If you actually go and check the voting records of the "blue dogs" or any Democratic legislator,

[LoZoccolo]

you will find that they voted for something that you care about, against the Republicans. If not, feel free to list a counterexample, but then take responsibility for basically telling everyone here that you don't care about several issues which may affect them.

If you look at the election results of the primaries where they were nominated, you'll find that they were either the most progressive choice, they beat the most progressive choice (in which case they were the best shot at winning the seat, and if you want the region to be more progressive, that's a separate issue), or they ran unopposed (in which case they were still the best shot at winning the seat, and if you want to bring up a candidate next time, that's a separate issue).

There was a notion that the 2010 election was a big crankcase flush that sent a number of blue dogs home, to be replaced with progressives in 2012. I doubt it, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and we'll see in about a year and a half, and you can declare this sentence to be a shit statement.

There really is no way around consensus-building in a democracy, unless you want to try to punish (and possibly alienate) people who largely agree with you on the issues. If you've been complaining for more than two elections that your politicians haven't been doing enough, and you haven't participated in anything that really builds consensus, take this as an opportunity to change strategy. As psychologists tell depressed patients who don't feel like trying something new to lift their depression, "you can always go back to being miserable". I will also say that Republicans are willing to put in this effort, have been doing so through radio and TV shows for years, and are even willing to go to court to protect their ability to do so (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission); they see the value in it, and if you're not willing to do it yourself, you'll see that you make their job easier.

[PassingFair]

1. They said the same thing about Joe Lieberman.

Blue Dogs and New Dems just perpetuate our ills.

I'd rather deal with a Jeffords or a Chaffee than
a harbor a Nelson or a Baucus in our party.

[TheWraith]

2. Then get used to the idea of a permanent minority.

There are simply not 218 districts that elect absolute liberals.

[PassingFair]

8. It would force some strange bedfellows....

Paulians wouldn't have supported Bush's wars.

I'd rather take my chances with a Progressive majority
on OUR senate and congress and deal on a per issue basis
with the more populist republicans that will be produced.

Our "majority" didn't do us any favors.

[TheWraith]

18. You are wrong in oh so many ways.

First off, claiming that bring in the majority "didn't do us any favors" is outright nonsense. You'd have to ignore every good piece of legislation passed over the course of four years.

Plus, really, how many libertarian Republicans do you think there are out there? This plan depends on the idea that there's a bunch of Republicans who are honest, loyal to their ideals, and willing to vote with the liberals.

[PassingFair]

26. You don't need a "bunch"...just "enough".

Like the craven cadre of "New Dems" who will roll over
for the corporations when chits are called in.

Take Michigan's UP for example. Our health care "reform",
such as it is, was held hostage by Bart Stupak and his
he-man woman haters club.

"Can't do anything about THAT! His "type" of democrat is
the only kind that can win UP there!"

Democrats were DISGUSTED with him and he lost in a landslide
to a super-conservative republican.

Now the people of the UP are DYING to get him OUT
and in a frenzy of buyer's remorse, they will undoubtedly
elect a Russ Feingold-type in a hot minute!

If the party is smart enough to capitalize on the situation,
which they probably WON'T be. They'll probably go back
to their comfortable pay-back and glad-handing ways.

[TheWraith]

39. "they will undoubtedly elect a Russ Feingold-type in a hot minute!"

I'm really wondering if you're attempting a parody here, because that description is so far from reality that it's almost scary. In fact, historically the BEST way to keep hyper-conservative Republicans in office is to give them a scary ultra-liberal Democrat to demonize. Let them convince people that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for gay sex in schools, gun bans, and flag burning, and they'll stick with the knuckledragger every time.

[KamaAina]

19. Well, why is that?

It's not written into the Constitution or anything. A century ago, redder-than-red Oklahoma was a bastion of socialism!

[TheWraith]

24. If you'd like to go there and campaign, please do.

But the idea that if you talk enough in favor of something, you'll convince everybody, is just not true.

[brooklynite]

6. and the GOP will accomodate you by welcoming in "Red Dogs"?

[LoZoccolo]

7. I believe that you would rather deal with that.

The question is, what furthers a more progressive agenda? If you can show that Jeffords or Chaffee were actually more progressive than (or even running for the same seats as) Nelson and Baucus, you might be able to demonstrate that.

All the congressional votes that you could ever want are here:
http://www.opencongress.org/

[PassingFair]

14. We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced 4 million.

Blue Dogs and New Dems collaborated on that.

Sometimes "your side" isn't always on the right side.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Sometimes they are.

And again, the blue dogs buy you time and less issues to deal with while you are building consensus.

If you'd like to point out a blue dog, and declare here that you do not care about any single issue on which they differed from the Republicans, feel free.

[sharp_stick]

10. The difference being that Lieberman

can be defeated by a liberal. I'd like to see that happen to Nelson or Baucus but it's not going to.

Jeffords and Chafee were Republicans in very non-conservative States... True RINO's to the Republican base. The base tossed them overboard in an effort to elect a "real" Republican and failed miserably.

