What could Landrieu have done to go further right?

[MannyGoldstein]

Buy a coal-burning truck and demand that Obama re-institute child labor through an executive order? Dig up FDR's corpse and paint "Social Security Sucks!!!" on it?

It's pretty @$!#ing clear: we win by being Democrats, not Republicans.

[merrily]

1. I rather liked my post from another Landrieu thread. I'll paste it here w. some edits.

Maybe she was too far right to win (rather than too far left). Or maybe she was just an unappealing candidate.

The "too left to win" meme is a very convenient one for the 10% and their devotees to sell and sell hard and consistently, but that doesn't make it true.

Look around. The reality is, the further right the Party has gone, the more ground it has lost --not won, lost.

If the Party really put forward its most electible candidates in 2010 and 2012 and each of them campaigned as well as they could, and the Republicans swept Congress and the states the way they did anyway, what the hell?

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

...

"But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again."

...

"And I am here to say to you that when a man in politics, if he is a leader. has the right ideas, the people are willing to listen to what he has to say. It is a matter of salesmanship.

If Landrieu had been part of bringing single payer to the US and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, would she still have lost?

Maybe, maybe not. My personal belief is that she would have won and won with more of a margin than she's ever enjoyed before. However, had she indeed lost, at least she could have lost with her head high, fighting for noble things, instead of the way she did lose, making an ass of herself and her "human easel," fighting for Keystone with when she had no chance to win the runoff anyway.

http://www.floorcharts.com/post/103202634411/last-night-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart

[Recursion]

7. LA didn't have one, but AR had a Green candidate who ran on single payer and a higher minimum wage

Any guesses on how he did?

Look around. The reality is, the further right the Party has gone, the more ground it has lost --not won, lost.

No. The further right the electorate has gone the further right the party has gone to try to catch more of them.

And, every single time a liberal stays home or votes Green "in protest", that just forces the Democratic party to move even further to the right to make that up.

[merrily]

8. Right. Because the ONLY difference between a

third party candidate and a candidate from one of the two oldest, best connected, largest and richest parties in nation is how far left or right the third party candidate is.

Poster, please.

[Scuba]

61. Moving right, leaving the base and half the potential electorate behind, to try to peel off ...

... the mythical moderate Republican vote. Yeah, that's a sure fire strategy if you want to make sure the Koch brothers own America.

[Progressive dog]

71. Exactly, the party(s) follow the electorate

[merrily]

116. Disagree. The electorate is not demanding lower wages, or more jobs leaving the US

or more tax breaks for the rich or more power to ALEC or chained CPI for Social Security.

[Progressive dog]

161. You have to understand that the electorate

picks from real people, not imaginary people who agree with them on every issue.

[merrily]

162. The solution to that is better messaging, not worse people.

[Progressive dog]

163. That didn't make sense

unless you think that real people are worse than imaginary ones.
As far as better messaging, that only works if the electorate believes your message.

[merrily]

164. Actually, your post is the one that doesn't make sense.

Buh bye.

[sabrina 1]

72. Wrong, we learned another fact from this last midterm where right leaning Dems lost AGAIN.

While people refused to elect right leaning Dems they DID vote locally for Progressive issues wherever they appeared on the ballots.

Keep pushing this 'the country is right leaning' meme and forcing right leaning Democrats on the people and it appears they will no longer play that game, it is clearly a losing tactic.

All polls show that two of the most popular Government programs STILL are SS and Medicare, DEMOCRATIC POLICIES. So why are Dems running away from the very policies that people across the political spectrum WANT?

I don't believe these tales we've been fed for years now, that we must move further to the right to win. That past two midterms should put that lie to rest and let's start being DEMOCRATS again so we can WIN.

[Recursion]

98. No. 3 conservatives lost as opposed to 7 liberals. And the only pick-offs were by conservative dems

If liberal democrats, rather than conservative democrats, had brought home two Republican scalps, they'd have more of a voice in the DCCC and DSCC than they're going to. But they didn't.

[sabrina 1]

100. Which Liberal Dems were supported by the DCCC in those states?

[Recursion]

101. Garcia, Schneider, Enyart, Horsford, Shea-Porter, Bishop, Maffei

Actually I'm still not sure about Maffei and I'd love if somebody from central NY could tell me what the hell happened there.

But all seven were supported by the party and the committee, just like the three conservatives who lost, and the two conservatives who won back districts.

[rhett o rick]

134. Funny how you always manage to blame the Left for the Party leaders moving right.

You said, "The further right the electorate has gone the further right the party has gone to try to catch more of them." And just how is that working out? Pres Obama won as a progressive candidate but immediately after he won, he dumped the left and moved right.

