99% progressive Dems were re-elected , half the blue dogs lost

[upi402]

Thank you Michael Moore for setting it straight. I get so tired of "the numbers are in the middle".
Or "we need the middle of the road independents to win".

People understand something is really wrong. But they're getting lied to by TV news and big money ads.
So the Dems can clean up the media mess that the Clinton Republicans made for a start.

[LoZoccolo]

1. This is tired and disingenuous.

There wasn't a national referendum on the Progressive Caucus and the Blue Dog Coalition yesterday. There were several regional elections each with a different electorate. The Blue Dogs are largely from red districts to begin with, while the progressives are in safe blue districts.

[Better Today]

19. So your logic is that those of us in red states and districts didn't really

mean to vote Democratic in 2006 and/or 2008? I realize that some of those blue dogshits are long time reps of their districts or state, so I guess you can't call their districts typically red. But for those that were recently elected in red areas that are now returning to red, ... if I vote for a change, I'm not voting for the same thing. Our blue dog voted with the Repubs on every bill, what was the point in voting blue if the results are red anyway? At least now that a repub has replaced him, people will see the failure of the position fairly, as being a Repub screwing up instead of the illusion that it was a Democrat.

[LoZoccolo]

21. "voted with the Repubs on every bill"

No he didn't.

[Better Today]

28. Who do you think I'm typing about?

[LoZoccolo]

37. You did not say, but I have yet to find any representative who did so.

I've even posted open challenges.

Care to name him so I can check? If you're right you get to see me be embarassed!

[HughMoran]

29. We know

Or, at least those of us who follow politics regularly.

[hedgehog]

38. The real question is - offer a "red" district a real progressive Democrat,

and will enough non-voters come out to turn the district blue? Why bother voting if your choice is super red or light red/blue dog?

[LoZoccolo]

39. Did they come to the primary to vote in the most progressive candidate? n/t

[hedgehog]

44. Often in so-called red districts, you're lucky to get a candidate,

let alone a choice in the primary. I wouldn't want to serve in Congress, but maybe someone out there might consider it.

Of course, the voters we need are sitting at home now ignoring primaries. Give them a real live Progressive in the general election and they might turn out. How many peopl eturned out for the first time ever to vote for Obama?

[sandnsea]

2. lol, blue areas voted blue

and that's why red areas lost?

Okeedoke.

[upi402]

5. why are they red?

?

[DFLforever]

11. Because they represent conservative or Republican

congressional districts?

[DFLforever]

3. And those nasty blue dogs took our majority with them.

Shows them!

[upi402]

6. Blue dogs voted Republican so not a majority in practice

while preventing a real Democrat from running.
So, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and votes with the ducks... it's a duck. Lipstick or not. It's a majority if they vote with Democrats.

But y'all can keep on doin' watcha doin' - and keep gettin' watcha gettin'.

[provis99]

7. analogy isn't quite correct.

for the Blue Dogs, if they walk like ducks, quack like ducks, and vote with the ducks, then they are turkeys that want to be ducks.

[Chulanowa]

4. Alan Grayson lost

Can one of you finger-wagging "referendum" posters explain that one to me? I'm truly curious here.

[provis99]

8. do I need to explain statistics to you?

Do you understand the difference between 99% of progressives won (meaning 1% lost) while 50% of Blue Dogs lost (meaning 50% won)?

It's not that hard, you know.

[Chulanowa]

12. First off, for statistics to have meaning...

You have to actually define what you're comparing. How progressive is "Progressive"? How blue dog is "Blue Dog"? Further were the contended seats equally split between the two groups? If not, then the comparison isn't very meaningful. As others have brought up, it's very clear that these seats were not equal in contention; Some were "safe" while others were heavily contested.

Further, unless there were a number of progressives running that were divisible by 100, the claim that 99% of them won is plain and simply false. Numbers don't work that way. If you have twenty progressives and one of them loses, then only 95% of them won. It's math, basically. They teach it in school.

I think maybe you should learn how to make and read statistics before you try to preach them. Otherwise you just end up sounding like a Libertarian.

But no. Since this is being painted as "Progressive win, other loses" I figured I need to find out why Grayson - who I personally measure as being pretty progressive - still managed to lose.

[frylock]

23. it's been posted several times that grayson was specifically targeted by rove's money bombs..

try and keep up, mkay?

[glitch]

24. Probably not limited to money bombs.

It's Rove, he always has several operations in play.

[Chulanowa]

26. So you're telling me this election had more going on than whether someone was progressive enough?

Might want to tell that to some of your eeyore buddies, champ!

[frylock]

27. independant voters were largely responsible for getting BDs elected in red areas..

i wonder why they didn't vote for them this time around? i'm sure it had nothing to do at all with dem leadership kissing republican ass at every opportunity. what's your theory, sport? are you one of the "we need to move to the center(right)" types?