IIRC Republican Jim Jeffords Republican seat is now held by Bernie Sanders and Lincoln Chaffee's Republican seat is now held by Sheldon Whitehouse. The Republican purity brigade nicely handed us two seats because there was no way in hell that a pure Republican was going to win.

If we were to primary Nelson with a good progressive Democrat for example he/she would lose by 15 - 20 points and I'd put money on it.

[PassingFair]

21. Progressives and Populists bubble up wherever injustice becomes unbearable.

You can't control it, and you don't know
where it will happen.

Even Kansas.

I'd rather have a republican populist who
legislates for the working classes than a
Joe Lieberman or a Chris Dodd who sells us
out on Capitol Hill.

[sharp_stick]

23. That Rand Paul guy

is kind of a populist, so is Donald Trump.

I'll pass thanks, I find populists to be a bit to unstable for a job with global consequences.

[cali]

28. deal with a Jeffords? Jim Jeffords was an amazing Rep and Senator

and as decent a man as ever served. Not too hard to deal with him.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Nice argument. nt

[tabbycat31]

4. for me, if the choice came down to

a Blue Dog who votes with the party 80% of the time or a Republican who votes with the Democratic party 0% of the time, I would take the Blue Dog.

I may be a progressive but I am also a realist. I worked for a Blue Dog last fall who barely won re-election. Having talked to him he is more liberal than he portrays himself as, but his district is not.

[ThomWV]

5. I watch the voting of both my Senators and all of the State's Congressional Delegation like a hawk

I am a C-span junkie, and I pay attention to the votes made by my Senators, my Representative, and the State's other two Representatives.

[mmonk]

9. If I'm headed towards hell at 55 miles as opposed to 70 miles an hour,

it doesn't matter all that much since the destination isn't changing.

[LoZoccolo]

12. It does when you are only committed to that course for a limited time.

Every legislator and executive has term limits, and to slow the Republican agenda buys you time to build more consensus. Take responsibility for fulfilling that role in a democracy, or leave the people who are taking that responsibility to do it for you. There really is no clever slogan out of this responsibility.

[mmonk]

16. Tax cuts, domestic spying, gutting government services, etc.

Can't go there even we call them purple dogs.

[LoZoccolo]

20. I'm sure that there are a lot of issues on which you disagree with the blue dogs.

The question becomes, does your course provide an advantage?

If you'd like to point out a blue dog that differs in no way from a Republican, or differs in ways that do not matter to you at all (and take responsibility for the fact that you declare publicly that you do not care about those bills), or even point out a historical example where a blue dog was replaced with a Republican and then replaced with a progressive within one term, go ahead. You'll strengthen your case.

[pintobean]

15. I couldn't agree more

but it seems off-topic

[BzaDem]

41. But what if the destination is NEVER going to change? What if the problem is your expectations?

In other words, you can call the destination "hell" or whatever you want to. But what if the absolute bare minimum you are ever going to get over the course of your entire lifetime is going to that destination at 55?

People should stop acting as if they are EVER going to get much of what they want.

[mmonk]

45. It's not about what I want. It's about the damage.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Blue dogs don't vote for shit until they have watered the legislation down and put in

industry catering loopholes and exceptions.

Any "consensus" is on the backs of the poor and disenfranchised and for the benefit of the police state, the wealthy, and megacorps.

[LoZoccolo]

13. You've misread my post with regard to amongst whom the consensus is to be built. n/t

[woo me with science]

22. It always depends on the issue and the potential consequences.

You have to weigh the benefits of compromise against the benefits of standing firm for a principle.

[LoZoccolo]

25. I would say that my strategy is principled.

The main principle would be that I do not want to risk hurting others in order to get something that I (or even they) want, when the risk of failure is very likely.

If you'd like to establish the success rate of the strategy of letting Republicans win in order to replace them with a progressive Democrat in the next term, feel free to provide an example, but I don't think that I have seen any, and there's always a chance to replace the blue dog in the primary.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

29. Thank you for presenting this challenging opposing viewpoint.

You are a worthy opponent.

[Romulox]

30. Um, logic problem: when will the Blue Dogs have to compromise with US???

You describe an extortion in your OP, not a coalition.

[LoZoccolo]

31. During the primary, if they face an opponent who can win the general election.

If they don't, it's on you to produce more progressive voters. This is your responsibility and control in a democracy, as you hold the highest office.

[Romulox]

34. Nonsense. Righwingers are not the "default" candidates.

Your argument isn't logical. :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

35. They tend to be when they are incumbents with high approval ratings.

As would a progressive candidate. The issue in this thread is what to do in a general-election race between a blue dog and a Republican. I promote voting for the blue dog.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. It's up to the politicians to build a consensus by appealing to the voters.

Your argument is that the voters should build the consensus. I disagree. If the politicians want the votes of progressives they should try building a consensus by appealing to their beliefs. If they fail to do so, they may well lose their votes.

[LoZoccolo]

33. The progressives in your example are delivering an ultimatum to the rest of the left. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. So?

