So, is Feingold now ready for a 2012 bid?

[zipplewrath]

Too much to hope that Feingold is free for a primary challenge for the presidency?

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Hope so. nt

[NYCGirl]

2. Why? So he can get beaten again? NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Get With The Program

Losing your own state is always prelude to winning the whole nation.

[babylonsister]

6. lol! nt

[NYCGirl]

7. Of course, how silly of me.

Everyone knows this country is so ready for a twice-divorced Jewish POTUS.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. It Would Nice To See That Barrier Broken

But not by the once divorced Joe Lieberman.

[zipplewrath]

16. Pull the party to the left

Win or lose, he pulls the party to the left in the process.

[vaberella]

86. The party will only go to the left if your Senators and Congressmen are all to the left.

Obama didn't have it and Feingold won't have it. You'd get this by now if you'd had paid attention to what Obama was up against. Like Feingold would be able to control shit.

[stray cat]

3. I think helping dems get elected in 2012 was probably the reference

[leveymg]

4. Now, that's an interesting idea.

Hmmmm . . .

[NorthCarolina]

80. That's what occurred to me too

The 2012 statement hit me as indicating he would be running again in 2012. Senate terms are for 6 years, so a run for the Senate would be out. Guess that leaves :think:


Color me there....GO RUSS!!!

[NJmaverick]

9. The take away lesson is ideological purity is a recipe for failure

one has to do politics when one is a politician.

[zipplewrath]

11. Yeah, because the blue dogs were so "pure"

The lesson here is the further to move to the right, the more they can just vote for the GOP. And you'll marginalize your best folks.

[NJmaverick]

13. Feingold and Grayson should be a wake up call

sadly for the sake of the Democratic party and the American people it will just be an exercise in excuse making.

[burning rain]

14. You're drawing a fatuous lesson.

Democrats liberal, conservative, and moderate lost and won elections.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. And People Here Are Drawing A More Fatuous Lesson

That you must go in any one ideological direction to win elections. People just want results.

[NJmaverick]

23. Very true

[burning rain]

97. It's foolish to simply say, "Needed to be further left/right," but that's not my argument.

.

[NJmaverick]

22. Like I said an exercise in excuse making

[burning rain]

96. That reply isn't relevant at all.

Do you have something better?

[zipplewrath]

15. Two different lessons, same cause

When you marginalize your own, best, people in favor of your weakest candidates, you lose all around. Grayson and Feingold were ignored, and the Blue Dogs got catered to. This is what you get.

[NJmaverick]

21. Wrong

1) Lesson one when you attack the Democrats that hurts all Democrats including the ones one might like

2) Ideological purity is not a winning formula, rather it's a good way to lose elections.

[zipplewrath]

26. Because moving right has been such a success for the DLC

This is the second time they've tried to triangulate their way to success, with similar results. They run on left leaning populism and win, and govern on right leaning pramatism and lose. But apparently the solution is more right leaning pragmatism.

[NJmaverick]

32. You don't have to move right to be smart politically

that is what you can't seem to understand

[zipplewrath]

36. But it's what the DLC does

They pass 15 year old GOP plans for health insurance reform and call it progressive health care reform. They pass stimulus bills that have MORE tax cuts in them, instead of actually creating jobs. It's the old triangulation all over again, and it didn't work again.

But I'm sure we'll get the modern versions of NAFTA, DOMA, and Welfare reform now.

[NJmaverick]

38. You have done a great job demonizing the smart politics of the DLC

as a result we have a landslide victory by the GOP. They say insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[zipplewrath]

39. Yet the DLC will continue to triangulate

"They say insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Yeah, you'd think the party would learn not to listen to the DLC.

[NJmaverick]

42. The DLC will continue to help the Dems WIN elections

which is what is needed as being the minority produces ZERO progressive achievements.

[zipplewrath]

43. Um, they just lost BIG again.

They are great at winnning by running on progressive themes. They govern on conservative policies and then lose BIG.

[NJmaverick]

44. Are you referring to the victories of Grayson and Feingold?

you have got to be kidding me. You still think that ideological purity is the key to success even in the face of over whelming evidence to the contrary. :banghead:

[zipplewrath]

50. Consistency

Not purity, consistency. You can't run against mandates, and then pass them. You can't run against cadillac taxes, and then pass them. You can't run for public options, and then oppose them. You can't run on drug price negotiation, and then obstruct it. You can't run on drug importation, and then prevent them. You can't run against Bush's policies in Iraq, and then execute them. You can't run against torture, and then tell the tortures you "have their backs". You can't run on closing gitmo, and then work to keep it open in Illinois. You can't run on ending the Bush tax cuts, and then keep them. You can't run on repealing DADT, and then ask for it to be delayed.

And you can't run on "reigning in the banks" and then bail them out with bonuses, while not doing squat for the folks that actually are paying on the "toxic assets".

