What is the logic that "Being more progressive would have kept us more house seats"??

[KansasVoter]

Believe me, I wanted the public option and much more than Obama provided.

But I do not know how that would have helped last night.

I think people were WRONGLY blaming the Dems for stuff that was not our fault.

And I think the public option or the repeal of DADT or anything like that would not have converted these voters to our side.

Is the logic that more dems would have voted or more dems would have donated money to the campaigns?

When the most progressive, best congressman out there, Grayson, lost, I do not see how we think being more progressive would have helped last night.

I think the only issue is that some people change their mind like the wind blows and I am not sure what we can do about that.

[catbyte]

1. You could be right. Being proudly liberal didn't help Grayson.

[eleny]

2. Wasn't it was the money that broke Grayson?

I heard that his opponent outspent him by a lot.

I think that leaning into a progressive agenda shows how you're agenda is for the people. It worked for Jerry Brown in California. So, it's something to consider.

[FLAprogressive]

3. How about fighting for JOBS in a populist/progressive manner

Why not go down hard on outsourcing corporations, and do a new New Deal instead of a half-ass stimulus filled with bullshit tax cuts.

[gratuitous]

4. Blue Dogs lost 29 out of their 54 seats; Progressives won 75 out of 79

But that's just math, not logic, so I guess I don't have an answer.

[frustrated_lefty]

9. +1

[indy legend]

29. +2

[Lucky 13]

11. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

But I suppose that would be pointless. Those that don't know that already don't care to listen.

[KansasVoter]

22. That is hard to prove.........

The blue dogs were mostly blue dogs because where they were located. Maybe a right leaning area anyway.
The progressives were progressives because their area did not mind it.
Hard to flat out use that as proof.

[Codeine]

23. Progressives were in safe blue districts, which is why they could be Progressives

in the first place, and why they won. We didn't run Blue Dogs in swing and conservative districts out of a perverse desire to be assholes, we did it because that's the only way to get a D in those areas.

Blue Dogs were an essential part of the 50 state strategy, guys. You can't put a liberal on the ticket in a conservative area and reliably hope to win.

[DevonRex]

26. Yep. This is the REAL logic of the situation right here. nt

[jsamuel]

38. Except that Alan Grayson, the example used in the OP, was in a deep red district.

[uponit7771]

40. Yeap, deep read and was outspent without a negating ground game to help him. He could've won

...if he had such resources

[Recursion]

53. Well, he made some campaign gaffes

I don't know that the "Taliban Dan" ad did anything but hurt him. But, yeah, he was in the crosshairs.

[treestar]

30. Before we believe that, we need to know who you are defining each way

And what districts they are from.

That will affect it. In a very conservative district a Blue Dog will have to hang on and lose to a Republican.

In a very liberal district, the progressive can win. But the progressives, like any one else, don't get to govern until there are a number of them from many districts.

Going into a district in a red state that elected a Blue Dog, telling them that even their Democrats are not liberal enough, calling them corporate toadies or whatever - why does that work?

[gratuitous]

51. The Democrats constitute themselves into various caucuses

Some identify themselves as members, for example, of the Congressional Black Caucus (guess how they're defined?); others join other caucuses, who decide amongst themselves what their goals are and what sort of strategy they'll pursue to achieve those goals. The Blue Dogs and the Progressives are self-identified caucuses within the Democratic bloc in Congress. The Blue Dogs have 54 members in the current Congress, the Progressives have 79. Next Congress, the Blue Dogs will have 25 returning members and the Progressives will have 75. Both caucuses may, of course, pick up a few new members.

As for the rest of it, you can do your own homework.

[treestar]

54. Those losing Blue Dogs were substituted with Republicans

REPUBLICANS.

R.E.P.U.B.L.I.C.A.N.S.

Republicans are not progressives. Do you realize this? So what the progressives have more than the Blue Dogs? They don't have more than the Republicans.

[Leopolds Ghost]

57. THE ISSUE IS why do you think Blue Dogs are the only type of Dem a rural voter will vote for.

You should not assume that populism and appeal to the working voter is fucked and should be reserved to the Republicans.

Blue Dogs ran on a principle of "I represent the self-employed, affluent, farmer / rancher / Joe the Plumber / main street businessman" type person that people in rural Missouri aspire to be.

[treestar]

64. then why does not some progressive run in that district and win?

If there is some magical way to get rural voters to vote progressive, why has it not been tried by the geniuses of DU?

Because they just sit back and judge everybody else, and have no idea what they are talking about.

[MellowDem]

39. It's meaningless..

Progressives are usually in deep blue districts while blue dogs are usually in pretty red districts. No progressive would have survived in a red disctrict last night.

[4_Legs_Good]

42. I think that's more because of the makeup of individual districts

IMO, in 2006 we made a deal with the devil to take the House from the Republicans and stop George Jr. from launching more wars. We ran center-right Democrats in Republican districts and won. We didn't invade Iran, Pakistan or North Korea. Now most of those districts have gone back. Not really super surprising.