The ultimatum is that if a politician wants the votes of a certain group of people he has to appeal to them. If he/she fails to do so then he/she doesn't get their votes. "The Left" isn't homogenous nor is it bound by party loyalty (a term that flies in the face of democracy).

[LoZoccolo]

40. And ultimatum is not consensus.

Do you expect the people you've alienated to be more or less likely to be amenable to your issues when you've disregarded theirs?

And when has the ultimatum strategy proven effective? Can you show me an election where a blue dog lost to a Republican, and then that Republican was replaced with a progressive?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. We had a blue dog (DLC) rep in my district.

She sold her soul to the NRA and a lot of liberals sat on their hands. She was replaced by an ultra-conservative Republican who was then replaced by a liberal.

As for ultimatums. Isn't that what you're giving? Either vote for the Democrat, no matter how much one disagrees with him, or face the election of an even worse politician.

I'm not a politician and have no desire to build a consensus and am not seeking votes. I'm a voter who votes for the best candidate on the ballot or writes one in.

[BzaDem]

46. That isn't the ultimatum that any particular person is giving: that is the ultimatum that EXISTS

whether anyone likes it or not.

There is a huge difference between pointing out reality and making reality much worse for yourself by creating additional ultimatums that result in more conservative policy (by enabling the election of Republicans).

"I'm a voter who votes for the best candidate on the ballot or writes one in."

But that assumes the absurdity that "writing someone in" is somehow functionally different in direction than voting, phone banking, and volunteering for the Republican. This assumption only exists out of cognitive dissonance, when people can't fathom the idea that they aren't going to get much of what they want. When you correct for this incorrect assumption, voting for the best candidate on the ballot means voting for the Democrat.

[LoZoccolo]

47. I did not give the "ultimatum" that you mention.

I have no power to release anyone from that situation, so it's not my ultimatum to give. If I had any power to release anyone from the threat, you could say I delivered an ultimatum.

Do you care to give specifics about who this was who was replaced?

[BzaDem]

42. The truth is that you need the Democratic politicans FAR more than they need you, whether you

realize it at this particular moment or not. Why? Because when claimed-progressives do everything they can to enable Republicans to beat Democrats (notwithstanding the denial of some that this is what they are doing), then the Democratic politicians will just take a job in the private sector and increase their salary threefold or tenfold. In fact, if they become lobbyists, they will probably have more influence than they ever would have as a back bencher Congressperson.

In other words, they can just walk away, and they benefit from doing that. They don't need your agreement to get what they want. If you vote for them, they keep their office (at least until they decide to voluntarily leave to get more money/influence). If you vote against them, they get much more money and potentially more influence, almost right away.

On the other hand, you absolutely need their agreement if you are to ever get even a sliver of what you want, ever, at any point in your life.

You might dislike this state of affairs, but that doesn't actually change it. Most people figure out they often don't get what they want (now or ever) at a very young age.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Well, you're making a good argument for a mental health test for politicians.

And, a great argument regarding their lack of principals.

But, you've made a lousy argument on why I should waste my vote on them.

Obviously, the politicians get what they want. A cushy job as a politician or an even cushier job as a lobbyist.

[BzaDem]

49. But your very language "waste your vote" itself requires an incorrect assumption

which is that your vote would be of better use anywhere else.

I'm not claiming I like the current system. I think proportional representation or instant run-off voting have significant advantages that could very well give third parties more influence and lead to more left leaning policy outcomes. But my dislike of the current system does not lead me to pretend the current system doesn't exist, or to ignore the obvious game-theoretic consequences that flow from that system.

[Enrique]

36. thanks for a post with some content in it

i didn't know you had it in you. :hi:

[LoZoccolo]

38. I think I've only been doing the one-liners for a few months now.

They have their place, for example: with topics where you want to make it very difficult for your opponents to change the subject or not address a certain point among many. It is harder for them to go off on a tangent when there is only one sentence. I couldn't really do that with this topic, though.

[jwirr]

43. Good post. One of the things I see of value in even a blue dog is

that IF we have a majority we get to be in control of the committees and as we can see now that is an important issue. One other reasons I see for not letting those seats go rethug is the SCOTUS. We need to be able to get our judges into the court in the next selections or we lose it for decades. We have little power in the court the way it is let alone allowing the rethugs to deny our right to appoint new judges. Hell, I would like to see President Obama have a senate and house that would allow us to enlarge the court the way FDR did.

These are the reasons you have seen me try to protect blue dogs. I want to keep the above benefits and letting rethug replace them makes us the losers.

[dsc]

50. I think that is a misrepresentation of what many people have said

One of the big problems people have with the blue dogs and other conservative democrats is that they dilute our message and put other democrats in peril. Imagine if Feingold had been able to campaign on a health care plan that had a public option instead of what we ended up having to campaign on. Or imagine if Feingold had been able to campaign on the Bush tax cuts having been extended for the middle class and eliminated on the rich. Both of those were not able to be done thanks to blue dogs.