[NJmaverick]

56. Politics are won by politiicians

not ideological purists who try to martyr themselves to their cause. Politics is about winning the victories when you can and being around to have more shots at winning. Like it or not progressives are still a minority in this Country and we need to change that before you can have sweeping changes. Until then all you can realistically expect are small changes that if proven successful will win the public over to the progressive way of thinking.


Demanding that politicians sacrifice their political careers on the liberal alter is only going to ensure more disasters like yesterday.

[zipplewrath]

63. So we need to sacrifice ourselve on the DLC alter?

I think we need to actually give the progressives a chance to govern, instead of running on their issues, and then governing on losing DLC strategies.

[NJmaverick]

65. Now you are just being obtuse

You know the DLC advocates victory.

[zipplewrath]

70. They just don't achieve it.

They run on progressive themes, and govern on triangulation, and then get they ass handed to them. Really winning strategy. I can imagine why we'd keep electing them.

[NJmaverick]

77. The DLC had zero influence on the Dems over the last 2 years

so explain the devastating defeat

[zipplewrath]

78. The DLC ran the White House

Rahm was CoS. Hillary is in State. Summers and Geithner were in charge of economic policy. And Obama himself is President. That's alot of DLC not having any influence.

[NJmaverick]

81. You're badly mistaken

[zipplewrath]

82. The WH is full of DLC

It's the biggest bunch of Clintonites one can imagine, from Rahm on down.

[NorthCarolina]

84. Smart Politics of the DLC???

:spray:

[burning rain]

95. I was very glad to see that shitbag Gene Taylor (DINO-Miss) lose.

Blue Dogs took a much greater beating than House progressives, and the losing Blue Dogs won't be missed: they wouldn't vote for Democratic priorities anyway.

[Enrique]

34. Feingold isn't ideologically pure

he's big on civil liberties and the deficit, which both are big issues for conservatives.

[Dinger]

52. "ideological purity" = Wellstone Democrat, Or

the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

[Arkana]

71. Not for these two.

Russ just got outspent and outpunched.

Grayson threw his seat away on the "Taliban Dan" ad. If not for it he'd have won.

[Thrill]

10. Primary the President? Are you serious?

Why don't you just give the election to the Republicans?

[zipplewrath]

12. You mean because this was so successful.

President earn primary challengers. A primary challenger would pull him back towards the left and away from the loser blue dogs.

[Jennicut]

19. This is never successful and never helps the party. The party did not go to the left after Carter

lost in 1980, it kept going further to the right.

The lesson here is that massive unemployment and the economy sucking hurts whatever party is in power. It hurt the Repubs in 2008 and us in 2010. There are huge structural issues with the economy that won't be fixed for years or ever. Elections are going to continue to be chaotic and fluctuate. I don't get why many people on DU don't get this. The United States is in downward spiral.

[onenote]

20. as many if not more Democrats who weren't blue dogs lost

trying to pin the results of this election on one wing of the party or the other is silly. the main reason that Democrats this time around was similar to the reason that so many repubs lost in 2006 and 2008 -- the "brand" had fallen into disfavor.

[zipplewrath]

28. The brand fell because of what they did

They helped the bankers and did nothing for those injured by the bankers. All those mortgages are being enforced, just like the bankers bonus contracts.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Great idea

:dunce:

[zulchzulu]

24. Feingold may run for Senator if Herb Kohl decides to resign

Kohl will be 78 in 2012. He may want to retire. Feingold could run for his seat. A primary challenge is out of the question against Obama.

[JCMach1]

25. Not out of the question... I think it depends on the next year

[zipplewrath]

29. Yup

How long do you ride if the horse is dead?

[frazzled]

47. 78 is a whippersnapper in the Senate these days

Kohl will probably have to die or become incompetent (in medical terms, that is) for him to cede his seat. They tend to stay till the Thurmond/Byrd threshold, you know.

[dionysus]

27. yes, losing to a teabagger makes him qualified. jeeebus.

:rofl:

[book_worm]

30. feingold, unlike many dems, didn't run away from Obama agenda on HCR

and said point blank that the GOP was out to destroy Obama. He will not run against Obama despite your most treasured dreams.

[treestar]

49. Good point, why is Feingold not judged as weak and timid

for voting for HCR?

[JNelson6563]

31. lolz

[karynnj]

33. No

Feingold was and is one of a kind. He really is too much of a loner to really have a shot at it. It is clear that he looked at the possibility for 2008. His PAC's questionnaires clearly sought to generate the level of support needed.

In addition, his positions - that are sometimes more libertarian than liberal - would have been hard to run in the primary on. Remember he is a deficit hawk who voted against the budget. Where he shown was in his integrity, his intelligence, and his willingness to stand alone. It is important to have people like that - as they might indirectly influence others to consider the issue more closely.

