"How are we going to get 60 solid liberal votes in the Senate?"

[ProSense]

From a diary at Daily Kos

<...>

The current US Senate rules allow for 41 Senators to filibuster any legislation and the Republicans have 41 votes and have abused the filibuster again and again.

And, of course, we have the "blue dogs" who also obstruct. Yes, we need to replace them. So where do our Democrats in the Senate come from?

Here are 17 of them, listed by state and the percentage (rough calculations) of the vote that Obama got in that state in 2008:

Red States:

Montana: Baucus, Tester (49 percent)
Alaska: Begich (39 percent)
North Dakota: Conrad, Dorgan (45 percent)
West Virginia: Goodwin, Rockefeller (43 percent)
South Dakota: Johnson (45 percent)
Louisiana: Landrieu (40 percent)
Arkansas: Pryor, Lincoln (40 percent)
Missouri: McCaskill (barely McCain)
12 Senators
------------------------
Nebraska: Nelson (42 percent, but 1 CD)
----------------------
Blue for the first time in many years:

Indiana: Bayh (less than 51 percent)
Virginia: Warner, Webb (53 percent)
North Carolina: Hagan (less than 51 percent)

17 Senators: 13 from red states, 4 from "barely blue for the first time in decades" states.

So, just how are we going to replace those 13 "red state" (soon to be less) Democrats with liberals?

How are we going to replace the "newly and barely" blue states senators (4) with liberals who think like us?

How are we going to get 60 solid liberal votes in the Senate?

<...>

Now, that's math. Lieberman is missing from the list, and he's up for re-election in 2012.

Of course, it would be great if filibuster reform had enough support, but even Senator Feingold has been opposed to eliminating the filibuster.

[lillypaddle]

1. K&R brings recs to zero

shameful.

[NJmaverick]

2. K&R

[SunsetDreams]

3. K&R that countered an unrec?

Wonder why...

This is what I have been saying, I don't know how we get Progressives/Liberals IN over those Conservative Dems in red states. It would be nice if we could, but the political reality(yes I said reality, big deal) in those states will not allow that to happen.

[CakeGrrl]

25. Because it's an inconvenient truth about how legislation gets passed

I suppose if one enjoys blaming everything on Obama's lack of leadership, one would rather not think about why we have the House and the Senate.

:eyes:

[SunsetDreams]

59. I have to hand it to him,

He is indeed talented. He writes, passes and signs all legislation apparently.
There is no House and Senate.

:sarcasm:

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. A Note on Dean's "Brilliant" 50 State Strategy, while we're on this

I've seen a number of posts lately praising Dean for his 50 state strategy. I agree - the Dems were wrapped up in negativity when they thought they'd simply never win some districts. But then I see the same posters turn around and scream bloody murder about the "Blue Dogs" and the Conservo-dems, and all the pandering the Administration is supposedly doing for them.

Um, the 50 State Strategy WAS the Election of Blue Dogs.

What the fuck do y'all think it was?

You can't say "Dean was a genius" on the one hand and "Why do we have all these DINO's?" on the other: they're two sides of the same fucking coin. (I don't mean "you" ProSense.

Sorry for the thread disruption, but truly, enough is fucking enough.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Yes you CAN say that.

"My colleague, Glenn W. Smith, has pointed to the DLC strategy of getting as many "swing voters" as possible and the minimum number of base voters needed to win. That is why the DLC and Rahm Emanuel argued against Howard Dean's 50-state strategy and for a swing-state alone strategy.

The DLC has concentrated on policy wonkishness (see their 100 new policy ideas on their website) rather than values. Their concentration on laundry lists of policies rather than vision, values, and passion has not helped the Democrats electorally...

"But worst of all, the DLC has been cowed by the conservatives. They have drunk the conservative Kool-Aid. As Harold Ford intimated in his debate with Markos Moulitsas: To win you have be a hawk on foreign policy, a social conservative on abortion and gay marriage, and not raise taxes. Nonsense.

Even worse, Ford is suggesting that those in the party who don't hold those views say that they do. There's a name for someone who goes against his principles to pander for votes. It's not a nice name..."

"No Center, No Centrists" by George Lakoff
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[Cosmocat]

Says the guy ...

who LOST his last election ...

I can appreciate Ford as a guy who HAD to be a "blue dog" in a tough tennessee district, but he is a an absolute festering sore as a national spokesman ...

[ClassWarrior]

14. Read the article. It talks about how Harold's blue-dogginess lost him the election.

NGU.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Well which is it? Is it Dean or the DLC Responsible for Current Dem Majorities?

If the DLC is responsible for the majorities (however rotten they are), then we can hardly praise Dean for having created them!

If Dean is responsible for the majorities, then we can hardly absolve him from their conservative character.

You can't have it both ways. It seems like you want to say, "Dean is awesome for creating the Dem majorities, but the DLC is awful for creating conservo-dem majorities." It's completely ludicrous.

[ClassWarrior]

27. Ahhh, so you want to blame Dean for creating the 50-year RW media distortion strategy?

After all, you did say, "If Dean is responsible for the majorities, then we can hardly absolve him from their conservative character. "

(Of course, my assertion here is about as honest as yours.)

NGU.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. I don't want to blame Dean for anything, actually

I think it's ridiculous to praise Dean for the majorities while bemoaning the conservative character of those very majorities.

[ClassWarrior]

37. I'm bemoaning the conservative character of elected leaders, not the minority they represent...

...in the Dem caucus.

NGU.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Oh, as am I

Nothing I dislike more than a blue dog. At the same time, I don't have any illusions about how they got there.

[treestar]

42. True, Dean did not do "good enough" per these same people either

They just want to attack the POTUS without dealing with Congress. They'd be equally ungrateful to a President Dean.

[BrklynLiberal]

46. Wow!! That is from 2007!! Lakoff is a prescient genius.

I am going to make a separate post for that article. It may be old, but it sure is not out-dated.

