OK DUers you asked for this...now you got it.

[Perky]

Blue Dog Senators now being challenged on their left flank

Halter Challenging Lincoln
Sestak challenging Specter
Whomever challenging Bennet

I have no love for the incumbents at all....none...not a bit.

But here's the deal Dems eating Dems is never in our best interest. However loathsome we may find the incumbents in these states and others and whoever emerges victorious in these tilts, they will emerge wounded, broke, and with a fractured base to oppose a Repuke in the fall with a big war chest and a rabid base of supporters.

I am not saying incumbents should never be challenged and I am certainly not endorsing these two....but....


I wonder if there is not a better way to voice our displease then giving the seat to the Republicans.

[Moochy]

1. A better way

is to run real democrats and if they lose, at least we wont be undercut by a traitor who works for republican goals.

[Robb]

3. If they lose you're still screwed.

Amazing you would care by who so much more than whether you do.

[Lost-in-FL]

4. We are losing now with the Conservadems, what's the difference? nt

[Moochy]

50. tumbleweeds

as in no answer.

[Fire1]

5. What??? n/t

[Robb]

12. It's not complicated.

Any Republican is worse than any Democrat. Do you disagree? :shrug:

[Fire1]

34. At one time I would have said absolutely, yes. Now, I'm not so

sure, i.e., Specter, Lieberman, etc.

[Tesha]

53. Democrats who, for decades, destroy our brand with their every action

...are worse than losing one election to a Republican.

Tesha

[dionysus]

14. they'd rather be in the minority and feel "pure"...

[Romulox]

15. That double edged sword you're swinging--yeah, it cuts BOTH ways...

Amazing you would care about "winning" so much more than how you do it.

[Robb]

17. Fair point. nt

[Tesha]

52. The difference is that no one will argue, next cycle, that we've got to preserve the incumbent...

...no matter how bad they are if the incumbent is a real
Republican instead of just someone who votes like one.

Tesha

[Perky]

9. The problem is that they are not always traitors.

[dmallind]

11. Please cite the worst Blue Dog voting percentage with Republicans

And tell me how that is working for Republican goals ion any way comparable to the only realistic alternative - an actual Republican.

[Fire1]

2. Where there's a will, there's a way. It seems that the 'will' is

noticeably absent. In the end, you reap what you sow.

[ProSense]

6. Not concerned.

First, Halter can win both the primary and the GE. Second, if Lincoln pulls off a primary win, she will likely win the GE.

Go Halter.

[daleanime]

7. So no one should ever be challenged?

Every one should be challenged, and as a party we should not just allow but require primary contests to consist of at least two or more candidates.


Now we should also learn to campaign in a civilized manner, but more practice is not a bad thing.





:hide:

[zipplewrath]

8. How about supporting your implied assertion?

Your entire post rests upon the assumption that primaries "give seats to the republicans". How about some evidence of this? The reality is that an equally valid assumption (and more likely considering that candidates lose WITHOUT having to go through primaries) is that a candidate that finds themselves being seriously challenged in a primary only has themselves to blame.

If you are an incumbent, and your supposed base of support doesn't want you, I don't think your problem in the general election was the primary, it was that everyone thought you did a lousy job, including your friends.

If you don't work to throw out folks that don't support your goals, you end up with Joe Lieberman.

A bajeezus, listing Specter in this conversation at all is a tad beyond the pale. If there's an incumbent "dem" that can be challenged in the primaries, isn't this the textbook case?

[jgraz]

23. Well, that drawn out presidential primary was DISASTROUS for us in 2008

Oh wait...

[polichick]

10. I'd rather have 51 progressive Senators than 60, counting undercover Republicans...

The anti-choice Dems can kiss my ass - along with corporate whores like Blanche.

[Perky]

16. All well anf good but do you think anything can be accomplished with a simple majority?

[jgraz]

24. With 51 true progressives, yes. A lot can be accomplished.

Look what the Repukes did with 51 hard-right cons.

[polichick]

33. +1

[polichick]

32. Sure, if they've got balls and ovaries. :)

[Perky]

35. I think you are sleep walking....dreaming

51 progressives against 49 Repukes means one of two thing. If they stay true to progressive values everything gets fillibustered OR things get so muddled that the enacted legislation will be an embarrassment

[polichick]

41. We'd be using reconciliation, same as we are now - but without wasting...

...a year's worth of time and watering bills down for both Republicans and Conservadems.

Sounds like you're dreamin' that same ol' stale DLC nightmare!

[Perky]

44. No I am just ever cognizant of the power of ego

Put 51 democratic senators in a room and they will have 30 different opinion about how to solve let alone how to proceed. Whereas with republicans they will have 49 Senators, two opinions and not a lick of sense between them and yet they will some how vote as a bloc.

The democrats in the Senate are a bunch of ego-driven free-range kittens all of who think they should run for President.

The point is from Running committees to managing the legislative calendar, the Leader has a very tough job with 59 different opinions it it astronomically more difficult with a majority of 1.