He, more than most, is not a politician who is willing to be defined by sound bites. To me, this is a very good thing - but we now live in twitter brained world where 140 characters is all you get. We need to change that culture, but until we do - he woul have no chance.

I also suspect that if you considered where all Democrats sit on a line representing the Democratic political spectrum - there are far more that are closer to where Obama is than where Feingold is. Unlike Carter, who was at one extreme, Obama is near the center of that line. There are not enough people on either side. Throw in that Obama is President - likely meaning many closer to Feingold, would still choose Obama.

[ampad]

35. Feingold lost his own state

to a freaking tea bagger. Now you want him to challenge the president? Do you honestly think Feingold is stupid or something? I for one do not think he is stupid. I think he is an intelligent man that cares for his party. Which is why he would never be so stupid as to challenge the president. Despite what you are smoking and drinking this morning. I can see it now. Feingold challenges the first black president. The same Feingold that could not even hold his own job. The stupidity is strong this morning but the stench is not coming from Feingold.....

Then some of you want to get up on your freaking high horse and tell black DU'ers that they are playing the race card when some get a whiff of what some of you are bringing. Whatever tell you what. Why don't you challenge the president. Run as a write in candidate. The least you can do is give us a little entertainment.

[timkainemustgo]

37. Primary challenges to presidents only assure defeat in November.

Just ask erald Ford 1976, Jimmy Carter 1980, George HW Bush 1992.

[zipplewrath]

40. Presidents earn primary challengers

As you point out, you'd think sooner or later the parties would learn to actually nominate the challengers, instead of sticking with those destine to lose.

[timkainemustgo]

41. No, it divides the party.

Kennedy supporters in 1980 either did not vote or they voted for John Anderson.

It causes too many hard feelings. It is a sure way to losing.

[zipplewrath]

45. Only because they never actually nominate the challenger

Presidents earn challengers and that ought to be a sign that a change is needed. But the parties are structured to support the incumbent all the way to failure.

[Lyric]

74. In case you hadn't noticed, the party is already divided.

:shrug:

[Uzybone]

46. pure foolishness

[zipplewrath]

53. Because following the DLC is so successful

Yeah, what we need to do is to let the DLC have the keys and drive for the next 6 years.

[Uzybone]

58. DLC bogeyman talk is more foolishness

Feingold got routed in his own state...roundly rejected by his voters. Sad, because he was a very fine senator. I'm sure we have many fine liberals who actually win elections.

Funny, the DLC has more influence on DU boards than it does in the real world.

[zipplewrath]

64. DLC president

DLC COS
DLC SoS
DLC head of DCCC

Yeah, they have no clout at all.

[ClarkUSA]

87. Are your referring to Clinton? Because Pres. Obama calls himself a progressive & has never been DLC

"Obama: I Am A Progressive" (July 8, 2008): http://www.democrats.com/obama-i-am-a-progressive

[zipplewrath]

90. He picks so much DLC

He's surrounded by DLC. He acts like DLC. He talks like DLC. He advertises that he rejects leftist ideas. And he also described himself as a "new democrat", which is what the DLC calls themselves these days.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

[ClarkUSA]

93. No matter what you say, the facts speak for themselves: Obama has never been a member of the DLC.

<< And he also described himself as a "new democrat" >>

According to unnamed sources from Politico? That's a joke. I gave you a direct firsthand quote from Obama himself. You can choose to either acknowledge the facts or keep spinning.

[treestar]

48. How is he going to win?

Both the primary, and the Presidency?

He did not win in Wisconsin - how will he get Pennsylvania or North Carolina or Virginia or Colorado?

Because the voters are true leftists. They will vote for a REAL Democrat, right? If only they had a chance to put Feingold in the WH, they would.

Then suddenly, there would be a progressive, non=blue=dog Congress and 60 progressive Senators. And if there weren't, Feingold, because he is so brave, would just MAKE those republicans vote for single payer!

This fantasy has been provided free of charge. I'll work on the rest of the novel later.

[zipplewrath]

54. So we stick with the DLC?

Is that your plan?

[treestar]

59. I'm not talking about a plan

I'm writing a novel about the fantasy of Feingold as President. Sworn in Jan. 20, 2013, Feingold was so much braver than Obama. His coattails brought on 65 progressive Senators. States like Utah sent liberal Democrats to the Senate for the first time.

Connecticut fired Lieberman and sent a real Progressive instead. This was because Feingold was so brave.

Due to Feingold's courage, the M$M began to tout his program as socialist and to interview many experts who said the American people were finally ready for socialism. Socialist became a good word, not a dirty word. This was because Obama for four years had been too cowardly to admit he was a socialist/Marxist. Feingold, however, bravely said he was. And because of that, the voters, respecting his courage, began to believe the socialism was the way to go.