[ClassWarrior]

11. So you can't say, "Edison was a genius" and "Why does that first phonograph sound so crappy?"

After all, "they're two sides of the same fucking coin."

:eyes:

NGU.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. So you'd admit that Dean's first run at the 50 state strategy

appears to have pretty crappy results?

Good analogy.

Can it improve? Of course. But the current composition of the Congress can't be separated from the architect of those campaigns. Edison was a genius who gave us a pretty crappy first phonograph. Thank goodness it got better. Dean is the genius who gave us the pretty crappy Dem congress. Let's hope it gets better, but let's not pretend that Dean's strategy isn't directly responsible for this crap.

[ClassWarrior]

24. Yes, I admit it was a breakthrough...

...and like most breakthroughs, it will improve quickly if it's developed.

And to say that Edison's invention is directly responsible for bad audio is as laughable as it is dishonest.

NGU.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Well

Since I didn't say that Edison was responsible for bad audio in general, I don't even know what you're talking about. However, the invention did produce bad audio on the first specific try, now didn't it?

The point here is simple: Dean's 50 state strategy is responsible, in part, for the conservative nature of the Dem majorities. That's neither good nor bad, but the two can't be separated.

[ClassWarrior]

40. Wrong. The two can't be joined. Unless one has an agenda to trash Dean.

NGU.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. I think we'll go over and over this

I'm happy enough to say that they can't be joined, but then you can't say that Dean was some genius who created our majorities. He either created THIS SPECIFIC majority, with it's maddening conservative section, or none at all.

[treestar]

50. And be glad there is something to start with

Instead of what we'd have without that - Republicans. You see tons of DU posts trashing the Blue Dogs and scoffing at the idea they are an improvement on Republicans. They're going to primary a Blue Dog from a Red State. As if a red state would elect a progressive Senator!

[quaker bill]

125. You are missing the point of your analogy

it may not be a great phonograph, but it is a phonograph, starting from zero, an impressive leap forward. Winning elections at all was necessary to make the party relevant again in a great many places. It is not enough, but from where we came from, it is a good start.

[alcibiades_mystery]

133. Not really

I think Dean can be given credit - a lot of credit, in fact - for creating Democratic majorities in a difficult climate. I also think that the mode of such creation is in part responsible for the predicament we're in with an illusory large majority (in fact, we have a slim progressive majority, if any at all, as the OP demonstrates nicely). And this is true regardless of DLC involvement, though the DLC is clearly to blame in great measure for the composition of the current Congress (in terms of both praise and blame). If it's the fact that we have a slim progressive majority, or one insufficient to pass actual legislation, it hardly seems proper to praise Dean for creating a large majority. That doesn't mean he receives no credit, of course.

[quaker bill]

161. The actual problem

is that we are assessing the status of a project that is only roughly finished to the first phase. Under any reasonable scenario, the fifty state strategy would not have produced this many seats in congress this soon. The wave of revulsion over 8 years of Bush took the project to places it was not ready to go this early. The birth of a dem majority this large,was, simply put, premature.

The point of the project was to make the Democratic party relevant again in many places where it had not been relevant for almost 50 years. It was to rebuild the party organization and run locally credible candidates to facilitate reconstruction of a base and to re-engage in dialog with that base toward eventually building a true governing majority among the people. The reaction to Bush produced an abberation, specifically victories in strong republican leaning districts. The intent of the project was to change these districts to dem leaning over time by winnng some races and seriously competing, while perhaps losing others. Instead, we won almost anywhere we put up a serious effort. It was not expected to happen this fast.

So now we have a bunch of representatives in congress in republican +5 to republican +10 districts, instead of a bunch of near losers who ran the first credible opposition campaign in decades in these districts. These folks are now sitting in districts where under normal circumstances they would have placed a close second, and they are trying to keep their jobs. This is not all that bad, but it is not the size of a win the media and some activists like to presume. In some ways it would have been better if the republican had barely won in their first very tight contest in at least some of these races, as they would be more likely to seek a path toward the middle to keep their jobs.

[alcibiades_mystery]

162. I agree with everything you say here

You are exactly right on all counts.

:thumbsup:

[depakid]

17. Wrong. Again As usual

Dean's strategy was to go to red states and show them what progressive policies would do- as he said, to paraphrase, the guys with confederate fags on their trucks want and need secure, well paying jobs, decent healthcare and good schools for their kids.

People like you pervert and misrepresent that strategy- equating it with Rahm's dysfunctional Blue dogs. For what purpose or emotional need, who can say?

</threadjack>

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

23. The DFA (Dean) supported the more liberal candidates in the primaries. If I recall Dean was constant

at odds with the DCCC and the DSCC. As in the case of Tammy Duckworth here in IL.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. That's well and good

But then how is it possible to credit him with the current majorities if it was -to your mind - the DLC who pushed through the actual winning candidates?

My point here is simple: if you credit him with the majorities, you have to credit him with their particular character. If you blame the DLC for the current composition of the Congress, that's fine, too, but you can't then praise Dean for making it happen.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

63. I'm not here praising anyone. Sure the eventual nominees had to be supported in

the general. I think overall the party was shortsighted. Sure they needed to win but they could have also courted more populist candidates instead of health insurance (and other corps.) lackeys. The idea of the so called 50 state strategy was right on but the execution lacked a broader vision (than just winning and get someone in there). Dean was part of this but Emmanuel and Schummer aren't exactly known for their fiery populism. Which we could use right now to refocus that anger on to Wall St and the pukes.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. I have no doubt that we're seeing a combination of the Dean and DLC strategies

Neither is completely responsible for the Dem majorities, nor is either completely innocent of the conservative problem in those majorities. That's the point.

[ProSense]

28. No that's a complete myth

DEAN: The Pro-Life candidates that I was interested in supporting were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect. Therefore, it's very clear, that even a Pro-Life Democrat who may disagree with us on a fundamental issue is a huge improvement over the person who was there before. So, are there some Democrats I would not support? Yes—and No I'm not gonna tell you who they are. But there are not many. Most of the Democrats who are Pro-Life—are very very good on a lot of other issues and I don't want to exclude people like that from out party.

link

[ClassWarrior]

33. "Agreed with the Democratic PLATFORM." Read that platform sometime PS, then tell me how much YOU...

