving that claim in every possible way every single day. It would be nice if people would just vote regardless of how "excited" they are, but I'm not holding my breath.

[FLAprogressive]

13. Well to win elections you have to get people out to vote.

If people don't have a candidate to be excited about, will they take the time to vote?

[BzaDem]

19. My point is that you won't be excited REGARDLESS of the candidate.

Dennis Kucinich could be running and you would call him a corporatist.

So yes, while it would be nice to get you excited enough to vote, it is really a lost cause. You will either vote or not, but it won't have to do with "excitement."

The only way to excite you and others like you (those who believe that the only reason progressive policies aren't being enacted is because we aren't punishing progressives enough) is to actually have a Republican Congress (such as in 2006), or a Republican in the White House (see 2008). Otherwise, you would just say there is no difference between the two parties or something similar. You need to actually see that be false day after day after day to actually get excited.

[groundloop]

14. Well, Democrats in Mass. better get excited enough to go vote ...

Or that Senate seat will belong to a teabagger. More often than not elections are about choosing one of two candidates, neither of whom we totally agree about everything with. Which candidate do you agree with more? Would you feel comfortable sitting out the election and allowing that seat to go to a teabagger?

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Move a little to the right, or to the far right? And how do you expect Democrats...

to work to win an election when they are hobbled by whiny little crybabies complaining the candidate isn't good enough?

(Some people should have enough work in their own states that they don't have time to piss on others)

[Grand Taurean]

16. You like too many Democratic voters are foolish.

Republicans are out to vote in every election for anything and everything.
It is tiring being one of the few who go out to vote in every election for Democrats, most of the time knowing that my fellow Democratic voters are
not going to show. It is why we lost a Supreme Court seat in Pennsylvania. It is why New Jersey is stuck with Governor Soprano for the next 4 years.
It is why a gang of right wing thugs control the local government in Fairfield County CT (where I grew up).
Everyone got behind Barack Obama even though they had disagreements and did not support him in the primary (I was for Hillary).
Martha Coakley is to the LEFT of Obama! That should be reason enough to vote for her.
Or would you rather a de-facto tea party candidate take the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy?

[unkachuck]

18. it will be painful....

"When you push through an establishment center-right corporate Democrat.....what is there to get excited about?"

....all Dems, not just progressives, should search their souls and realize that there are consequences to their words and deeds....

....progressives have been told for over a year now, that we're inconsequential with irrelevant demands....

[BzaDem]

20. There's a difference between being not getting what you want and being irrelevant.

Progressives (of which I am one) aren't going to get the policies they want because they don't control a majority of Congress. They control a minority of both houses (even though Democrats control a majority). It usually isn't rocket science or breaking news that this is the case. If those furthest to the left or right define being relevent with getting the policy they want enacted, they are going to be disappointed 100% of the time by definition.

However, that is not to say that progressives are irrelevant. The larger proportion of the caucus that is progressive, the smaller proportion of the caucus that is more moderate, which means fewer moderates to win over. Having more progressives usually means that the 218th house member and the 60th Senator is much more liberal than otherwise. For example, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson (as bad as they are) are MUCH more liberal than Lindsey Graham.

The policy is always going to be closer to the middle than closer to the left or right. This always has been true, and always is going to be true. Thinking otherwise just means you are going to be disappointed more often. But if you consider the value of having large numbers of progressives to be pulling otherwise more moderate legislation further (but not all the way to) the left, progressives are far from irrelevant.

[bertman]

21. My rec didn't budge the tally off Zero recs. Hmmmm. But I echo your sentiments, FLApro.