But I don't think it's based on who was more liberal. They won in those districts because they were blue dogs to start with. I could be wrong.

David

[readmoreoften]

61. +1

[uponit7771]

5. IOWA was not only progressive but picture perfect economy and dems lost big there too...

...there was no messaging...nothing to negate the machine that was there and very little ground game state wide.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. It would have energized our base.

Millions of liberals like me didn't see the point in going out and voting if we could expect essentially the same thing from either party. For example, the Democratic leadership under President Obama has been as hostile (if not more in some cases) to my rights as a Gay American as the Republicans. Why would I vote for either party under those circumstances?

I ended up going out and voting anyhow, but a lot of others in the old "Obama coalition" didn't. And won't in 2012 because what they got from this White House and the 111th Congress was just more of the same, not "change we could believe in."

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. +1 I went to vote, but excited no

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Half the blue dogs go down

5.2% of the progressives go down.

There is a message there... but I won't bother anymore.

I guess the true message is to turn so far to the right that the country will be happy (or at least the corporations) :sarcasm:

[DevonRex]

10. It's totally illogical. And stupid. I'm simply amazed that folks are floating this today.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

[KansasVoter]

16. Sorry. Read it wrong. I am stupid!

[DevonRex]

20. I think you meant to reply to somebody else since I agreed with you. :) nt

[HughMoran]

21. They were agreeing with you

Were you attempting a joke here that flew over my head??

[Bobbie Jo]

27. Psst....

I'm pretty sure she was agreeing with you.

[DevonRex]

28. That's okay. I've done that before, too. And it was pretty obvious

that that's what happened. :hi:

[Bobbie Jo]

33. LOL

I did it within the last hour. :rofl:

[DevonRex]

43. heehee

The only reason I haven't done it yet today is that I've got so much caffeine running around my brain that I don't think I'll sleep for days. They just called Bennet in CO this morning and I couldn't sleep last night because of that. I wonder how many energy drinks a person can drink before it becomes actually dangerous. :shrug:

[Codeine]

32. Thank you.

First they deluded themselves that the polls meant nothing (cell phones!) and we were bound to win seats, and now they're trying to pretend that people elected Republicans because certain Democrats weren't liberal enough. :crazy:

[DevonRex]

41. *sitting here simply aghast*

If active Democrats can't do any better than that in logic it is no wonder we lost seats. It's no wonder we can't get as much done as we'd like to. It's no wonder some of those Dems stayed home, following the "that'll show 'em" argument.

[Leopolds Ghost]

58. Do you guys ACTUALLY ASSUME Liberals weren't PISSED & stayed home? The base was UTTERLY disfranchise

[DevonRex]

65. You talking to me?

Because your post doesn't make sense as a reply to MY post. I'm a liberal and I voted. Those "leftists" who stayed home? I don't know exactly what they are. But I assume many did. And I wish them joy with their new Repuke representatives.

The rest of us will continue to fight the good fight.

[Number23]

63. Go Dev!

:thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

12. Passing Progressive policies that would have resulted in REAL help for people would have done it.

If they had passed REAL stimulus and unemployment was turning around, do you really think the average joe out there trying to feed his family would have given a damn about 'progressive' or 'conservative?'

In order for Progressive policies to be popular, they have to be passed.

Our current bunch never even asked for anything adequate in any serious way.

[Warpy]

13. In my own state, the conservative Democrat lost his seat in the House

The progressive Democrat was never in jeopardy. The one in the mushy middle (my Rep.) had to fight to keep his seat.

When the choice is between GOP and GOP lite, people will vote GOP and Democrats will tend to stay home and that's exactly what happened in the southern part of this state.

Grayson lost because Karl Rove targeted him, along with Feingold, and a corrupt USSC allowed unlimited dirty money to be used against them. Grayson also made a serious blunder with an over the top attack ad. He didn't lose because he was progressive. He lost because he was outgunned and because he got tacky.

There needs to be a clear choice between ideologies, otherwise it's just a case of two people throwing mudballs at each other. We haven't been given that clear choice in so many years that most people alive now don't remember what that was like. They have to pick mud ball throwers on the basis of looks or name or whatever.

I think Democratic principles will sell when people are told what they are.

[BlueCheese]

14. The logic is that...

... being more liberal would have produced better policy, and better results for the public. We got killed because of the economy. If we had had a bigger stimulus, or at the very least convinced people that a bigger stimulus was necessary but were obstructed, we would have had more jobs and done better.

I don't think people cared that much whether Bill Clinton's policies were liberal economic programs or sacrificing puppies, so long as the economy was doing well. We just need to produce results.

[KansasVoter]

17. OK, makes sense!

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. If your base is passionate about you, your odds are better.

Among 85% of voters, it's a popularity contest.

[scheming daemons]

31. Tell that to Grayson and Feingold

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. So Florida liberals were happy with government? They all loved HCR?

It's not all about the individual candidate.