[AgingAmerican]

136. Bizarre take on things

nt

[tritsofme]

2. Obama's approval rating is south of 40% in LA

And so was Landrieu's. It's pretty clear, no Democrat wins an election like that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

3. That's because neither are percieved as being liberal enough....

Want proof?

What's the approval rating of Ellen?

[Recursion]

10. What is Ellen running for?

Sorry, I just want to be clear:

You are an adult, and you seriously, honestly think Landrieu would have done better in Louisiana -- Louisiana -- if she had been more liberal?

I just want to be clear what level of fantasy we're dealing with here because that is fucking crazy.

[merrily]

11. No one attacked you personally, yet your replies 4 and 10 are quite insulting to Manny and Spitfire.

[Recursion]

12. Because Landrieu defended a woman's right to choose and background checks on gun

purchases for years while still managing to hold on to a seat in a very conservative state that didn't really agree with her on those issues, so I get irritated when people say her problem was she a "sell-out" or DINO.

[merrily]

13. So? Many of your posts have irritated me no end.

[Recursion]

19. Much more liberal Democrats than Landrieu ran in the jungle primary. They all lost very badly.

The voters were offered more liberal alternatives, and simply weren't interested. You keep brushing this off but it's pretty much exactly disproving your claim. The voters had more liberal choices and didn't want them.

[merrily]

64. Non sequitur much? The subject was your insults to the OP and Spitfire.

[sabrina 1]

75. The voters had a right leaning Dem and they rejected her. The voters have consistently rejected

right leaning Dems now for two elections. As for the primaries, did the party do anything to help Progressives win in the primaries? Fund them, back them in any way? I haven't noticed the party doing that anywhere to be honest, not when they have a Corporate Dem running. So we'll never know the answer to whether someone who is not a Corporate Dem might do in these elections until we have the leadership behind them.

What we do know is right leaning Dems are losing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. What about this part of the post? ...

Much more liberal Democrats than Landrieu ran in the jungle primary. They all lost very badly.

With the exception of Incumbent, Al Franken, I can't think of a single Democrat that ran on a progressive platform and won ... even in the primaries.

I'm not saying we should run more conservative candidates; but, to think all we need is for candidates to be authentically progressive, especially in conservative districts, is fantasy.

[sabrina 1]

89. Well if it's that bad, then we may as well just give up and let the Republicans have it all, no??

Dems didn't run on a Progressive platform, they have been running AWAY from the issues that made Dems so popular with voters for such a long time.

Now Dems try to appeal to 'moderate Republicans' this is the philosophy of the Third Way btw.

And dem voters, and young voters are rejecting candidates who are not representing their needs.

Sometimes you have to be bold and courageous, you have to eliminate all the dire, negative projections and just talk to the people. Get rid of all the think tanks and their ridiculous 'findings' and show the people you represent THEM that you won't be representing Corporations.

There is a huge non-voting population in the US shamefully, but they have stated their reasons many times.

Much of that population are waiting for a REASON to vote. It is a gold mine for Dems who are willing to go find them and get them enthusiastic about voting again.

But our think tanks ignore these potential voters and focus on their 'charts' and whatever else they do that get them their big salaries.

We KNOW that Democratic policies are still the most popular across the political spectrum with the American people. Yet, Dems seem afraid to get out and FIGHT for those policies.

You can't win if you don't fight for it. Dems have been bending over backwards or rightwards, based on the myth that this is a conservative country when every poll on issues proves that to be wrong. And we are losing because of it.

And when they lose, the BLAME THE VOTERS. That sure is a winning strategy.

How about LISTENING to the voters for a change? Instead of soulless think tanks that are all over the place spouting off as if they were even in touch with ordinary people, about something they clearly don't know anything about?

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. No, that'snot whatI am saying at all ...

Dems didn't run on a Progressive platform, they have been running AWAY from the issues that made Dems so popular with voters for such a long time.

They did in the Democratic primaries (and in the LA Jungle) and they lost.

[sabrina 1]

91. Did the party leadership back the progressive candidates in the primaries? Fund them

go all out to support them? I am in NY so I know that the primary candidates where there is a Corporate Dem, get no help from the Party so they are up against huge amounts of money and generally no support from the party leadership who consistently support the most Corporate Friendly candidates.

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. From what I understand ...

(and we have a DUer that is intimately familiar with what the Party Leadership does, and doesn't do, during primaries, as she is a big money donor to the Party) ... the Party Leadership does not participate in the primaries, i.e., they do not "back" one candidate over another, financially, though they do recruit candidates.

Perhaps, DUer Brooklynite will lend us her real life experience to disabuse us of the prevailing myth?