...and your beloved ConservaDems agree with it.

NGU.

[ProSense]

48. "The Pro-Life candidates that I was interested in supporting

were people who agreed with the Democratic platform"

The Democrat Platform is Pro-Life?

[ClassWarrior]

62. It's YOUR quote. Why are you asking ME to defend it?? ROFL...

FWIW, the quote is "...were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect."

:rofl:

NGU.

[ProSense]

78. It's Dean's quote, and

you're the one defending it.

"FWIW, the quote is "...were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect."

Right, which is the entire point, he was not pushing for progressive, he was trying to win with candidates who agreed with most of the Democratic platform, even if they were pro-life.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. The 50 State Strategy is/was a GREAT way to obtain a majority in Congress

Unfortunately, like others have pointed out, a majority of Democratic Representatives and Senators does NOT=a majority of LIBERAL Democratic Representatives and Senators. Until some of those "redder" areas liberalize and join the 21st Century, we're either going to have deal with having a Democratic majority in Congress that includes the "Blue Dogs" or settle for a narrower Democratic majority (and more "tea party" Republicans) in Congress (which, given their current solid obstructionism, isn't going to help the situation either). THAT is political reality as I see it. The left's anger with President Obama might be a little more reasonable/justified if we actually had a majority of liberal/progressive Democrats in Congress but we actually have a more "motley" mix of people in our party that we have to deal with in order to get things done and, at least for me, it's more important that we get something done than waiting until "the perfect deal" is actually attainable. Does anybody have any other suggestions/solutions to this dilemma???? Maybe more activism/organization/voter education in "red" states, perhaps? :shrug:

[mstinamotorcity]

134. Yes I think I might

We need to first look at all the things we accomplished in a short amount of time and start acting as if we are proud of our accomplishments. A few suggestions. Like we are moving forward.The President can only sign into law what is in front of him. It is up to us to make sure he has our agenda to sign. To change the minds of people in the barely blue states, we must get them to look at what they have gained and point it out. It doesn't mean getting all up in their face with loud political rhetoric that causes an argument before a resolution.When you are talking to family members and non family members we can bring up facts in general conversation.When people talk about higher taxes,we must remind them that 95% of Americans paid the lowest amount of taxes and had bigger returns under this administration.Ask them if they paid a lower tax if they owed.Most people who end up owing the Government money do so consistently. And if their returns were bigger than previous years.And if their returns were bigger and they are still complaining about what our President and his administration then politely let them know that they won't have to worry,if we return to the old ways that extra money will go away. When you talk dollars and cents there are still people who can do math.Tell your grown children who can ride on your insurance until 26 years of age to go get their physical thanks to the Patient Prevention and Affordable Care Act.Our friends who may qualify for loan modifications,we make sure they get the information. Report lending companies who do not participate to your senators and congressmen to see if they can ease the situation with a friendly phone call.And hold our local leaders accountable on stimulus funds being spent in our community. Make sure you press them to hire local companies and hire inside the community.E-mail your local news station investigative reporters and ask them to check it out. After all the American Recovery Act Projects should be in just about every community by now.And the more people that take advantage of the programs and get help turns into votes.Because after all though some legislation may not have helped one individual we must remember that there are millions who are able to take advantage of new legislation.Be pro-active!!!!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

160. Now THAT sounds like a rational constructive suggestion!

K & R! :thumbsup:

[EC]

56. No the Blue Dogs were the product of

Rahm Emmanual...

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. Fine...then the DLC created the majorities

And not Dean.

Good enough.

[lillypaddle]

64. excellent point. nt

[Arkana]

66. Dean knew how to get Democrats elected--you tailor the Democrat

to the district/state/area.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. I agree...he knew what to do

Of course, the current composition of the Congress is a reflection of that tailoring.

[Arkana]

71. Unfortunately yes.

Dean was smart enough to know that Ted Kennedy is not going to get elected as the congressman from East Bumblescum, Alabama and such--so he found Democrats who could.

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. Exactly

[quiller4]

152. and Democrats who can get elected in Alabama are likely to oppose

some of the priorities of those of us from more liberal areas of the country. We have a choice-permanent minority or embrace some conserva-Dems unless you can suggest a way to transform Georgia, Virginia, Indiana, Arkansas et alia public opinion.

[vaberella]

143. But not all Democrats are the same and ultimately it's irrelevant about how to get Dems elected.

We get problems when, like the 17 listed above, aren't progressive or vote for progressive ideals. Deans initiative was effective but in the long run not worthwhile when we can't great things done. Yes, we get a lot done but if DU is an example---the Dems in the Senate are worthless and have helped create the dissatisfaction with the current Admin. Most think Obama can do anything and push anything he wants in order to get things done when his role is not even to make the laws or vote on them but to carry them out and enforce them. However, people choose to ignore the serious power the Senate has. And it's this power of the Senate that is really hurting liberal and progressive efforts. Not Obama. So getting Dems elected means nothing at all when they are ineffective in their role.

[jgraz]

96. Once again, this assertion is about as wrong as it gets.

I'll just repost my response to you from another thread:

If you remember (and you obviously don't), it was Rahm Emanuel heading the DCCC who backed the conservadem candidates -- many of whom ended up losing. Dean promoted and backed true progressives, many of whom won over DCCC primary opponents.

It was DEAN who brought us the 2006 progressive wins, with people like Jerry McNerney, Keith Ellison, John Hall, Carol Shea-Porter, John Yarmuth, and David Loebsack. it was RAHM who backed centrists like Tammy Duckworth, who lost her bid for Congress and conservadems like Steve Filson and Jim Leach who were sent packing in the primaries.

Good luck with your revisionist history. Unfortunately for you, there are those of us who actually worked on the 2006 congressional campaigns and most of us have functioning memories.

