Why would a Coakley loss make Democrats more progressive?

[liberalpragmatist]

I see the argument that a Coakley loss will "wake Democrats up," teaching them that they can't take their progressive base for granted and pushing them towards more progressive policy.

Why do people think this?

The problems in Congress are due to conservative Democrats in the House and, especially, the Senate, who would take a Coakley loss as validation that we shouldn't attempt big-ticket items.

The thought of losing makes politicians MORE cautious, not less.

A Coakley loss will make Blue Dogs in the House even less likely to vote for major reforms.

A Coakley loss will make it HARDER to get progressive legislation passed in Congress, not easier. If you think health care reform is watered-down enough already, just wait till it gets even more watered down to get the votes of 1 or 2 Republicans.

We tried this before. In 1994, Clinton losing Congress didn't make Clinton more liberal - it made his presidency far more conservative. In 2000, Gore lost, partly because some progressive voters in New Hampshire and Florida voted for Nader. The end result was a radical Bush presidency that set the country back even more.

Hoping for a Coakley loss is wishing for a MORE conservative situation.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

1. I tend to agree with you

I have no doubt that most of the disillusioned progressives have their heart in a great place, but my opinion - and it's just my opinion, I don't want to criticise anyone too heavily - is that patience is the only way the US is going to see positive change with regards to the direction it follows on the political compass.

If I may repost something I wrote a day or two ago...

The only way the United States is going to (slowly) liberalise is by having Democrats drag it back from the far-right precipice. A slow process, yes - but look at what the GOP have done to your country, a place very close to my heart. Obama is STILL accused without question from the news media of peddling an extreme, marxist agenda. Remember the uproar about him potentially foisting some sort of malign, Stalinist message upon the nation's kids in, what, September? Plenty of schools shirked the responsibility of showing it to all students as a result! It's crazy, fucking nuts.

Obama's EXTREMELY moderate agenda is pilloried by the people who matter - those who can shout loudest and have their voices heard and listened to unfortunately aren't 'progressives' - and this feeds the people who believe in that tripe. The people who have been raised and fed on the GOP line for decades, for it is they who have dominated the corridors of power. If Obama cannot pull of his current agenda without being slammed as a far left maniac, you can't reasonably expect him to go super-liberal. He'll be destroyed which will in turn destroy ANY hope of Democrats retaining power. It needs to be done gradually, people need to slowly get their heads around this kind of thing. Once the foundations are in place, future Democrats can go a little more liberal without being crucified. And then the next one...and so on and so forth. Just as the Republicans lurched further and further towards their chosen destination, culminating in the catastrophic Bush years, which polls suggest the country - steered so far to the right by these goons - retains an affinity for, in many cases hoping for an all-out return.

Ultimately, all giving Republicans the reins again says to the powerbrokers is "the United States of America wants a more right-wing administration than the one it currently has, it wants Democrats to move closer to the DeMints and the Browns and the Gingrich's of this world". That's what they see. It's like a marketing man who sees a certain type of film or music album sells and something slightly different doesn't. So you end up with the same anodyne hodge podge dominating the upper echelons of the best selling lists for an extended periord. People who want someone akin to a President Kucinich will never, ever get that if they refuse to join the agonising slow burn process of bringing the USA back from the brink of the right-wing machine it has been moulded into by the Republicans. It's not fair, in a just world it would occur overnight but it is so nonetheless, and a country so rich with inspiration and beauty deserves more.

[gateley]

14. I like the way you think!! nt

[suzie]

42. +100

But telling the truth will not make you popular with the 24/7 Hate Obama crowd on DU.

[WeDidIt]

2. Prepare for the dogpile

You're 100% correct, so naturally you're about to be dogpiled by the irrational.

[ClassWarrior]

3. The primary's the time to complain. Now's the time to support the nominee.

Duh.

NGU.

[HughMoran]

4. I agree with this logic - it's exactly what will happen - MORE cautious, not less

Those claiming the opposite tie my brain in a knots.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Coakley is collateral damage of the Senate's shenanigans

If you want to make Democrats more progressive, one must confront the disease of Reaganism that has infected the party under labels such as "New Democrat" and "Third Wave." It is the same disease that infected Britain's Labour Party, and culminated in Blair's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Too bad that we don't have an equivalent Liberal-Democrat Party as they do in the UK. Nick Clegg will run circles around Pelosi and Reid.