[sabrina 1]

96. Actually I don't need Brooklynite's input on this. I worked for nine years for

one of the Dem's top fundraisers and attended many of the functions where money was collected, privately, btw. I know that money only went to candidates that were approved of, we generally met them at those functions.

But I never met anyone who was a primary challenger to the preferred candidate in all of those nine years.

It was a shock to me at first, to see these very wealthy people paying thousands of dollars to attend a private dinner party where they got to meet the candidate and maybe pose for a photo with the person they were backing.

They were Dems so I was hoping they would win also, and I met most of the prominent Dems and former Dems at those functions.

However, there was no input from ordinary people and definitely no Primary Challengers there. After a while I became very troubled by how our system works, which excludes ordinary people from the process, completely.

The only non top 1%ers there were the caterers and other workers and no one ever asked them for their opinions.

So having seen how it is done, no primary candidate who isn't being supported by the wealthy, has a chance. They just don't have the 'war chests' necessary to fight the big money.

[brooklynite]

153. Are you talking about DSCC fundraisers?

If so, we're talking about an event for which the funds go to the DSCC coffers, not for specific Senators. Incumbent Senators will be in attendance to draw a crowd and to be representational, but they don't have any special dibs on the money raised.

Let's consider the 2010 Specter/Sestak race. Specter WAS at the time the Incumbent Democrat, and likely attended some DSCC events (can't remember if I was invited to one). However, DSCC did nothing to block Sestak's efforts, and gave him full support when he got the nomination.

As for your lamentation that "non 1%ers" weren't able to participate; would it surprise you to know that many of the 1%ers there would be delighted to replace this system with publicly funded elections? It's been only a month since the election, and I've already been invited to two events for 2016 candidates. Honestly, I'd like to have the time off, and spend the money somewhere else. But unless you can figure out a way to amend the Constitution to change the system we have, most of us politically engaged funders won't be unilaterally disengaging.

[brooklynite]

142. Hmm, I didn't know I was a "her".....

...that said, the Party election committees (DSCC, DCCC and DGA) are set up to elect more Democrats from Republican seats and to protect incumbent Democrats from losing to Republicans. They don't play ideological favorites, nor do they stop anyone from running. They DO search for people they think are viable candidates, relative to the district's demographics, and they expect to candidates to hit certain thresholds in fundraising and campaign organization. They had no problem with supporting a progressive in Massachusetts, and they had no problem with a moderate independent in Kansas.

As I said, they DO support incumbents and that will generally start during what would be considered the Primary phase. Part of this is for financial reasons: a large portion of the Committee funds comes from successful candidates provide their unneeded surplus to others. Suggesting that future incumbents can't expect Committee support would limit the financial resources the Committee would expect to have to work with. The other reason is that they want candidates to be as strong as possible as early as possible. Most races in fact do NOT have Primaries, so that time is considered available to campaign and fundraise for the General Election.

The issue here is, I assume, the allegation that the Committees don't ALLOW Primary challenges, and will "destroy" anyone impertinent enough to challenge an incumbent. Not true. Either challengers are strong enough to hold their own, in which case wasting resources "destroying" them would be a waste of effort, or the challengers are fringe opposition and the Committee doesn't need to worry about them. In the case of the Landrieu election, there were three other Democrats on the ballots. None of them raised any significant money, and they got 0.77, 0.66 and 0.32% in the first round.

How do I know this? Well, as 1StrongBlackMan point out, I DO have close connections with the Party Committees. My wife and I have deep pockets, and they come to us both for their own support and to support the Party's candidates directly. I have an opportunity to talk to both the professional staff AND the Senators who chair the Committee (I spoke personally with Reid and Bennett this year; I had a private meeting with Murray last cycle. I ask them how they're dealing with races where there's a serious Primary (usually an open seat). The answer is they generally don't.

[1StrongBlackMan]

149. Hmmm ... Who do I believe ...

the DUer that has consistently and openly posted HIS experiences with BIG party experience at the big donor level (and posts specific experiences); or, or the DUer that consistently opposes the Party Leadership and only recently recently claims 9 years of party experience ...

[U4ikLefty]

166. Hmmm ... Who do I believe??? Wall Street or Main Street?

I will stay loyal to Main Street & the Working Class, but enjoy sucking up to Wall Street & the Third Way.

[brooklynite]

167. Whether you SUPPORT Wall Street or Main Street has nothing to do with the truth.....

...of how the Party supports candidates. I've shared my evidence. Whether you believe it or not doesn't make it less true.

[MannyGoldstein]

94. Jeff Merkely, Brian Schatz

maybe Durbin, but he's not really so Progressive.

