DUers who say election means Dems must go further left...

[Green_Lantern]

Then it wouldn't make sense for Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, and Joe Sestak to lose either. Democrats from center, left, and right all had losses in the election.

Maybe principles and political ideology can't be blamed. Maybe it was just the odds being against us

1.)being the President's party losing seats in a midterm election

2.)being the party in power during a bad economy

The GOP says this proves the electorate supports their agenda when actually what they opposed is not having jobs or a strong economy. The GOP isn't going to change that so they'll spend the next two years trying to railroad Obama's Presidency.

The next two years will be a horror show if the Obama administration and the party base continue to move apart.

[ixion]

1. The whole kit-and-kaboodle needs to swing left

because this fascism thing is dreary.

[Warpy]

2. Blue Dogs lost more than progressives did.

Just sayin'.

I think Democratic principles sell. Mushy GOP lite stuff doesn't, not any more.

[dbonds]

6. According to Micheal Moore - Blue Dogs lost 47%, progressives 1%

[Green_Lantern]

11. that's the House..

The biggest progressive in the Senate isn't something Moore can just laugh off.

[backscatter712]

34. In the Senate, we also lost Blanche Lincoln.

Not that she was much of a loss.

[Green_Lantern]

43. she was too vocal in her opposition to unemployment extension...

Also she was seen as part of the establishment responsible for the economy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Safe districts lost less than competitive districts

I'd like to see a breakdown on the following:

Of Progressive Caucus candidates, what is the average length of time they've held the seat?
What is the average length of time the seat has gone Democratic?
What percentage were in the same office before 2006?
What was the average vote differential in that district?

I'd like to see the same information laid out for Blue Dogs.

This kind of data could give us a better sense of the claims people are making.

In any case, I completely agree with you that strong Democratic principles are better to run on than mushy GOP lite. Whether such campaigns have better local results is another question altogether.

[Green_Lantern]

9. the Dems didn't lose because they were too conservative

Not when the biggest progressive in the Senate lost.

[Bluebear]

24. You're extrapolating a whole nation's results out of one state? OK.

[Warpy]

29. Don't you know the difference between a statistical norm

and an exception to it?

You bet your ass they lost because they were too conservative. Demoralized Democrats stayed home unless there was a nutcase to vote against, letting the GOP win.

[Green_Lantern]

30. so then why did Grayson lose?

I don't think you can find a blanket explanation for losing House races. Conservative Democrats win in some districts and lose in others.

[ljm2002]

42. Grayson was the #1 target for the Republican machine...

...and they sent huge amounts of $$$ into his district to defeat him.

Similar story for Feingold.

Does that help clear it up for you?

[Green_Lantern]

48. no, because it is illogical

Feingold raised and spent more than Johnson...http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?cycle=2010&id=WIS2

Grayson raised and spent more than Webster....http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/elections.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00028418&type=I

[ljm2002]

50. Are you being purposely obtuse?

The money that I am referring to was not spent by the opposing candidate; rather, it was injected into those states by outside big money.

[Green_Lantern]

53. no...I had a hand smack head moment...

I completely overlooked outside spending....

Most of the anti-Feingold spending came from the American Action Network which has George Allen and Norm Coleman on is board. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/indexp.php?cycle=2010&id=WIS2

[ljm2002]

55. Thanks for the reply...

...and good for you for finding links to the funding sources -- we are seeing the initial results of the Citizens United ruling.

It will get worse from here on out, unless we can either change the law to neutralize the Supreme Court's ruling, or we can find ways to harness populist energy into money to counteract them.

Moveon.org has shown how it can be done. However, they are a certain group, they tend to attract a certain kind of person, and that is fine but we need groups that can attract the blue collar, the pink collar, the great masses.

[Green_Lantern]

58. I'm not sure if overturning Citizens United would help in this case

American Action Network is more of a PAC than a business.

[Recursion]

35. Yeah, all those demoralized progressives in Mississippi and Missouri

If Taylor and Skelton had just courted them... :sarcasm:

[Green_Lantern]

64. some DUers think working class rural Missourians are closet

Socialists who have been waiting to be set free. Blunt didn't win by just getting tea-baggers.

Skelton losing is a BIG deal here in Missouri. He has held the seat over 30 years.