[Chulanowa]

30. Afraid I'm not

However, since I'm not busy cheering that the Republicans won, I guess I can't be called much of a "progressive" either.

[frylock]

46. i know what i'd like to call you..

but i like it here.

[treestar]

33. Since they voted for Republicans this time around

I'm sure they thought they did not "kiss Republican ass" enough.

[frylock]

45. you don't get it and you never will..

people don't have the stomach to support cowards who are unwilling to take a fucking stand. at least the republicans fight for their misguided cause. obama wants to compromise. again. fuck that shit.

[treestar]

32. Money undoes progressiveness?

All they have to do is put money into the race and the Republican wins?

Didn't happen in California.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Nor in Oregon

Out of State mystery money flooded this district and yet DeFazio prevailed. We did not just sit and take it.

[frylock]

48. i guess they couldn't deal with all the "change" right?

it was just too much for them to handle.

[BzaDem]

9. 99% of progressives are from safe districts, and blue dogs are from conservative districts.

Duh.

The progressives in conservative districts (such as Perriello and Greyson) lost.

[metapunditedgy]

22. 70% of Americans wanted a robust public option. Blue dogs opposed it. Duh.

How many of those "conservative districts" did Obama win in 2008, out of curiosity?

[Bluenorthwest]

42. 100% of those who lost a seat did so in the district they had won

And so talk of 'safe' districts and 'conservative' districts is fine, but the facts are the facts. Each of them had won their districts, and then they lost them. Many more who lost them were Blue Dogs, many more who won again were liberals. That is all that really matters. They lost districts that they had previously won, 100% of them.

[frylock]

47. you're never going to get them to understand that

[Drunken Irishman]

10. As they say, there are lies, damned lies and statistics...

[TheWraith]

13. Unrec for inability to understand statistics.

Given that Blue Dogs represent conservative, Republican leaning districts we only held by a small margin, and Progressive Caucus members mostly represent solidly Democratic areas that no Republican could win. This false equivalence is like saying that because Democrats didn't beat all the Republicans in Alabama and Utah in 2006 and 2008, it was a mandate that people wanted government to move farther to the right.

Looking at this thing for tea leaves about what people "really" want is pointless when there's absolutely no logic to the electorate. They weren't trying to send a message, they weren't trying to vote down Blue Dogs or any other damn thing. The predominantly old and white voters who made up a big swath of the electorate had a temper tantrum because they want the country to be how they want it to be, rather than dealing with reality.

[Democat]

14. This is largely about what district is represented.

Progressives are probably not going to win in a conservative district, but a blue dog has a chance.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[stray cat]

16. Conservative states don't keep democrats in office -it's easier if your state is always democratic

Kucinich would not win a state election in Kentucky

[stray cat]

17. World kucinich and pelosi win a state election in Kentucky? Ie senator

[riverdale]

40. Kucinich couldn't win a state election in Ohio either

[GoCubsGo]

18. O% of Progressives would get elected in those districts.

Sorry, Michael Moore is wrong. A Progressive doesn't stand a chance in those districts where Blue Dogs lost those seats. He's right about the lies and the ads. Just not about the Blue Dogs and their constituents.

[glitch]

25. Progressive Populists might. I'd like to see it really attempted, with money and backing. nt

[wyldwolf]

20. LOL. Oh the naivety.

[treestar]

31. Unrec for this tired and false idea that

Blue Dog districts would ever elect anything to the left of Blue Dogs.

[Kurovski]

34. Is it 1996 yet?

People want to keep their homes, not support bankster bonuses.

People want jobs, not outsourcing.

People want help in achieving affordable health care, not merely increasing insurance company enrollment, and protect bloated profits in the pharmaceutical industry.

People want their roads and bridges repaired, not money sent to corrupt Afghan leaders and private "security firms".

Hammer that home (people already know they want it) and progressives will win.

Your ideas strike me as being somewhat regressive.

"Yes we can."

[treestar]

35. We are talking about people in districts who elected a Blue

Dog last time and a Republican last time. I suspect they don't like "big gubmint."

They won't be convinced by: 'see, in the big cities, they elected Progressive Democrats! so you should too!'

[Kurovski]

36. You are suggesting candidates do the opposite of what I wrote.

People like the following: keeping a home, having a job, spending money on essentials, remaining healthy.

Think less about how to manipulate and mind-fuck the electorate, and we might be surprised at what happens.

[treestar]

43. They may have done much of the issues you mentioned

Each Blue Dog who lost had a campaign and presumably there were not each and all completely incompetent at running them. But sure there could be improvements.

The 50 state strategy was about that and worked, and it gave us Blue Dogs - we should have stood behind them enough to get them to move further or the next candidates to be further left. Just seems like trashing their chosen Blue Dogs as Republicans did little but get them to return to Rs.