How many Progressive candidates lost?

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. Oregan and Hawaii ...

are worlds apart from LA ... though Illinois is closer (and Durbin is farther to the right of either of those you mentioned, perhaps, reflecting his electorate)

[bornskeptic]

105. Braleya nd Udall got about the same percent of the votes in states that Obama carried twice

as Landrieu got in a state that Obama lost by about 20 points.

[merrily]

117. Agree, but it is also fantasy to think that all we need is for candidates to be more right.

Elections are not that simplistic. People are always trying to draw one single lesson from an election or an election season and it's not that easy.

For instance, I read on DU today that Landrieu said on a radio station that she had not voted for Obama in 2012. She's trying to sell a basically red state on voting for a Dem, yet she doesn't vote Dem? She votes with Obama (whatever that means), yet she disavows him publicly? Attempting to distance from Obama was the strategy of a lot of Democrats this year and everyone on DU, including me, said it was going to cost them and, IMO, it did cost them.

And even that one thing, though, IMO, it's a huge one, isn't the whole story of Landrieu's loss.

[Recursion]

146. That would be nearly as silly as claiming all we need is "real progressive candidates"

She votes with Obama (whatever that means), yet she disavows him publicly?

Well, it worked for Graham and Ashford.

No, of course simply picking conservative Democrats to be candidates in conservative districts isn't enough. It's necessary but not sufficient.

[Scuba]

62. It's all he's got.

[merrily]

65. Not to his way of thinking, apparently.

[Scootaloo]

14. Yes. I will stand here and say she would have done better as a bigger liberal.

Fact One: Republicans will never vote for a Democrat. Nobody with a "D" on their name will ever win any notable number of republicans. Landrieu's efforts to appeal to these voters are completely wasted. COMPLETELY, do you understand?

Fact Two: Slobbering her way over to court the right-wingers of louisiana alienates the liberals of Louisiana - and I assure you, they are there. This in effect suppresses the Democratic base of voters, whatever size it might be. Most aren't any more keen on voting for a republican than republicans are keen on voting for a Democrat - but they realize that a Democrat who acts like a republican is exactly the same thing as a republican. Democratic voters tend to stay home, then.

Fact Three: Self-professed "undecideds" are turned off by the notion that there is no tangible choice to make between the two names on a ballot. If you get the same result no matter who you vote for, what does it matter? They opt out, or vote for who they feel is most likely to win, just to feel like they've 'won." And since a real republican wil lalways beat a Fake Republican, that pulls the ":undecided' vote towards the real republican. After all, the person "competing against" the republican is basically endorsing most of hteir positions anyway, so... Republicans must be right!

When democrats like Landrieu court the base of the Republicans, al lthat happens is that they waste time on people who aren't going to vote Democratic, alienate people who will, and tell the undecided voters that republicans are right about things.

[BrotherIvan]

20. You last paragraph deserves an award

Perfectly put. I hope you spread it around because it is the best way of putting it that I have seen.

[JI7]

23. why didn't the liberals of louisiana vote for the more liberal democrats who were also on the race

with landrieu ?

[Recursion]

27. They did. All 15 of them (nt)

[JI7]

29. if i was there i would have voted for Senegal

[Recursion]

31. Me too. I like her

I do look forward to good things from her. She would do better in a Presidential year.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

84. LOL!!! Ever hear of vote splitting?

[Scootaloo]

36. Well, becuse there was only one more liberal democrat on the ballot

One who got no debate time. Who was not featured in polls on the subject who is essentially a long-shot liberal Democrat running agaisnt a connected, funded, party-supported pair of republicans.

[JI7]

38. they were on the ballot , do liberals in the state not know how to do simple research

by easily looking up who is running and finding their positions ?

[Scootaloo]

40. I've looked all over for her positions, JI7

They're actually really hard to find... I in fact still have not been able to find her platform. I think I found the site it's hosted on but the site won't load. I'm having to base my judgement of her on an isidewith.com quiz that shorthands her positions.

Such is the reality for a candidate with no financing, I suppose.

[JI7]

43. more fair tax system , marijuana legalization

support for govt programs.

[Scootaloo]

44. If the Democrats of louisiana really want a conservative Democrat... why didn't William Waymire win?

[JI7]

47. i don't think the democrats want a conservative

At last not the ones who votEd for Landrieu although many of them do lean right on drilling.

[Scootaloo]

48. Your question strongly implies otherwise

why didn't the liberals of louisiana vote for the more liberal democrats who were also on the race

If Liberalism is so toxic in Louisiana that even Landrieu can still lose for being "too liberal" then... why didn't the more conservative William Waymire win? Why didn't he even blip on the radar?