[kick-ass-bob]

18. Because of passion.

Do you really think Rand Paul won because he has great ideas? No.

He won because he has enormous amounts of passion that he revealed to the populace. Who among centrists are passionate about being a centrist? None.

Now, I know you will bring up Grayson again, so here:

The passionate ones do not always win. Sometimes they make mistakes, and sometimes the other side just outguns you. Sometimes the good guy doesn't win. But it is not because of their passion that they lose.

[HughMoran]

19. I am comforted that you see the lack of logic in those arguments

I can't see it either - if it made sense I'd fight for it every day.

[treestar]

24. We could only have been more progressive had those already in

Congress been more progressive, too.

Now I see the sentiment that it should just be forced on the people, by those they elected to do other things, so that it could then work and then the people should see how progressive they should be.

Not going to happen. We have to get the progressive candidates to win first. It's so much easier to complain that the electable people, who weren't so progressive, just should be.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. The logic is that the policies enacted would have been BETTER for the people

so the people might have been a little bit less upset.

A little.

[scheming daemons]

36. If the bluedogs were more progressive, they wouldn't have won their seats in the first place

They almost all were residing in traditionally Republican seats.

[Codeine]

46. Why this most basic of political realities escapes otherwise astute people

continues to fucking mystify me.

[LoZoccolo]

34. The logic is that if people want something they'll bend the facts to support getting it. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

35. It is about standing for something

The "What" matters less than actually *doing* it

[scheming daemons]

37. Russ and Alan stood for something... lot of good it did them

...

[DevonRex]

47. And, do people really think the voters in Arkansas would have gone for

someone more liberal than Blanche if they already thought Blanche was TOO liberal? (I just used that as an example.)

[girl gone mad]

48. They paid the price for the sins of the party.

If we had passed strong health reform, pushed for drug price negotiation, passed a much bigger stimulus bill with jobs programs to get people back to work, come down hard on Wall Street, showed major progress in bringing the troops home, fought to get Elizabeth Warren as permanent head of the CFPB, dumped Bernanke, tied BP to the right wing's anti-regulation stance, pushed for a payroll tax holiday or made any significant progress toward real liberal change, Feingold and Grayson would not have been in trouble in the first place.

[Stinky The Clown]

50. You're too much in the moment

Feingold lost because they dropped a thermonuclear money bomb on him.

Grayson lost because he acted like Alan Grayson. I love the guy. I loved what he said. I live his in the face push back. But he's like me. He throws verbal hand grenades and often crosses the line. He's irreverent and impolitic. He was destined to be a one termer from the start. Most of all, he was an anomaly in a conservative district. I shall miss him. I am saddened to see him have to leave. But I am in no way surprised.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

45. There's a perception of a lack of leadership. People now

more than ever want to see a strong decisive leader. Obama
keeps talking about going to the "table" with all the parties
and coming up with some dandy ideas. WTF. People expect
him to have a clear vision that he is positioned to get supported
by congress. He sounds uninspired and absent of any type of
long term plan.

I'm hoping this is merely a problem of perception and not the actual
situation, but I'm seriously concerned he's a great campaigner that
is incapable of translating those campaign visions into reality. He's
captured the golden ring and doesn't know what the hell to do with it.

[old mark]

49. I belong to several progressive groups. Progressives in the caucuses in Congress

WON reelection over 90% of the time. The "DINO" Blue Dogs LOST heavily-our local DOG - Tim Holden, in COngress for several decades LOST last night...I regret that there is a republican in his place, but at least he is a REAL republican, not a person claiming to be a Democrat who happens to vote republican most of the time. FWIW, there was also a long term 'publican (Joe Pitts - a real swine) who lost as well, so we gained another REAL Democrat to balance the loss of a fake Democrat.

mark

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Considering how well the "moderates" did how logical was it to move to the right?

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. Americans no longer believe in liberal discource -- back and forth arguing over ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Like Blue Dogs becoming an endangered species in Congress with half their numbers wiped out. It was only a matter of time.

Dems apparently think rural people, like Rahm, are sensible, affluent pro-corporate types who believe in handouts to Big Business.

The Blue Dogs are Bourbons, period. Take the Louisiana and Florida Democratic Party. Rife with Worthless and criminal corporate toadies who masquerade as "main street sensible centrists" --

TRANSLATION -- "I am insurance for my rural state's business interests in case the other party wins an election."

[Rex]

56. That is the other side of the coin, I must admit we don't know.

Put if we don't TRY these new things; this out-of-the-box style thinking, we shall never truly be able to say 'yes' or 'no'. I for one am ready to try something new.

[Safetykitten]

60. If we have to explain it to you at this juncture...

[jgraz]

62. The Democrats lost because their political strategy failed.

It's really that simple. What they did over the past two years -- the obsessive bipartisanship, the compromises, the weak excuses for reform -- failed.

If your position is that we need to continue that failed strategy without change, then you'd better get started now on your "why did we get our asses kicked AGAIN" posts for 2012.