[Recursion]

67. Same thing with Taylor in MS; 22 years

The last link to the old Sonny Montgomery / Jamie Whitten days.

[kctim]

60. How many progressives won in red districts?

How many 'Blue Dogs' won in red districts?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. "further"?

:wtf:

[mmonk]

4. I'm not for compromising at all.

[speppin]

5. Feingold was outspent 5 to 1 by a rich millionare. He also refused

to do negative nasty ads that Johnson did.

[Green_Lantern]

13. well others here say Dems lost because they weren't progressive

But now they didn't raise enough money?

Johnson didn't raise that much more than Feingold:


Johnson raised $12,877,048 and Feingold $11,393,761

Feingold spent more than Johnson....$11,451,211 to $10,497,181

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Wisconsin,_2010

[dbonds]

8. It wasn't the odds, it was failure to fight for progressive principles

[Green_Lantern]

12. yeah which is why that ultracnservative Feingold lost...

It isn't that simple.

[Waiting For Everyman]

10. He must go left - if he wants to solve any of our problems.

Because that's where the solutions are.

If he doesn't go there and doesn't solve our problems, then that's a problem of its own too. So the question is, which is riskier? And for whom?

[rug]

14. If the country goes much farther right, you won't have to worry about elections.

[Green_Lantern]

20. I doubt it serves Dems to say America is fascist when elections..

Don't go our way. We'd be like Tea baggers or babies throwing a tantrum.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Let's try statistics one more time

Half the blue dogs are out of a job

Four progressives are out of a job.

Two of them had bombs from the RW.

This is not that difficult... or at least it should not.

[Green_Lantern]

18. I wasn't advocating for Blue dogs just stating

That if the message was to move left then Feingold would have won.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Not with the amount of money the RW invested

they got a hell of a ROI on this.

And that is the point.

I know I cannot explain this... that's ok.

If DC (so far it don't look that the message was received) don't get this... 2012 will be all kinds of fun. NOT!!!!

[Green_Lantern]

31. that's not true about Johnson raising so much more than Feingold

As I pointed out Johnson raised $12,837,349 million and Feingold $18,249,555 $11 million. But Feingold spent $16,249,326 and Johnson $10,457,482. http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?cycle=2010&id=WIS2

[ljm2002]

45. The point is, it's not just about Johnson vs. Feingold...

...because there was lots of extra money funnelled into that state to run ads against Feingold that had nothing to do with Johnson's war chest.

Is it really that hard to figure out? The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for unaccountable money in politics. The Republicans / Chamber of Commerce / Koch brothers / Rove targeted two of our most left / liberal candidates, Feingold and Grayson, and they spent large amounts of money on ad buys in those races.

That goes a long way towards explaining the results in those two races.

[Green_Lantern]

51. I can see them targetting Feingold but not Grayson...

Grayson is in Orlando which is pretty conservative so it was safe to assume he'd lose.

Secondly, you can't say "Feingold would've won if it wasn't for negative ads" that's part of politics and dealing with public opinion.

It's also not fair that Obama is blamed for Bush's economy.

[ljm2002]

54. Regardless of what you can see...

...it is a FACT that Grayson was targeted, as was Feingold. Furthermore, negative ads DO make a difference. They help to shape the public opinion that you dismiss as just "part of politics".

Feingold and Grayson were specifically targeted by the right, and lots of money was spent to defeat them. If you consider Grayson, he was running for a House seat, not even a statewide office, yet big money was spent to defeat him.

Looks to me like those people got what they paid for: examples that can be used by people to say "See, progressives can't win." Even though progressives DID win in many cases, and Blue Dogs DID lose in great numbers.

As far as blaming Obama for Bush's economy: I never did that, and I agree it is unfair. But nearly two years into Obama's term, we can't really get a lot of mileage out of blaming Bush at this point either.

(edited to remove personal barb)

[Green_Lantern]

56. I didn't say progressives can't win elections...

And yep I agree negative ads shape public opinion but that's part of politics is public opinion. How are we going to keep the public from basing their vote on negative ads?

As far as Grayson...he sunk pretty low with his Taliban Dan ad and putting out of context quotes in the ad.

[ljm2002]

57. Sorry ...

... I should not have made it personal.