[JI7]

49. because the republicans were more conservative

And the combined votes for republicans was like 55 percEnt

[Scootaloo]

51. Try to follow

The logic being used all over this thread is that "Liberals can't win so we have to run conservatives!" Well, Landrieu ran on her conservative credentials and she lost. Waymire is a Democrat who is quite a bit more conservative than her, and he didn't even place.

The logic being used is wrong. For reasons I have already explained, that you seem to have taken exception to.

[JI7]

59. he wasnt the most conservative

The republicans were more conservative and thosr republicans combined totals were about 55 percEnt.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. Money and name recognition and incumbency.

The same reasons no other Dem candidate won the primary.

[merrily]

67. Also, the Party supports incumbents.

But, the whole framing is out to lunch. You can't look only at most recent election and decide it means you need to go still further right.

In 2006 and 2008 Democrats were given a huge mandate (for modern times, anyway), which was accompanied by high expectations. 2010 and 2012 tell me people on the right, on the left and in the center were very disappointed by what was accomplished and by what was not accomplished.

You can yell Lieberman and Baucus and sixty votes for cloture until the cows come home. All most people know is they had high expectations and they were disappointed.

[Carolina]

53. K&R... WOW, Scootaloo

Your whole post merits an award, but I logged on this AM to



your final line:

When Democrats like Landrieu court the base of the Republicans, all that happens is that they waste time on people who aren't going to vote Democratic, alienate people who will, and tell the undecided voters that republicans are right about things.

[Scuba]

63. Nailed it, especially that part in your last paragraph about giving credence to the Republicans.

By moving right, we tell the voters that the right is where all the good ideas are, despite the fact that the right has never been right about anything.

[belzabubba333]

66. if dems voted our pols wouldnt need to goto the right for votes

[Scootaloo]

123. I'm afraid you've got the horse pushing the cart there, Belzabubba

[Spitfire of ATJ]

83. "and tell the undecided voters that republicans are right about things."

Further than that. You get someone who promises they can be "as good as" a Republican.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Sadly, these "Undecideds" are, either,

Fact Three: Self-professed "undecideds" are turned off by the notion that there is no tangible choice to make between the two names on a ballot. If you get the same result no matter who you vote for, what does it matter? They opt out, or vote for who they feel is most likely to win, just to feel like they've 'won." And since a real republican wil lalways beat a Fake Republican, that pulls the ":undecided' vote towards the real republican. After all, the person "competing against" the republican is basically endorsing most of hteir positions anyway, so... Republicans must be right!

being dishonest, or woefully uninformed. In this race, there are/were clear right/left policy differences between Landrieu and her republican opponent.

[aspirant]

137. Reverse the focus

I agree with all 3 facts. Now what was Cassidy's winning strategy? "I am not Obama" and what was his stances on SS vouchers, Medicare vouchers etc. Koch brothers don't spend mega-billions to draw more repub voters(they're a dying breed), their focus is to depress dem voters. So dem candidates must stay laser focused on the issues 70-80% of Americans want, which includes red states.

I watched some debates and it was depressing to see dems on the defensive with Obama and finally when they went on the offensive, they let the repub change the subject back to Obama. We need candidates that will fight for us and proudly say they voted for a dem. All I hear from 1 side on DU is we must take a blood oath to vote for the nominee yet Landrieu and Grimes aren't on the team. Where is the outrage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. No, he's saying Ellen could have beat Bill Cassidy./NT

[Spitfire of ATJ]

78. What's crazy is assuming there are no Liberals in Louisiana....

Don't you get it?

You are trying to avoid someone the Republicans will call a "Commie" and it doesn't work because they'll do it ANYWAY. (Hell, they've got their idiot followers believing Hitler was a Commie.) All you are succeeding in doing is getting someone in the party that kills things like Medicare for ALL.

We don't need another Lieberman that votes with the Republicans so they can call their crap "bipartisan".

[merrily]

5. And Landrieu said on a radio show that she didn't vote for Obama.

Sorry, but the Democrats used really crappy election strategy this time around.

That's why so many lost, IMO, not because they were too far left or too far right.

[Generic Other]

76. And how on earth did he lose her vote anyway?

I get how he has alienated Manny, but what was Landrieu's problem? How can you expect to win the voters of the standing president's party when you confess to not voting for him? That was some calculated gambling on her part to win some disaffected (probably GOP) voters. Cold-blooded politician, that's for sure.

[merrily]

81. Grimes refused to say whether she voted for him or not. And Dems all over the

country seemed to be running away from him, so I have to conclude it was not an isolated "astrategy."