It is far easier to find 51 in a group of 59 top build consensus then it it to find 51 Senators in a group of 51.

[PVnRT]

57. What's being accomplished now?

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Sestak again...

last time he was nominated by the few Democrats who bothered to vote in the primary.

In the general, it turned out that there were few serious Democrats actually existing in Connecticut, and many of them still not bothering to come out and vote, so Lieberman handily kept his seat, with a newly found ability to hold up his old party.

So, ummm... how would that work this time?

I got nuttin' against Sestak himself, but seems like there's this whole road full of windmills, and only one little lance...

Oh, and who has the better chance of avoiding being eaten alive by the First Lady of Wrestling? Beware the deep pockets and PR abilities of the WWE.

[bvar22]

26. I believe you are confused.

Joe Sestak is challenging turncoat Republican Arlen Specter in the Democratic Primary for Senator in Pennsylvania.
Though Specter NOW sports a "D" after his name, he is NO "Democrat".
This only illustrates how FAR to The RIGHT the Democratic Party has moved over the last 20 years.

Republican Arlen Specter has the full support of the conservative Obama Administration and the DNC.

I'm sending a donation to Joe Sestrak because...
We already have enough REPUBLICANS in the Democratic Party.



Just say "NO" to the Centrists/Corporatists
who want to move the Democratic Party even FURTHER to the RIGHT.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. I'm confused? First, since neither of us lives CT, neither of us...

really has much to say in the matter.

But, the real point of all this is the last time the left got all hot and bothered about Sestak, he lost big time and Lieberman came back even less of a Democrat than he was before.

Now, Sestak wants to again take on not only a sitting Senator, but whoever the Republicans pick, which might be a popular AG, or the head of the WWE, or maybe someone else with vast sums to spend.

So, people all around the country are getting all hot and bothered about this guy again, without much input from actual Connecticut Democrats, who have to do the heavy lifting and have the most to lose if it goes wrong again.

It's complicated enough for me to stay out of it for fear of fucking it up more than it is. I've got enough problems in my own state, as do you.

(A half a Democrat is still better than a whole Republican)

[bvar22]

29. You're still confused.

Go and Google "Ned Lamont",
then Google Maps for "Connecticut" and "Pennsylvania".

[TreasonousBastard]

30. Oh, shit! You're right. How embarassing. But, my point still stands.

[Mass]

31. Lamont is not running against Blumenthal. He is running for governor of CT.

http://www.nedlamont.com/

http://richardblumenthal.com/?gclid=CI_nwPOpmKACFYWV7QodsE6cdQ

I am not sure there is anybody running against Blumenthal (in any case nobody serious).

[PassingFair]

56. As does your nasty and embarassing tone.

Carry on!

[Tesha]

55. A "Half a Democrat" would be better except that they are the reason...

...no one can explain what Democrats stand for anymore.

Because these folks fundamentally believe Republican values,
they block the real Democrats from working for THE PEOPLE.
And they then go out and tell everyone how wrong we are in
trying to support THE PEOPLE.

It would be painful in the near term, but in the long term, it
would pay off well to return the Democrats to a place where
EVERY WORKING PERSON would once again understand that
the Democrats stand with the working people and the Republicans
stand ON the working people.

Tesha

[Tippy]

18. Until we do a better job picking our candidates

we will have a problem...We can't wait for the candidate to enter the race, we as Democrats should be more active at the local level, what we should be doing is grooming our Candidates. Unless of course we have them sign a pledge of some sort, I'll support you if you promise to do this, and this..It is going to be more difficult this year to fund these candidates, I have already see quite a few qualified people already dropping out of races, because people are not donating here TN. Several who would have made good Candidates didn't even pick up a petition to run...This is what we get for not getting meaningful campaign reform.

[elocs]

19. If we truly want to get rid of the Blue Dogs, than having a Republican elected is a risk

that will have to be taken. Over and over we hear again about what choice do we have but to hold our noses and support the DINOs or Blue Dogs. I don't accept that premise because it is short sighted and in the long term it bites us in the ass.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. The Republicans will win those seats EITHER WAY

All the blue dogs are going to lose this year. That's where republican gains will come from, not from liberal districts.

Supporting RW Dems can be fine if it means a seat that we couldn't possibly gain any other way.

But in a year when they are all going to lose anyway supporting them merely moves the party right for no net gain.

[jgraz]

25. Especially if a Blue Dog wins.

The Repukes then have a collaborator in enemy camp. Nothing is more dangerous or damaging to progressive causes.

[onenote]

36. so you would rather have had the Lily Ledbetter Act and the ARRA defeated

If repubs held the seats now occupied by blue dogs, both of those bills would have been defeated (the minimum wage bill passed by a 250-177 margin, with only 3 repubs voting against, and the recovery bill passed by 246-183, with no repubs voting for). THere are around 50 or so Blue Dogs. So if you convert those blue dogs to repubs and retake those votes, the bills are defeated.