[alcibiades_mystery]

98. So the Dem majority was NOT Dean's doing?

Can't have it both ways.

[jgraz]

99. You're seriously confused about this?

Dean backed progressives for Congress. The 50-state-strategy was not about running conservadems, it was about promoting *real* Democratic values and building a national infrastructure.

One more bit if info you're conveniently unaware of: If all of Rahm's conservadems had lost their races in 06, we still would have taken Congress with just Dean's progressive victories. And without Dean's progressive winners, we could NOT have taken back Congress.


It's not "having it both ways". It's running real Democrats and winning in previously solid red districts. Which part of that are you having trouble with?

[ProSense]

100. "Dean backed progressives for Congress." Dean backed Pro-Life

candidates:

DEAN: The Pro-Life candidates that I was interested in supporting were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect. Therefore, it's very clear, that even a Pro-Life Democrat who may disagree with us on a fundamental issue is a huge improvement over the person who was there before. So, are there some Democrats I would not support? Yes—and No I'm not gonna tell you who they are. But there are not many. Most of the Democrats who are Pro-Life—are very very good on a lot of other issues and I don't want to exclude people like that from out party.

link

[jgraz]

101. Blue dogs and Pro-lifers are not the same thing

But you already knew that.

Nice try, though. :hi:

[ProSense]

103. Are progressives and pro-lifers the same thing? n/t

[dsc]

111. there are definatly some progressive pro lifers

Marcy Kaptur certainly is a progressive on just about every other issue aside from being pro life and not great on gay rights. Casey isn't as progressive as her but I would count him as well. These politicians are dying out as the catholic base which elected them gets more liberal on social issues but there is a very long tradition of pro life, progressive politicians in the industrial midwest.

[JI7]

112. and many would not consider anti choice to be progressive

[dsc]

113. do the many hold the converse?

Alan Simpson is pro choice, Marcy Kaptur isn't. I know who I would rather have sitting on the Social Security Commission or for that matter as a legislator.

[alcibiades_mystery]

106. I'm not confused at all

As I stated, I find it funny that people praise Dean for the majority, then decry the character of that very same majority, and YES, that is having it both ways.

And if Dean did in fact create a progressive majority sufficient to pass legislation without the blue dogs, then nobody should be complaining about the Blue Dogs, since they would then be irrelevant. If not, then it hardly seems admissible to praise the 50 state strategy to the ceiling.

[jgraz]

109. So you're intentionally misrepresenting history

As you're fond of saying, you can't have it both ways.

[alcibiades_mystery]

114. I'm doing nothing of the sort

I'm commenting on current statements. I know your own involvement in the 2006 campaign is precious enough for you that you want to turn discussion that way, but it's not really what I'm talking about. Cheers.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[JamesA1102]

130. Sounds like you're the on trying to have it both ways.

You're pulling the same type of crap they pull on FOX. "Rahm is pure evil and responsible for all the blue dogs but Dean is pure good and responsible for winning back Congress." Anyone with half a brain knows that makes no sense.

[alcibiades_mystery]

132. Well

That's not my point at all. I'm arguing precisely for more consistent - and tempered - views than that.

[JamesA1102]

140. Actually I'm agreeing with you. nt.

[jgraz]

139. And anyone with a *whole* brain knows that's not what I'm saying.

[JamesA1102]

141. Please you're trying to have it both ways.

You want to demonize Rahm and glorify Dean.

[jgraz]

150. Oh, FFS. That's not what "having it both ways" means

Holy crap, do I really have to explain this to you??? "Having it both ways" only applies if the two "ways" are logically incompatible. Since it's not logically incompatible for Rahm to be a putz while Dean is a hero, the phrase doesn't apply.

Sometimes I weep for our educational system. :banghead:

[JamesA1102]

155. No having both ways is

putting all the blame for blue dog Dems on Rahm and none on Dean while praising Dean for taking back the Congress in '06 but not giving Rahm any of the credit.

[jgraz]

157. Nope, still wrong.

OK... I'm gonna back slowly away from this conversation. :eyes:

[JamesA1102]

158. Yeah because you don't have a leg to stand on nt

[bornskeptic]

154. You're somewhat wrong yourself.

Jim Leach was a Republican-the last surviving moderate Republican in the House. He was beaten in the general election. I hope your functioning memory functions better in the future.

[ClassWarrior]

5. By running Senate candidates who speak to ALL voters with strong, progressive values...

"You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals...

"That was the winning strategy of Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown is a thoroughgoing progressive who never moved one inch to the right. He talked about the issues where he agreed with his Ohio audiences -- and legitimately spoke for them.

Think about Barack Obama going to Rick Warren's megachurch and getting a standing ovation from evangelicals because he talked about the places where he agreed with them, he activated his values in them (values they already had), he came across as a man of principle, and he didn't get in their face about where he disagreed.

The losing strategy is to move to the right, to assume with Republicans that American values are mainly conservative and that the Democratic party has to move away from its base and adopt conservative values. When you do that, you help activate conservative values in people's brains (thus helping the other side), you offend your base (thus hurting yourself), and you give the impression that you are expressing no consistent set of values, which is true! Why should the American people trust somebody who does not have clear values, and who may be trying to deceive them about the values he and his party's base hold?..."

"No Center, No Centrists" by George Lakoff
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[ProSense]

10. That's true about Sherrod Brown, but

Ohio is not South Dakota or Louisiana. That said, there needs to be more progressive candidates, but they need to be identified and supported at the grassroots level. The Party will typically go with the more well-known and established candidate, and that rarely equals a progressive. Remember Brown was already a member of the House, and got the Party's backing.

[ClassWarrior]

13. Oh, that doesn't count because it contradicts you, huh?

:eyes:

NGU.

[ProSense]

16. Who said it doesn't count?

Want that to be the strategy: find progressives in the House that will run for the Senate. Sestak is currently running (not claiming that he's progressive). It's not a bad strategy, but then a progressive needs to fill the seat vacated in the House.