I appreciate a number of things Obama has done, but I have criticized him a lot. However, months ago, I posted that the "strategy" of running away from Obama would be suicidal for Democrats.

I agree with you. How can you sell someone on voting Democratic while running away from a Democratic President? Moreover, how can you run away from your own voting record? I couldn't see it, but it seemed to have a campaign strategy in many states.

[merrily]

82. Obama's approval rating in October was not very high anywhere, yet

he carried even Indiana in 2008 and looked as though he might carry Alaska until McCain picked Palin. Maybe the issue is not solely the letter after a candidate's name, but what voters perceive the Party did for them after the wave elections of 2006 and 2006, where victories were based on the cry of "change" from Republicans.

[tritsofme]

121. I'm not sure why you are conflating 2008 and 2014. Based on Obama's approval rating, the 2014 result

was entirely predictable, the only question was the scale.

This is the same dynamic that Obama benefited from in 2008, Bush's incredibly low approval ratings enabled a relatively popular Obama to compete in states like Indiana, that he didn't have much of a shot at in 2012 due to his own lessened approval.

[merrily]

122. I said the two elections were different, which is about the direct opposite of conflating.

And, yes, I get that Obama's lower approval rating in 2012 correlates with fewer votes for him in 2012. My point was he was the same man in the same Party in 2012 as he was in 2008, yet his 2012 outcome was not as good as his 2008 outcome. Why?

In 2008, Obama expressly engendered hope of great change from the Republican administration, which the voters obviously wanted and expected (as shown as well by the 2006 and 2008 Democratic Congressional wave elections.) And looking for change from the Republicans included the very red state of Indiana and, until McCain picked Palin, almost the very red state of Alaska, too.

So, what caused the change in both his approval ratings and his election performance in 2012? Was it that his actual job performance was too different from Republicans, as he had promised it would be? Or not different enough? Or something else entirely?

[Recursion]

4. Well she could be anti-choice, anti immigration reform, against gun background checks

Pro SS privatization.... And she was beat by someone who is all of those

Really it's hard to take DU seriously when people ask shit like this.

[merrily]

6. I'd bet most of the people who voted against her couldn't tell you what her positions

on most or all of the issues you ticked off are.

You should really watch the Daily Show video I linked in my post. In it, the usually loyal Jon Stewart says something about Democrats, the party that lost because of standing for nothing, deciding that the solution is to stand for even less.

No matter what the question or the reality is, the answer for a segment of DU seems always to be either "Go further right," or "less power in the hands of primary voters"-- though that one doesn't get spelled out in those words.

And it's getting harder and hard to take any of that seriously, as well. Also harder and harder to see it as an authentic election strategy rather than a personal preference.

[BainsBane]

22. Politicians represent their local districts and states

as designed by the Constitution. Very few people here are from LA. She or any other LA Senatorial candidate doesn't need to appeal to people on the internet who have nothing to do with her state. What people here think about her is irrelevant. And if anyone things running on issues that appeal to people here will win an election in Louisiana, they don't know the first thing about the country they live in. I have a progressive House representative because I live in a progressive district. He couldn't get elected anywhere in the South or in most of America, but he suits my district well. If people want to get more progressive politicians elected, they need to focus on their own districts. That, however, requires actually getting out and working for it.

[JI7]

32. yes, most people don't even know how the louisana election is run

unlike most states it's more open. it's actually a system that people on here claimed they wanted and would result in more liberals winning.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

50. Yes, theoretically.

In reality, the districts are now drawn so that the districts fit the politicians, not so the politicians 'represent' their districts.

You have a progressive House representative either because A) you still live in a state in which Democrats are drawing district lines, or B) lots of Dems were packed into that district so that republicans could win more of the surrounding districts.

[merrily]

68. Yes, she did need to appeal to the people of Louisiana. Apparently, she didn't.

It's interesting that you addressed comments about Landrieu to me. I haven't trashed her.

As far as lecturing me about my focus and efforts, you really should not assume (or presume).

My district used to be represented by Mike Capuano, who had the good sense and the spine to vote against both the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. After gerrymandering, it is represented by Stephen Lynch, who is a strong union man whose stance on social issues has improved greatly, thanks in part to persuasion from the people of Massachusetts. My Senators are Warren and Markey.

As far as my personal efforts, I don't assume DUers are slacking. I don't know why you would.
I have no need to defend my work to anyone, certainly not to anyone who knows nothing about me.

[BainsBane]

85. What you said

was that people here wanted Democrats to move to the right. So no, you didn't trash Landrieu, you trashed DUers who comment on the political reality of LA. Landrieu was a relic, a Southern Democrat in a very conservative state. It was no surprise she fell to someone on the far right in the current election cycle. You may not assume members here are slacking. What you assumed is that if they consider political reality they want a right-wing party.