[ShortnFiery]

21. "the disease of Reaganism that has infected the party ..."

Exactly!

Disease of Reaganism: Blue Dogs; Moderates; Centrists; DLCers; New Democrats and Third Way.

[argonaut]

6. Yeah, it would make the Democrats way more conservative.

Coakley's a progressive running on progressive issues and a Brown win will be seen as a blow to to that agenda. The party would panic.

[Ozymanithrax]

It will make any legislation passing the house and Senate more Conservative...

The Democratic party is not a piece of legislation, but the 60 seat majority is necessary for anything, not matter how small, to pass. No 60 seat majority, Republicans get what they want.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. A Coakley loss is a Republican wet dream.

It will result in even less progressive legislation because it will guarantee their filibuster power.

Now, it may convince Democrats that they screwed up, but it will also end their ability to do anything progressive at all, no matter how small and insignificant.

But I am a proud incrementalist who believes that change occurs slowly and in small steps. (The Health Care Bill is the most progressive legislation we have seen since Medicare and Medicaid.) Those who support the Republican centerfold guy as a sort of Western Union strip-o-gram to the Democratic Party that says, "YOU FUCKED UP" do not believe in incrementalism. They want revolution and they want it now, or they take their vote and go home.

[flamingdem]

29. THAT IS RIGHT!!! ANYONE THINKING OTHERWISE HERE IS STUUUUPIDD !!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for your time.

[Ozymanithrax]

44. I don't think people with a different opinion oare stupid.

It is amazing what people read between the lines where there are no words, only misconceptions.

[cliffordu]

39. And they're too lazy to actually risk anything for thier

revolution. Their type always lets others do the fighting, do the bleeding.

[PolNewf]

8. The consequences of a Brown victory could actually be good for Democrats and bad for Republicans.

Walter Russell Mead
Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy, CFR :

The consequences of a Brown victory could actually be good for Democrats and bad for Republicans.

A loss in Massachusetts would drive home to Democrats as almost nothing else could that however left leaning their own instincts are, they have been elected to govern a center-right country and need to adjust to the public mood. The pragmatic Chicago politicians in the Obama White House can read the tea leaves as well as anybody in the country. A GOP Senate win in one of the bluest states in the union would be the strongest possible signal that the party and the White House need to reboot.

Do that now and do that thoroughly, and by next fall (still an eternity away in politics; politician years are even shorter than dog years) the Democrats could be sitting pretty once more.

Despite the damage to his prestige (more severe now that he's gotten personally involved), a GOP win lets Obama off the hook; he can blame the Senate for any failures to push aggressively on ideas (like cap and trade and immigration reform) that play significantly better with the Democratic base than among independents. Short term pain, possible long term gain.

The Republicans on the other hand, could easily be lured by a Bay State win into the kind of fatal complacency that leads to in-fighting and carelessness. Arrogant feisty Republicans would remind the the public of all the things we are trying to forget about the Bush administration and the unlamented GOP majorities in Congress; that won't help in November.

All that said, a win is a win is a win.

http://www.politico.com/arena/

I think he is right. At least the "true progressives" here will have something real to bitch about when Obama and congress move to the right and all the things Obama has been too slow addressing drop off the radar completely.

[Think82]

9. Kick. I have no idea what people are thinking by sitting out ot send a message.

If you voted for Nader, you are partly responsible for 8 years of Bush. If you vote for Brown or don't vote, you are responsible for sinking Obama's presidency in the first term.

Good luck with that, self-righteous "base."

[Hello_Kitty]

10. It wouldn't make Dem politicians more progressive

But I'll bet all of a sudden they'll discover they don't need 60 votes to pass the POS Senate Bill through reconciliation.

[treestar]

32. That bill could not possibly fit under that category

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7480650

What can go through that way is very limited and most of the "POS bill" does not qualify.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Simple: they don't want to do the work to make America more progressive.

Getting the consensus among voters such that a progressive candidate could coast through the primary and skate into office is a lot of work. It's far easier to try to change things by punishing candidates through the vote. Takes like an hour tops. Even if it doesn't work.

[dave29]

12. +1000

.

[freddie mertz]

13. Well, I hope she wins, so I guess I agree with you.

But I also think she is in trouble, in part, because of the mistaken political strategy at the WH.

[Phx_Dem]

15. It wouldn't. This logicignores the fact that a President's

first mid-term elections generally go against the party in power. Even though this is a special election, it falls during the first-term mid-term election cycle.