Yes we do need to figure out how to answer the negative ads. I hate them, on either side, they are such BS. I'm not sure how to counteract them, but I do think we need to either legislate the Citizens United decision out of existence or alternatively find a way to get small $$ donations from the masses to counteract the $$ from the big guys.

Yes Grayson made a mistake with his Taliban Dan ad, although I doubt he would have won anyway but that is no excuse. I hope he learns from that one. It's not right when they do it and it's not right when we do it either.

[Green_Lantern]

59. Grayson got on my nerves...his approach not his politics..

But Feingold is a very sympathetic and even tempered politician...I think he was a prime target. Hopefully he stays active in politics.

Even without Citizens United the Right will find a way to fund negative attacks. It irritates me that voters believe it.

[laughingliberal]

16. Unrec. I never saw a single 'centrist' policy that helped average people.

Keep on passing shit policy that no one sees any results from and keep on losing.

”The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.” – Ted Kennedy

[Green_Lantern]

19. so you're saying the centrist health reform doesn't help average

People? The stimulus package was pretty centrist and helped average people.

[ibegurpard]

23. good god...

[laughingliberal]

26. Most of the average people I know got no help from the HCR bill and some are going to be hurt by...

it.

Some are better off with the stimulus than without it. Most of us are in the same place. Problem with the stimulus was it was too weak and the President stood up and told the American people it would keep unemployment from going over 8%. We lost the House the day he said that.

[Green_Lantern]

33. the HCR bill was more of an insurance reform bill which

Does more for people with insurance than those who don't have it. However it did restore increased funding for Medicaid when states like mine were threatening to cut it back.

Which part of that bill is going to hurt average people?

[elocs]

17. Too many DUers labor under the delusion that most of America is left of center.

Teabaggers also believe that most of America agrees with them. The truth is, no matter how much we dislike and prefer to pretend otherwise, is that most Americans are in the middle.

Some agree totally with the left and place themselves there. Some agree totally with the right and are in that camp. Most, however, tend to agree more with one side or the other, depending upon the issue and circumstances, and swing one way or the other. I think that is what happened Tuesday.

My first presidential vote was for George McGovern and I could not understand how so much of America could disagree with such a principled man and prefer Nixon. If there were DU back then I could have simply claimed it was a stolen election, that there was massive voting fraud, and a conspiracy. It's so much easier not to understand things.

As a Democrat I no longer want electoral sacrificial lambs to principled purity that never gets a chance to govern or do anything. The elected majority should be the ones to set the agenda and direction of the country and I would rather be there than with the noble losers. You take what you can get and work from there.

[laughingliberal]

27. It does not matter where people fall on the left/right spectrum. What matters is if the policies...

work. And by 'work' I mean if people see real results and improvement in their lives.

Centrist policies have not and will not produce this result. Liberal policy has to pass in order to work. You pass it. You let people see their lives improve. You'd play hell after that taking it away from them.

[Green_Lantern]

40. Libertarians say the same thing....all we have to do is put

It into policy and everyone will see its benefit.

How can you say centrism doesn't produce results when we had record economic growth under the centrist policies of President Clinton?

What do you consider liberal policy? Do you believe in limited government?

[girl gone mad]

47. It isn't as if we lack real world models.

We can see the results of libertarian policies at work in places like Mexico and we can see socialist policies at work in places like Germany.

We know which economies are doing well and which are failing. We know where workers succeed and where they suffer.

Right wing ideology has consistently brought widespread failure and poverty.

[Green_Lantern]

52. well sure when you can label any failing country as libertarian and

Any successes are labeled socialist.

Germany isn't socialist...even Schroeder's govt. cut taxes and put limits on the welfare state.

Workers suffer under too big of a welfare state because it can't be funded by only taxing the wealthy.

No, I'm not saying all liberals support a welfare state.

[Recursion]

36. Exactly

Both groups are convinced that the Gaussian distribution doesn't apply to political views.

[Dappleganger]

22. Well, let's all just become republicans

and then we can win some seats!

/s

[madokie]

25. Just do their fucking jobs is all I ask

they have a job, do it. simple. We're getting tired of hearing platitudes about how this or that, just do they're fucking jobs is all we ask.

[Awsi Dooger]

28. Sadly, I think the new realities of party purifying work against us

We'll never force feed progressives into unfriendly districts or states yet conservatives managed to elect wing nuts like Toomey in Pennsylvania and Johnson in Wisconsin. Does anyone realize what the equivalency would look like?