No matter what the question or the reality is, the answer for a segment of DU seems always to be either "Go further right,"

That view is quite common here, as is evident in other members continually referring to other DUers as "corporatists," if they don't hate or worship the right political figure, or even if they talk about anything other than contests among political elites. What I and some others might ideally want is world's apart from what actually exists. Realizing that doesn't make someone a sell-out to the right. Additionally, one of the more annoying things about members who continually go on about how left they are and therefore better than the rest of us is they rarely if ever say what that means. They seem to think if they say the word left often enough that actually means something. It does not, particularly when it isn't borne out in their positions on issues.

The reason I made the comment about working for change was not an assumption about you personally but because I have had people argue that they shouldn't have to work to reform the party, that politicians owed them. Then I've seen others argue not voting amounted to activism.

[merrily]

99. As far as allegedly "trashing" DUers, how many OPs calling out DUers who are not thrilled

with the current direction of the Party do there have to be before we are entitled to respond to any degree at all? Did you scold Steve Leser, for example, for his call out thread? or brooklynite for his?

Do you chide baldguy for posting that DUers who are not unconditionally loyal to the Party are more enemies to him than Republicans are? Or, for that matter, for any of his posts? As far as I can see, every single one of his posts are insults to a portion of DU.

Or are you rather selective about your objections to DUers being trashed?

Also, I disagree with your use of the term "trashing." I did no such thing.

However, you initially engaged me solely about my alleged comments about Landrieu and how she didn't need to appeal to people on the internet and how I needed to focus on my own district and state, and actually do some work, etc.

There was nothing in your first post to me about my alleged trashing of my fellow DUers. It was only after I pointed out to you that you addressed that to me, even though I had not trashed Landrieu (as have others on this thread), that you changed your story. So, obviously, the goal is simply to lash out at me for something and it doesn't much matter what.

Additionally, one of the more annoying things about members who continually go on about how left they are and therefore better than the rest of us is they rarely if ever say what that means.

Do you have any trouble deciphering when someone self-describes as a centrist without defining the term? I don't see many posts defining centrist, left OR right. So, again, you seem selective.

I would also love for you to link me to a post in which a poster has gone on about how left he or she is and therefore better than other DUers. And, if someone has done that, you should probably complain in response to that post, rather in response to a post of mine in which I did no such thing. Ditto your comments about not working or not voting.

[Capt. Obvious]

160. "Did you scold Steve Leser, for example, for his call out thread? or brooklynite for his? "

I'm glad I'm not missing anything.

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. +1. n/t

[BrotherIvan]

15. The population of Louisiana is 32% African American

How about running a black candidate? How about running someone likeable with energy and who doesn't look like they're just in it to be a lifelong politician? How about a Democrat that actually votes for a Democratic president? If she admitted she didn't vote for Obama then why is she a Democrat AT ALL?

There are many answers but there is one we know: running to the right doesn't get your base to run out and vote for you. LOW VOTER TURNOUT loses midterm elections for Democrats. How about running a candidate that gets Democrats to vote and quit worrying about right wingers?

[Recursion]

17. I'm all for LA (and MS, and AL) running black candidates

I think that would be a great idea. And a black candidate could go farther left than a white one could. Win-win.

Except Vallian Senegal ran in Louisiana, isn't some crazy fringe candidate or anything (she's got a good local political background), and got about 3 votes.

[Scootaloo]

16. She actually pulled in a majority of votes in the initial election

42% to Cassidy's 41%.

Now read my post above and imagine what could have happened had she actually decided to run as a Democrat.

[Recursion]

18. I have. I imagine she would not have made the run-off. The more liberal Democrats who ran didn't.

I don't see why she would do better than they did. For that matter I could easily see her doing worse.

[BrotherIvan]

24. Maybe we should make a poll

Ask our Southern DU members if they would have voted for her. I bet more than a few would say yes because they want a Democrat, any Democrat. But I bet the majority would say they would hold their nose to do it.

So if that is true, think about this: you have to work, take care of a family, so getting to the polls is hard. It's something that most people don't enjoy doing nor have time for. So if you have a candidate you don't really like, are you going to bust your butt to get to the voting booth? I doubt it. Look at Kentucky, she totally blew it.

[joshcryer]

26. Most DUers would complain about Keystone, etc.

They wouldn't say flat out that they'd support her and canvass for her, etc.

[Recursion]

28. And Keystone polls at about 85% positive in Louisiana

Which is yet another way Louisiana is not DU...