[ClassWarrior]

19. "That's true, BUUUTTT..."

To paraphrase Pee Wee Herman, seems like you always have a big "buttt."

NGU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. Differentiating circumstances isn't your strong suit, eh? (nt)

[ClassWarrior]

29. Not when the poster's "circumstances" shift with each post, based on the poster's agenda.

If I need a flow chart and a slide rule to figure 'em out, nooo they're not my strong suit at all.

:rofl:

NGU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. The circumstances shift in each state, in each district.

So sorry that you don't understand politics, but I would really think you should on a political board.

[SunsetDreams]

36. "The circumstances shift in each state, in each district" Indeed

Not sure what the big dustup is here.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[SunsetDreams]

51. I was agreeing with you

Since we know the circumstances do INDEED change between states, and districts.
I fail to see the "dustup" over someone using a BUT, when talking about ONE Senator Sherrod Brown.
It's rediculous.

[ClassWarrior]

45. Resorting to insults. LOL... A sure sign someone knows s/he's lost the argument.

NGU.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

67. Thanks for that substance. You're really earning your credibility.

:rofl:

NGU.

[Davis_X_Machina]

30. There are exactly eight progressives in LA.

There used to be nine, but one left after Katrina.

In SD there are thirteen but seven of them are on the res.

Not candidates. Progressives, period.

Look, vast swaths of this country are conservative to intensely conservative and are not going to produce a progressive candidate for dog-catcher in our lifetimes. Even SD's own George McGovern, the stereotypical liberal, is vehemently anti-union.

Coalitions. Coalitions. Coalitions.
Compromise. Compromise. Compromise.

There is no other way forward.

[ClassWarrior]

53. If you define people by two-dimensional labels, so be it. However if you understand that people...

...hold complex value systems that govern their thoughts and opinions, then read this article and get a deeper understanding of the progressive/conservative nature of the political mind:

"No Center, No Centrists" by George Lakoff
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[Davis_X_Machina]

55. The ballot has two choices. Lakoff forgets that. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

58. Very good. So what's your point?

NGU.

[killbotfactory]

6. political realities?

(insert misguided outrage over something vaguely related to the topic at hand here)

[Enrique]

7. you don't. You win with less than 60 votes

you stand strong and make the GOP pay a price for filibustering so they don't do it. You make corporatist dems pay a price for being corporatists. You don't support corporatist dems when they get primary challenged. You make moderate republicans pay a price for voting with their extreme right wing party.

[gkhouston]

9. +1. n/t

[ProSense]

12. "you stand strong and make the GOP pay a price for filibustering so they don't do it."

What price? Do you really believe a party that now includes people who say they're going to vote for legislation up to an hour before voting against it, believe or care that they're going to pay a price?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Enrique]

52. ask Snowe and Collins why they caved on unemployment

if we just said the GOP will win every time because we don't have 60 votes, we would have lost that one too.

[ProSense]

92. Do you think they voted for the bill

because it got stronger?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. What price can be forced?

I've asked this directly of you plenty of times.

On the filibuster: In real life, you cannot force a Jimmy Stewart filibuster. The only thing we can do is keep making quorum calls. During this time, NOTHING gets accomplished - which by the way, is exactly what the GOP wants. So tell me - what price is really extracted from what you're saying?

On "corporatists": Who else do you get to run from places like Louisiana or Nebraska that can win as a Democrat? And if you can't get a Democratic win from those kinds of states, how else do you achieve even 50 votes in the Senate?

On moderate Republicans: How do you get someone to pay a price when they're not up for election? There is not a single moderate Republican up for election this year.

There is no leverage to be had in any of the places you suggest.

[moksha]

57. That woould take leadership. Something Dems don't understand.

Or, conservatives are so entrenched in the party that they don't care.

[BklnDem75]

95. That's awesome

Seems you took a huge gulp of the RW 'leadership' swill. Got anything in the form of an answer?

[vaberella]

145. Tell me what price you're going to make Repubs pay?!

Can you tell us.

[vaberella]

144. HELLO!! Not unless you get enough jerks to filibuster and then yes you need 60.

Filibuster has been used by the GOP and many of the Dems above have stood next to the GOP to filibuster fundamental bills. The rules of filibuster demands it----and we get NOTHING done. I'd rather have my government moving ahead on small things than to see it stalled for years---like Obama's staff. He still has people who cannot be voted into seats by the GOP. And you think it's realistic to make them pay the price. You don't even see the fuckin' media touching on what the GOP is doing to his Administration, instead they make him seem utterly ineffective. And you're playing right into it.

[Davis_X_Machina]

20. The OPs question answered: Never.

There are today three parties in the Senate, from which a governing coalition from time to time is cobbled.

There are:

1. the Democratic senators who are Democrats,
2. the Democratic senators who are Republicans
3. the Republican senators who are Republicans.

There used to be a 4. Republican Senators who are Democrats — Javits, Brooke, Hatfield, Chaffee, Stafford; Snowe and Collins five years ago—but they’re extinct.

Bush could count on 2's and 3's for passage of much of his agenda, though stuff like SS reform and immigration reform couldn't even pass then.

Assume an even more liberal Obama than the one you've got. What's he got? The #1's only mostly, most days.

Only a little more than one-third of the Senate actually improves their political prospects by standing with the president. The Republicans-who-are-Republicans certainly don’t. Two or three Democrats-who-are-Democrats (Russ Feingold, e.g.) on any given day can decide that they don’t, either.

What’s left isn’t enough left to defeat a filibuster. There are barely enough Senators left to pass a bill.

The return of #4's is far more probable than an increase to thirty or 40 of #1's.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. +1

Though I'm not thrilled by the characterization of "Democrats who are Republicans", the general point you're making is correct.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. ...and this is why our education system needs improving.

Basic math skills seem to be failing even those that think themselves educated.

[moksha]

54. How many excuses can you give for ineffectiveness and lack of leadership.

Excuses are like assholes you know.