Feingold therefore got single payer, enacted on Jan. 31, 2013, from the left wing House (states like Massachusetts and Delaware elected socialists, and states like Montana and Idaho sent liberal Democrats).

Even Rush Limbaugh, so impressed by Feingold's daring and bold action, stated that maybe Socialism wasn't such a bad idea after all, and all of the dittoheads of course agreed. The right wing, which so loves bold leaders, suddenly realized that single payer was a good thing. When the leader is just bold and brave enough, they will go along with whatever that leader wants.

By Feb., Feingold had replaced Tim Kaine with Howard Dean, bravely. The 2014 elections brought even more progressives. By now, Alaska and Nebraska were joining in and following the brave President and electing the progressive representatives he needed to get his agenda passed. The corporations folded. How could they fight this?

[Bobbie Jo]

55. Yes...winning does seem to be a prerequisite

to governing. :think:

[zipplewrath]

66. Apparently the trick is to run as a progressive

And govern as a DLC adherent.

It's worked so well so far.

[BootinUp]

51. He can't win his own state last I checked. nt

[TwilightGardener]

57. Does losing an election imply pent-up demand for a candidate? What am I missing here?

[treestar]

60. The lobotomy. You're missing a lobotomy.

:rofl:

[Inuca]

61. Thanks for the laugh, much needed n/t

[TwilightGardener]

62. ...

:spray:

[zipplewrath]

68. The frustration of only 1 party from which to choose

There is a "throw the bums out" frustration that has affected both parties, it just affected the GOP more in the primaries. That comes from a frustration of perceiving both parties as hardly different. It's why the independents will constantly switch back and forth looking for some one that will produce the results they seek.

[Arkana]

67. He couldn't win reelection--why on earth would he be a viable primary

challenger?

[zipplewrath]

73. Because win or lose

He'd pull the party to the left.

[Arkana]

75. And destroy any chance of Democrats holding the White House in the process.

Let's see, how did it go the last couple of times a sitting Dem President faced a primary challenge from the left:

1968: Eugene McCarthy/Bobby Kennedy. Eventually the nominee became Hubert Humphrey and he lost a close one to Tricky Dick because of massive Dem infighting.

1980: Ted Kennedy. He weakened Carter right out of the gate in an election he desperately needed to win, and Saint Ronnie McReagan became President instead.

Your argument is invalid. A primary challenge wouldn't do shit to pull the party to the left, and all it would do is create a media narrative that Obama is weak and pave the way for President Sarah Palin and the coming "Road Warrior" apocalypse.

[zipplewrath]

79. Apologize right now.

"1968: Eugene McCarthy/Bobby Kennedy. Eventually the nominee became Hubert Humphrey and he lost a close one to Tricky Dick because of massive Dem infighting."


Right now. Apologize for this massive distortion. Senator Kennedy was assassinated by the radical right. Distorting that into some lesson on primary challengers is beyond insulting.

[treestar]

85. Call congress right fuckin' now!

You can't disagree about 19 fucking 68 without going overboard?

Senator Kennedy being assassinated means the primary going on at the time cannot be discussed? Oh, and Sirhan Sirhan was part of the "radical right?"

[zipplewrath]

89. It's disgusting

And by the by, in case you missed it, the primary going on WASN'T against an incumbent.

It was crass, false, and disgusting.

[dionysus]

76. you guys will never be happy until the dems are a tiny, regional party, unelectable nationwide....

[zipplewrath]

83. Yeah, they lost so many elections in the '50s and '60s

You remember, when they were desegrating the party out of some sense of "purity". Or passing civil rights legislation that would "hand over the south to the GOP for a generation". Or creating the Great Society that so many now claim as a "third rail".

Yeah, being a liberal party is a real loser proposition.

[CakeGrrl]

69. Yes, since his state just rejected him for the Senate. Great idea.

[zipplewrath]

72. Because sticking with losers is such a hot concept.

A president earns a primary challenger. Someday, someone is going to figure out that if he earned it, history suggests that the challenger be given a shot.

[CakeGrrl]

88. So the voters rejected him for being in the same party as "loser" Obama?

Eh, nevermind. A little earlier today his flak dispelled the notion that he's challenging the President.

[PopSixSquish]

91. Didn't His Spokesman Already Say He Isn't Interested?

[NYC Liberal]

92. Fuck that. No way in hell.

Anyone who thinks that's happening is delusional.

[yourout]

94. I prefer the SCOTUS idea.

He would make a great Justice.

[DFLforever]

100. Second that.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. You gotta love DU: What happens when you lose staewide in a Blue State?

I know! Run for fucking President!

Can't win your own Congressional District? Well, there's a perfectly logical response! Run for President! Or, be the Vice Presidential candidate with the dude that lost a blue state Senate race!

Hurrah!

Sometimes this board is too much.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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