If Coakley loses, it doesn't mean shit for progressives or liberals, other than they will have lost a seat.

[PopSixSquish]

16. Working to Elect More Progressive Democrats at Every Level Will Make the Country More Progressive

I would hope that those wanting Coakley to lose know this. Otherwise, they're just whistling past the graveyard...

[treestar]

33. If a Repuke wins in a blue state like that

How do red state dems get "more progressive?" They'll just feel empowered. Even Mass. sends Republicans!

[Faryn Balyncd]

17. It's not Coakley...It's the pseudo-"reform" no-P/O mandate that will destroy the Democratic majority

That's the issue.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Do you have an answer to the OP's question? n/t

[Kaleva]

18. It will teach somebody something I guess.

[Hansel]

20. K&R. nt

[ShortnFiery]

22. Gore lost MOSTLY because he ran a crappy campaign and turned off LIBERALS with dismissals

and the selection of a poor running mate. NOT because a few rag tag liberals voted for Nader ... It's beyond time to blame liberals for GORE's piss poor campaign performances and lack of fight.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. Gore's campaign was alright

apart from Lieberman

[Faryn Balyncd]

23. If Coakley loses, it's NOT b/c we attempted "big ticket items", but b/c we killed the P/O 77% want

Poll after poll has consistently showed overwhelming majorities of Americans support the option of a public plan like Medicare for all Americans.

Now that we caved to Baucus & Lieberman and ditched the public option, only 35% of Americans think bill is better than doing nothing.

Americans are not against real reform.

Americans are against a corporate mandate falsely labeled "reform".




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/54_say_passing_no_healthcare_reform_better_than_passing_congressional_plan

[democrattotheend]

25. That's not how it will be spun or interpreted

It will not push any Democrats to the left, I promise.

[polmaven]

45. So allowing a Republican,

who will not EVER allow ANY type of reform that will help anyone at all to be elected will fix that how? :shrug:

[johnaries]

24. Isn't obvious? If people vote for a rw nutjob, it obviously means

they really want a far-left "pure" liberal, instead. If liberals stay home and lose every election, then we win! What could be simpler? :shrug:

Oh, and I wouldn't think this would be necessary, but you can't be sure around here anymore :sarcasm:

[Faryn Balyncd]

26. Public Option is NOT "far left". It's what 77% of Americans want. Progressives are far more in touch

....with middle America than are corporatist sell-outs.

Calling the (compromise) public Option plan which we abandoned "far left" is accepting the semantics of the RW propaganda machine.





:kick:

[johnaries]

28. I support the PO. I would rather have Single-Payer. But I still support

the current bill even without either because although not perfect it still has a lot of progressive aspects and it is a definite move forward.

What I am against are "purity" tests. Especially based on single issues.

[cry baby]

27. progressives that hope for a Coakley loss are out of touch with reality...

and with a tea person in that seat, we will not progress at all.

I am not looking forward to the shit that will rain down on progressives and democrats if she loses...and the fear in democrats will overcome them and they won't take chances with progressive issues.

Only by standing with them can they be strong.

[depakid]

30. Since the "leadership" is arrogant- there's an argument to be made that they'll never learn

That said- I find the implication that Americans should just roll over and accept and blindly support the cowardly, corrupt and complicit elements of their party that are dragging them further and further toward third world status to be odious- and anything but pragmatic.

The Democratic "leadership" will either learn -or it will lose. Repeatedly.

And that's exactly as it should be.

[JoeyT]

37. Yep.

But that argument prevents them from gearing up to blame liberals for a loss, just in case it happens.

There's also the argument that the Democratic politicians want to move to the right and will use any excuse available to do it. They've provided more than enough evidence for either argument.

[depakid]

50. Could be- but analysis of the actual data could make things difficult

for the right wing of the party and its supporters.

Not that some will care- like the Republicans (or personality devotee's) that they are at heart- they'll find some rationalization or another that blames someone else- or some other group for their own failures.

[JustAnotherGen]

31. ITA

But the progressives I worry about the most that might be thinking this? They live in Mass. They are the ones that need to get out there and vote. It's on them.

[ShadowLiberal]

34. I agree, a Coakley loss will scare the pants off of a bunch of moderate votes we need on Health Care

[andym]

35. It would usher in a move to the right.

Let's hope Coakley wins.