Results matter. Excuses are weak.

[Arkana]

69. What an insightful post. Thank you for your opinion.

You know what they say about opinions, don't you? They're a lot like excuses.

[moksha]

72. If you can't get the job done, make an excuse.

Real leaders with real principles would show real results.

Excuses and apologia are the hallmark of this weak administration. Obama was a great campaigner, showed real leadership to get the job. As for governing, the lack of leadership and boldness is embarrassing.

[Arkana]

73. Your post reads like the world's shittiest bumper sticker.

[moksha]

74. Truth can be shitty.

We elected a weak leader with disdain for liberals.

[ProSense]

76. Obviously, you believe the President can do it all by himself

"Obama was a great campaigner, showed real leadership to get the job. As for governing, the lack of leadership and boldness is embarrassing."

There is this often overlooked branch of government, Congress, that had nothing to do with his campaigning, but everything to do with governing.

They write or shape legislation. The President can dictate his desires and push for them, but Congress must act before he gets to sign anything into law. Mostly, the President defines a direction and goal, and Congress fights over the details.

[moksha]

77. Meh.

Obama and the other leaders of the party. They are all weak and ineffective. Sure, the blame can go around, but Obama owns the largest part of it.

[ProSense]

79. "Obama and the other leaders of the party. They are all weak and ineffective."

Seems you missed the entire point of the OP.

[moksha]

81. No. Seems you can't follow a discussion?

[ProSense]

84. Actually, you were the one

who when called on the fact that Obama is not the entire government, went from blaming Obama solely to claiming that Democratic leaders are weak and ineffective. "Meh"

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

82. Woah. Woah. Wait.

"Obama and the other leaders of the party."

That's pretty much a 180 from your original statement. Obama can't get anything through Congress unless he has the votes to make it happen. And lining up the votes would be the bailiwick of Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi.

But even more germaine, it's also due to the fact that Republicans in the Senate (with the help of Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln) can effectively spike any legislation they don't like.

There's a damned big difference between and excuse and a reason. There's a REASON why we didn't get the Public Option, and that's because the votes weren't there aren't enough progressive votes in the Senate.

[moksha]

83. The reason is because we have not LEADERS. We thought

Obama would be one. He isn't.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Yavin4]

90. If Obama Pushed Hard on the ConservaDems

Then they would form a powerful alliance against him:

1. They could openly oppose him on everything, and would probably fare better in their home states.

2. They would received tons of money from corporate donors.

3. They would get sympathetic media coverage.

4. They would form alliances with Republicans on major pieced of legislation.

That's political reality folks.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

94. Here's a list

Democratic Senators in states the George W. Bush won in 2008

Max Baucus
Mark Begich
Kent Conrad
Byron Dorgan
Carte Goodwin
Tim Johnson
Mary Landrieu
Claire McCaskill
Ben Nelson
Mark Pryor
Jay Rockefeller
Jon Tester
Mark Udall

Impressive, no? That's a total of 13 Democratic Senators who could openly oppose the Obama Administration and not necessarily pay for it back home.

Edit: Inadvertently listed Ohio as a Bush State in 2008. My apologies to Ohio, I know you worked hard to turn Blue!

[Yavin4]

108. And They Would Form A Coalition with Snowe, Collins, Gregg,

Probably McCain, Hatch, and a few other Repubs.

[OhioBlue]

124. thank you - we'll give you a pass

b/c you said Bush instead of McCain... didn't know if you meant '04.. (hangs head and shivers at Ken Blackwell memories... lol)

Seriously tho - we did work our asses of in '08 and Jennifer Brunner made sure the vote was honest.

[vaberella]

147. Exactly. Which debunks this idea a poster earlier said to make these guys pay.

How do you make them pay when in their own state they wouldn't pay?! Obama would be forced to work with these buffoons again.

[vaberella]

146. It's already in effect. Remember when the ConservaDems came around.

First time we had this group in our political history and they came under Obama's term---thanks to Rachel for pointing it out. They did and do form alliances to shut down bills.

[SpartanDem]

102. What is "real leadership"?

I love people throw trite phrases without defining them

[CakeGrrl]

104. It's that stuff that Presidents do in the movies

You know, throwing terra-ists out of AF1 with their bare hands, or making speeches so profound that their political opponents are compelled to do the right thing for the good of the nation, etc. etc.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

118. But you have to admit...

Harrison Ford as President would be Totally Bad Ass.

[Jester Messiah]

61. Even if it happens it won't matter, it's the filibuster that needs to go.

Even if a senator is a solid liberal, they will soon realize that being opportunistically obstructionist will win them concessions. That's why there is so much entrenched opposition to ending the filibuster, on both sides. The repubs are playing with fire, because if public outcry increases to the point that the filibuster is destroyed, they will have shot the goose that laid the golden eggs. No senator wants that to happen, regardless of the letter that comes after their name.

[Yavin4]

91. So, If The Republicans Gain Control of the Senate 51-49

You would be okay with no filibuster then. Right?

[Jester Messiah]

97. There will always be a few traitors in the ranks

No matter which ranks you're looking at. I suspect that if the repubs had a 51-49 advantage, we could still count on reasonable repubs like Collins, Snowe, maybe Lindsey Graham to keep their more hardcore brethren from doing serious damage.

There's a trade-off here that you're missing: if you want the ability to make progress when you're in power, you have to allow for the other guy to make progress when he's in power. If you're so afraid of what the other guys might do that you hamstring yourself from doing any effective good when you have the chance, then what is the point in your being in power?

[Yavin4]

107. So, Then You're Okay With It Then

Okay, you're consistent.

[Jester Messiah]

123. I try to be.

It certainly wouldn't be the end of the world if the filibuster were retired, even if the Repubs did gain momentary advantage. I think we should have faith enough in our democratic institutions that we could weather that storm. We survived eight years of G-dub, I think that speaks well of our resiliency.