Would I like blue dogs to be more progressive? Of course. Do I think that they are no different than repubs? No. ANd the record backs me up.

[jgraz]

37. Once more without the drama.

There's no way that all 50 Blue Dogs will be defeated. But if a few go down because they aren't progressive enough, it will put the fear of God into the rest. The reason the Democrats keep shitting on us is that they feel we have nowhere else to go. If Scott Brown's victory taught them anything, it's that progressive voters will stay home rather than vote for another Repuke-lite. We need to send that same message to the Blue Dogs.

[onenote]

39. sorry i was responding to a post earlier in this subthread

that said all of the blue dogs were going to lose.

[jgraz]

40. If all the Blue Dogs lost in primaries, we'd be in much better shape.

As we've seen with people like John Yarmouth, real progressives can win in traditionally conservative areas. Someone who is truly on the side of the people would draw votes from all points on the political spectrum.

[onenote]

49. John Yarmuth's district is the only district in KY that voted for Obama

Its not a 'traditionally conservative" area. Yarmuth defeated Anne Northrup who was a relatively moderate repub -- in fact, Obama named her to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Before Northrup, the district was represented by Democrats for the previous 26 years.

Maybe not your best example, eh?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

48. This just in: predicting something does not cause it to happen

[Moochy]

51. Exactly So

The enemy gaining a collaborator in the democratic camp seems worse than being one man down, and (R)'s one man up.

[Ganja Ninja]

21. I'm just not going to vote for conservative Democrats anymore.

Once the party understands it's base will not vote for Conservatives they will have to stop running them.

[LatteLibertine]

22. I'm not a fan of Blue Dogs either

If we're talking about competing in a mostly conservative district, I'm not sure how a progressive candidate has a better chance of winning vs a Republican. As annoying as some Blue Dogs may be, they are easier to pressure than folks who's goal is to see the Democratic Party fail by any means necessary, ie Republicans. IMO Republican vs a progressive Democrat in a mostly conservative area will usually = victory for the Republican.

I'd like to get someone in office who will push for things like real financial sector reform and I doubt that will be a Republican. I've already see what Republicans do with majority rule; expand crony capitalism and corporatism. That's a real concern of mine, Republicans returning to majority rule. Democrats are no where near perfect and they don't suck as bad as the mentioned scenario.

[angelicwoman]

28. Blanche would have lost to the Republican anyway

Her wishy washy centrism will not prevail The left doesn't want her and the right doesn't want her.

[depakid]

38. Blanche is both a quisling AND a sure loser

And Specter is a Republican for crissakes, who only switched parties out of his entitlement to a cushy Senate job.

[Exultant Democracy]

42. Don't count on them facing serious challengers. The Tea Party is going to push the

republicans in their open primaries to the super far right.

[Hansel]

46. Which is another good reason to challenge Lincoln.

She will chase them off of that cliff and be afraid to vote for anything that isn't almost as far to the right.

If she gets a challenge and learns that the left is fed up with being insulted by her and taken for granted maybe she will think twice about turning into a Tea Bagger herself.

I'm sorry but when she's is publicly asking Obama "when are we going to push back against the left?" after the left has conceded absolutely everything to her and her right wing buddies, it's time for her to find out that the left is made up of "real Americans" who she is suppose to represent. They aren't some insurgent group. She's a piece of work and needs to go bye bye.

[Cleita]

43. You know at this point I don't care who is there. They are all bought

and paid for and those buyers will be the ones who set the agenda regardless of whether there is a Blue Dog Democrat or Republican of any stripe in that seat. This whole Senate thing is nothing more than a dog and pony show geared to making us believe we have a democracy.

[Hansel]

45. Lincoln is going to lose either way.

And I don't really consider ousting her eating our own.

I really don't think there is a better way because she sides with the Republicans on every major piece of legislation. She needs to go, just like Lieberman should have. We'd be in much better shape right now if the voters of Connecticut had woken up earlier and not fallen for the "we can't eat our own" meme.

Specter almost always votes the right way so I do kind of agree there.

[warm regards]

47. Not really...

Blue Dogs being challenged from the left, RINOs being challenged from the right...

It appears to me that the choices are becoming much more clear.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

54. Bzzt! Wrong!

"...dems eating Dems..."


Not dems eating not dems. Some of us have been alive long enough to know the difference.

[PVnRT]

58. So....first we were told to find progressive primary challengers

Now, the story is that those progressive primary candidates will hurt the party, so everyone needs to get behind the conservative incumbents.

What's next? Progressives in safe districts should step down in favor of more conservative Democrats for the good of the party?

[paulk]

59. Romanoff is challenging Bennet

not "whomever".

He is also polling better against the probable Republican nominee than Bennet is, which makes Obama's support all the more puzzling...

It seems that Romanoff has a better chance of winning than Bennet does, if the polling holds true - which kind of blows a whole in your argument.