[salguine]

38. The people running the Democratic party would doubtless take it as a sign they

need to move farther right.

[DisgustedInMN]

40. You may be correct, BUT..

...if you are, then perhaps they are digging their own political graves.

Remaining tonedeaf to those of us were instrumental in their rise to majority status is NOT a tenable or defensible strategy.

For millions of us, there are two issues where we draw the line on. Jobs and health care. Dems have not delivered on either. Excuses don't provide DESPERATELY needed critical care, pay mortgages, or put food on the table. If a party, ANY party can't do the right thing on these two most basic of human rights issues, what good are they?

[Jennicut]

41. Losses NEVER make the Dem party move to the left, they get overly cautious and move to the right

The reality is in the US that we have distinct Democratic groups in the Senate and House. Obama has to form coalitions to pass anything. He does not have the respect of conservative Dems because they have a higher calling, which is their own greed and campaign contributions. For Bush, it was easier to get all the Rethugs together and stand by him as the Rethugs are entirely corrupt and have long accepted that sticking it to the little people was the way to go. There were hardly any conflicts in the Rethugs in Congress, whereas you have huge conflicts between the Dems. The only answer is grassroots primary campaigns to get the more liberal candidate, not the candidate that they think may win. A Coakley loss simply tells conservative Dems they were right to drag their feet on anything. It will not help progressive causes at all.

[DonkeyHoTay]

47. Really? Maybe next time they'd agree to run Vickie K vs Brown!

That's what the LION OF THE sENATE  wanted, wasn't it? His
state political machine ignored/trashed his dying wish...

The party machine disagreed with Ted Kennedy and ran a hack...
 Mrs Kennedy wisely and graciously concurred and now those who
made this stupid decision have to face the music.  Adler
>>> logical consequences/

Next time, if Vickie is open-hearted enough to return, let her
run and win back her husband's senate seat for the party.

'Nuff said.  My apologies, but this is the truth that no one
wants to admit at this point.

[Jennicut]

49. It is too late for any of that. Now it is a race between a Dem and a Rethug.

[Blasphemer]

43. You are right. They generally spin any loss as a mandate to move rightward.. nt

[andym]

46. Well there are two ways to look at it

If Brown wins we would have the most conservative Republican to be elected in Massachusetts (one of the most liberal states in the USA) since the days of Hoover and friends beating a liberal (for these times) candidate.

So, a Democrat in a more moderate state can conclude either
1) Coakley lost because she was not liberal enough
(but what is the supporting evidence)
or
2) Coakley lost because she was too liberal.
The supporting evidence: how else could Massachusetts choose such a conserative.

Therefore, I would expect a huge move to the right, i.e., more anti-government sentiment, which will set this country back years.

[demwing]

48. its simple - Ted Kennedy and HCR

Ted Kennedy dreamed of HCR. He spent many years in pursuit of this goal. If the voters in his own state, when contemplating how to fill his empty seat, think it better to stop this sham HCR in its tracks, then you've GOT to know that the distaste has reached critical levels. Ted Kennedy's base would rather kill this bill than see it passed in his name.

Is that because the bill is too progressive? Too progressive for Ted Kennedy?

Does ANYONE, other than republicans and Joe Lieberman, think this bill is too progressive? I hope not.

A Coakley loss won't make Dems more progressive, you're right about that, but for the wrong reasons. It's like the old saying - "Change come from within." Only Dems will make Dems more progressive. Superficial change, forced changed, isn't progressive at all. It's false.

A Coakley loss would be a glaring smack in the face - in fact, the very closeness of this race should be a smack in our faces. the real question is whether we have the ability to take a message and act on it? Do we get it?

If we don't get the message from Massachusetts, we're either too fucking dumb to hear it, or we're ignoring it on purpose.

[TomCADem]

51. Way too much common sense there...

...the clarity is making me dizzy.

The path to change is not through sitting on the sidelines, but by getting involved.

[burning rain]

52. For the sake of a case, losing a seat *might* lead Senate Dems to give up....

this absurd "we need 60 votes to pass anything" BS that they've allowed Republicans to force on them, and that is contributing so much to making them look like people who can't govern. On the other hand, it's just as likely they'd compensate for the lost vote by making Olympia Snowe the endlessly-coddled 60th vote, which would be even worse than the current state of affairs. In any case, I'm all for Coakley.