[Arkana]

65. I don't know if I'd necessarily lump Kay Hagan in with the rest.

She's been good as far as I can tell. Same with McCaskill. Warner hasn't been great, but he's not over-the-top offensive either.

The rest of them can get fucked.

[harun]

80. Pressure. You make a few Repub's offer's they can't refuse.

[bvar22]

85. Exactly, and Obama knows HOW to do this.

He went after the Progressive Caucus when they balked at giving him his first Supplemental War Appropriation.
I would LOVE to see this White House go after Centrist and Republican votes like he went after the Progressive Caucus.
Obama CAN be a Bulldog when he wants to be.
The Key Phrase is "wants to be."


Hey, you wouldn't be one of those fringe Leftist who wants things like Canadian Style Health Care?

[gkhouston]

127. He just don't know when, apparently. n/t

[ProSense]

86. What kind of offers?

Isn't that what compromises are?

[Yavin4]

93. Can You Be More Specific?

What could Obama offer them?

[harun]

105. Myriad of choices...

But the pressure is more important than the offer.

For one, in the Health Care debate he could have offered any of the following in turn for support for a true Public Option:

- Tort Reform (Cap Lawsuits) This would make the rich Republican doctors happy.
- Support for a flat income tax across the board. Again, making rich Republican doctors happy.
- Doctors who pledge to only work at and always accept Public Option insurance holders get their student loan payback assisted dollar for dollar (I.e. they pay back 10 dollars the Gov't chips in 10 dollars) Do something similar for other medical profession loan repayments. Those with no student loans can get other tax benefits for servicing the plan. This would again help make you know who happy.
- Etc. etc.

The Republicans that are left these days are driven solely by greed, you got to put some greed carrots out in front of them to get any movement. If it is a juicy enough carrot, they'll go for it.

[Yavin4]

110. The Only Pressure That Republicans Respond To Is From The Right

Compromise with Obama and you pay the price. See Charlie Crist.

[bvar22]

128. Then WHY did Obama give away

almost everything that "Democratic" about the Health Care Bill?
He got NOTHING in return.
THAT is not "compromise".
THAT is "Capitulation."

[harun]

135. Compromises were all for industry, their real boss and who they really represent.

[vaberella]

148. Can you give me examples of offer's Repubs can't refuse?

Hello. There were ConservaDems who went against Obama---and there was nothing he could really offer them---since they wouldn't pay for it back at the ballot box. So you think Obama has more leverage against the Repub's? Maybe he had a gay sex tape of them, then maybe he'd have some leverage. Or Virginia Foxx in a porno or something. Otherwise, there's nothing really, that I can think of, that he can offer to get them to change their minds.

[iamthebandfanman]

88. wait, i thought us ultra liberals were the pessimists n/t

[damntexdem]

89. Hmm, here's a first step:

solid liberals in the Senate start acting that way.

[ibegurpard]

116. well, that's beside the point.... we need one in the White House too

[4lbs]

117. The "50 State Strategy" was designed to get a sizable Democratic majority in Congress.

Democratic. That means ALL types of Democrats.

It didn't mean a Progressive majority. Just a Democratic majority.

Just try getting 51 Progressive Senators in Congress, much less the 60 needed to neuter the filibuster.

[TheKentuckian]

119. The base law of the land says if you have the White House then 50 wins

Senate rules do not supersede the Constitution.

That fifty supposedly was generally there.

[4lbs]

137. The Senate rules also have been around since the early 1970s in that any filibuster requires 60

Senators to overcome it.

It could have been much worse. Before the rules were changed in the 1970s, the original number was 2/3 (or 67 Senators), which was the same to overcome a Presidential veto.

The Senate rules don't supersede the Constitution? Umm, they are part of the Constitution.

[TheKentuckian]

149. That of course is pretty much non-germain to my statement

Senate rules do not supersede the Constitution and you know it.

The Constitution is exceedingly clear and specific on this matter. The Senate is free to set it's own rules but it is well known that this one is purely allowed on sufferance. Calling a Constitutional matter when the President of the Senate is with you means a tie wins, that's 50+1 is all it ever takes to pass anything into law and send it to the President or to conference.

You can buy your fantasy forever but you will be wrong as the stars go dim. The Constitutional or more popularly referred to "nuclear option" is no secret and real as a heart attack. There is no remedy for it, there is no ambiguity in the Constitution at all. It is literally logically impossible to rule a majority or even 50+1 as not binding.

If you think that the section allowing the Senate to set it's own rules can possibly override one of the most clear and specific clause in the Constitution.

Say you have no stomach for it or that it is dangerous all you please but your misunderstanding of the law will not be swallowed.

[4lbs]

151. True you need 50+1 to pass a bill on an actual vote. But that's not I'm talking about.

The problem isn't with the actual vote.

Once a bill comes up for an actual vote, it has usually passed.

It's ending debate and getting to the vote that has been the problem. That's where the cloture and filibuster have come in.

The Republicans won't even let the bill come to a vote. They filibuster and add amendments so it gets stuck in debate forever, or at least it seems like forever. When the Democrats try to end debate and actually vote on the bill, they can't get the 60 required to do so.

Thus, it doesn't matter if the President has 56 Senators and the V.P. on his side. If his side can't get 4 more Senators (assuming all 56 vote his way as well) to vote for cloture, no bill will ever come up for a vote such that 50+1 could pass it. That's what the Republicans have been doing. Preventing bills from even coming up for final vote.

The filibuster rules are clear and a part of the Constitution. To change them requires even more Senators than to break a filibuster. Two-thirds of the Senators must vote to change the number to break a filibuster. That means not only 58 Democrats, the two Independents, but at least 7 Republicans must vote to do that. Do you really see 7 Republicans at the minimum, voting to lower the cloture requirement and allow the Democrats an easy time of passing bills?

[Hippo_Tron]

120. Begich, Tester, Dorgan, Rockefeller, McCaskill, and Hagan are pretty reliable Dem votes

[wisteria]

121. Senator's are suppose to represent the voters in their states and many of these

senators come from states where the voters are moderate to conservative. Are some suggesting that these senators should ignore the majority of voters who elected them in order to pursue and vote just as Liberals dictate? I am trying to understand how we can be the party of the people and then attempt to ignore or silence some moderate to conservative Democrats.