Every year I travel cross country by car, often several times. That's a dose of the real world. Turn on the radio in rural areas and look for the news at the top of the hour. Your scan will find 2 or 3 options of Fox News, and not much else, if anything. The talk programs that follow are right wing crap. Hour after hour. And somehow we're supposed to elect progressives in those districts? I'm sure it sounds cute.

Blue Dogs get booted out in years like this. Progressives never would win those seats in the first place. It's like blaming your boat for sinking while crossing the Atlantic, and bemoaning that you didn't go by car.

Prior to the internet and enthusiast participation we were stuck with moderates on both sides. Frustrating but I don't know how a race to the outskirts helps a party with a 12% deficit in self described ideology. The nation is 20% liberal, 32% conservatives. That equates to more districts in play for them, not us. It's actually a remarkable achievement every time we take control of the House. I don't expect to see it often in forthcoming decades.

[backscatter712]

32. We lost a lot more Blue Dogs than progressives.

In red districts, give the LIVs the choice between GOP Lite and GOP, they'll go for full-flavor.

[MadHound]

37. Let's see, the Progressive Caucus lost 4 of their 80 spots that were on the line,

Blue Dogs lost over half. I'll let you do the math.

[Recursion]

Those blue dog seats were the ones that got us the majority in 2006

And if we don't face the reality of how conservative those districts are, we're not going to get them back.

[MadHound]

41. And what good did we do with that majority?

Do you a public option? A repeal of DADT? Loosening of restrictions on civil liberties? Stopping the war? On and on ad nauseum.

What good is having a majority when part of your party goes over and votes with the other side?

Again, the Blue Dogs lost, badly. Much worse than progressives did. That should tell you something.

[Recursion]

49. Passed the most substantial health care reform in a generation

Do you a public option?

I assume you meant "have" or "want" to be in there. I'm anti-public-option (I think it's a horrible idea, actually; it needs to be universal or it becomes another Medicaid), and anyways it was the cost of getting hospitals on board with this.

A repeal of DADT?

I sure as hell wish we had done that. Too bad we don't have 60 pro-equality Senators.

Loosening of restrictions on civil liberties?

Which ones?

Stopping the war?

Iraq is as "stopped" as it's going to get for another year; we actually moved faster than the SOFA had required. Obama ran on expanding troop levels in Afghanistan, I supported that and still do, particularly with the withdrawal plan.

Again, the Blue Dogs lost, badly. Much worse than progressives did. That should tell you something.

Yes, it tells me that as a party we (correctly) judged that holding those seats (and with them the majority) was less important than passing the legislation we passed.

[Recursion]

38. Dupe. Delete

[Green_Lantern]

61. you can't judge what ideology wins elections by House races..

It's different for each district. I'm not saying progressives can't win elections I'm saying it's foolish to imply these Blue dogs lost because they weren't progressive enough.

[ShamelessHussy]

39. they haven't begun to go 'left'

thats the problem, imho

[Green_Lantern]

62. there's no way we can win in 2012 by going left across the board...

What happened to Mondale?

[ShamelessHussy]

63. no one said, across the board, just that we haven't gone at all

that was then, this is now

[Green_Lantern]

65. by across the board I meant in every district and race...

Not all voters are liberal. The GOPs mistake is thinking most voters are conservative ideologically. I don't think most voters are driven by ideology but economy and employment.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. Not necessarily further left, but defintely more populist. n/t

[JonLP24]

46. I've read a lot of talk about this

and I can't figure it out. I look to my own district which leans Republican that was represented by Harry Mitchell. Mitchell is a blue dog but he was a well known figure in this area for many years. They have a big statue of him next to city hall. He was good on health care issues as well. I'm not really sure if going left or right would of helped him. He pledged to extend the Bush tax cuts shortly before the election, probably to help him in this district, and he ended up losing to someone he beat by close to 10 points last time around.

If it was anything, probably the health care vote. That is what all the ads centered around as well as lumping him with Obama and Pelosi.

[Green_Lantern]

66. the problem is Obama didn't link his policies with job creation..

The way the GOP linked tax cuts to job creation. It may sound cold but voters aren't going to care about the uninsured as much as finding a job.