[Clio the Leo]

122. Easy! We make Fantasy Island the 51st state and give them 40 Senators!

Easy Peasy!

[OhioBlue]

126. maybe we learn to live with the conservadems

and look for the liberal votes elsewhere.

Hopefully we will add one in Ohio when Lee Fisher (D) is elected to fill George Voinovich's (retiring R) seat. Wish it would have been Jennifer Brunner - she would be another Sherrod Brown for Ohio.. but even tho I think Fisher is a little more corporate and opportunist than I would like... I am pretty sure he'll still be a solid Dem.

There must be other races this year or in 2 where we can take an R seat and turn it into a progressive Dem seat rather than only focusing on primaries. When is Brown (Mass) up for re-election?

[JamesA1102]

129. Don't confuse the demagogues with facts. nt

[krispos42]

131. Break up the big states

To keep the representative-to-senator ratio from getting out of whack. Those 41 Repubs only represent 34% of the population.

Make the maximum ratio of representatives to senators be 6:1. Force the states to divide up into smaller states as they get more populous so the populations don't get under-represented in the Senate.

If we did that, we'd jump from 50 to 67 states in one fell swoop. It would take 81 out of 134 senators to overcome a filibuster, then.

It would also give the new states chances to incorporate the latest theories in democracy into their governmental structures, such as instant-runoff voting, multi-party politics, maybe a parlimentrary system.

[Freddie Stubbs]

136. You are not going to get 60 liberal votes in the Senate

Our country has too many conservatives and moderates for that to happen. Conversely, we have too many liberals and moderates for there to be 60 conservatives in the Senate.

[Laelth]

138. Not by attacking the base, that's for sure.

I'd try actually standing for something progressive, but that's just me.

-Laelth

[vaberella]

142. If people had a clue they'd realize the biggest crutch to anything progressive is listed above.

And they have always been the problem from the damned start. If Obama said public option or even single payer and the 17 above were progressives we'd have it now. But on DU they think Obama could get anything done if he just said the word. Ugh..thanks for this Prosense.

[Chan790]

153. It's a matter of perspective...

and it starts with Lieberman. I remember the day that President Obama came out and vociferously advocated that Holy Joe not be punished for his high-profile defections.

In all, it was the beginning of the end of the President's agenda. Nobody and I do mean nobody dared break ranks on major policy initiatives before that point for fear of an executive kneecapping. Even Ben Nelson. Since that day, since it became obvious that President would not act to cut off at the knees his enemies within his own party and caucus, the defections have been fast and furious.

Was this not what Rahm Emanuel was brought into the administration for? Where is the leg-breaking to get what the President needs to get through Congress? One of my favorite quotes in politics, when LBJ was whip in the US Senate, he told a fellow Democrat: "If you break with me, your constituents will end up drinking rainwater and shitting in tin-cans." The message could not be clearer, I control the agenda. If you do not fall into line, I will end you. I will undermine you with your constituents.

"Joe, it's good to talk to you. I've been looking at some of our expenditures. These contracts to Pratt and Whitney, to Electric Boat, increased military aid to Israel. I don't think we can afford these things if we don't get this economy under control." Message sent. "Ben, I've come to realize how much of the cost of a public option we can offset by ending corn subsidies." Message sent. "We've identified the need to build another federal super-maximum prison, one to house multiple-murderers. Why, yes Congresswoman. Several of the sites we're considering are in your district." Message sent.

If we don't want to keep losing incrementally, we've got to remember how to play hardball. Sometimes, a high-inside pitch does wonders to back 'em off the plate.

[vaberella]

156. It has nothing to do with the President.

The President doesn't vote in Democrats. The people vote them in. This is the problem from the beginning. Obama really can't shift the polls towards one candidate or another. However, he still is obligated in a way to support them in their primary runs for a reason. We all know that with the electoral college we don't really vote for the President. These House reps have more say in who eventually becomes President than anything else. Further more if he think he can have leverage on something that these people might be interested in---these people will lean towards his side so he has to be cordial.

You're statements above are ludicrous. What you're calling for is out right violence, threats, and terrorizing in order to get what you want. In what world would that ever happen or even be realistic? Really. This not the time of LBJ and Obama is not LBJ and neither is Congress anything like LBJ's congress. There are factors and issues that affect each situation that makes them unique. LBJ even made significant amount of compromises in his issues that people seem to ignore. To even mention Lieberman is just a strawman. You want a President who follows the rule of law, upholds it, and be an advocate of intelligence and diplomacy but you fault him for tolerating Lieberman? In Civics we're taught that the people vote for the elected officials. So Obama, as the President, doesn't fire the elected officials. Those people are voted in by the people. Obama has to deal with the officials the people of a district put in place. If you have issues with Lieberman, then take it out on his constituents not on Obama. To blame Obama for tolerating him is absolute madness.

I didn't see Obama vociferously defending Lieberman, but I think many people see what what they want. As for people not wanting to break ranks with the President---that's ludicrous. The first day he came on board he signed to close Gitmo. Several Congressmen were with him, and then when he asked for funding to move out the prisoners and send a few to maximum security prisons in the US----those people disappeared. That was in the first month. This had nothing to do with knee-capping or whatever crap you were mentioning, these people are just weak. Weak. He even advocated on finding some place to put the prisoners and has been trying and he's still being blocked by the House on this. Even DUers were supporting Congress for not providing Obama with funding so Gitmo could close. So Please on this. There has been dissension from the get go and much of it coming from the clowns in the OP. All of them have been like this.


I think I'm just utterly shocked how your "perspective" puts Obama at fault for even Congress---which is utterly independent of him.

[IndianaGreen]

159. By not voting for Blue Dogs and Conservadems!

If you vote for shit, you'll get only shit!