[BrotherIvan]

115. Well, yes

[Scootaloo]

30. The more liberal democrats, huh?

Would that be William P. Waymore, the former marine who believes education should center around "God, Family, Country," and divorcing any government interaction with education, while prising and dmeanding a "reagan-era Military" calls for the repeal of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, who vowed that if elected, he would put a motion on the senate Floor every year of his term to mandate prayer before the Pledge of Alleigance in public schools, and has, in his written platform, "the gays need to be part of our society or get out."

He's more liberal than Mary Landrieu according to you. She must be a fucking charmer!

Oh wait, there was Wayne Ables, too, and oh boy, from his campaign page:

I have a fear of standing up for ideas. I have fears of rejection, or ridicule. The web site of our public official stand on safe ideas and policies. Just look at the Democratic Party web site. There are no new bold aggressive ideas. Most of the idea have been settled long ago. They are still beating the dead horse. They have the same stale stands that get this country nowhere, but in a deeper hole of public debt.

His whole site is about the sloppiest and least professional effort I've ever seen. Do you even spell check, bro?

I would hate to see the day we have to buy PVC pipe and end caps to bury our guns to prevent them from being taken away.

His "guns" page is actually the most carefully-made and informative page on his site. also his argument on global warming is that it was warm when Otzi the Iceman was killed in the Alps. Yeeeeah

Is he more liberal than Mary Landrieu? Uhhhh... I dunno, how is a raven like a writing desk?

How about Vallian Senegal? Well, I can find pretty much next to nothing on her at all, except a page that refuses to load, and some poltiical quizes that shorthand her positions. Judging by those, yes, she's quite a bit more lieral than Mary Landrieu. Aaaand then we run into the problem of being an upstart nobody from Opelousas against a rich, well-connected, party-supported incumbent. So... yeah.

[Recursion]

33. Senegal and Brown

Though IIRC Brown had to drop out at the last minute

[Scootaloo]

34. Brown withdrew and endorsed Landrieu

[Recursion]

35. OK, so there was one rather liberal Democrat on the LA ballot in the jungle primary.

And, we saw the results.

(Yes, she doesn't have the ties with the powers-that-be that made Landrieu more famous -- that's kind of part of being rather liberal in the deep south, isn't it?)

[Scootaloo]

39. She also got no exposure

No debates, little to no advertising. All i've found is a handful of news articles that openly dismiss her along with al lthe other candidates other than the two "party approved" ones.

so, Recursion. How far to the right are you willing to go, just to win?

[Recursion]

37. IIRC "Poe wrote on both", incidentally (nt)

[Scootaloo]

41. Wrong!

According to Carrol...

"Because it can produce a few notes, tho they are very flat; and it is nevar (sic) put with the wrong end in front."

Well... what can you expect of a guy guzzling laudanum while fantasizing about a ten year-old girl?

[merrily]

69. According the reasoning of some, the teabagger should have won.

If right is the way to go, why did both Democrat and the non-Teabagger Republican beat the Teabagger?

[joshcryer]

25. It's amusing how the more liberal person loses to the conservative.

And that's proof that the person wasn't liberal enough so the people chose the conservative.

It's pretzel logic at its finest.

[Scootaloo]

42. So the answer is, obviously, to abandon liberal principles and join the right.

[joshcryer]

45. No, just stop trashing the more liberal person.

[Scootaloo]

46. No, your argument is "trash liberalism."

Mary Landrieu - the "More liberal" candidate in a race between two conservatives, lost. Obviously the people of Louisiana (at least those who bothered to show up) didn't find her position appealing.

Well, you also think the notion of dragging that position back towards liberalism is foolish - "pretzel logic" you call it.

The middle doesn't hold, and you've blocked the left - the only direction remaining to us is the right.

[joshcryer]

60. No, she has liberal social positions.

She likes a damn gas pipeline that 85% of the people support.

Therefore she must be trashed.

[aspirant]

140. She fought for the pipeline

So why didn't she get 85% of the vote?

[merrily]

73. So, Landrieu lost because of DU?

[Autumn]

97. It was a waffle merrily. A Belgian waffle with berries and bacon. Nothing could ever beat that

[merrily]

107. That is both funny and very clever.

Because you are. But, I don't get it.

[Autumn]

147. Oops it was supposed to be it not I. Start here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025923345

and here is where we find out that it was a great breakfast and well worthwhile.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025923345#post29

[merrily]

156. Okay, just the change from I to It helps a lot.

But, see how much faith I had?

[joshcryer]

104. Nope.

DU is largely irrelevant.

[merrily]

108. Well, at least we agree on one thing. However, then I must have misunderstood your

reply 45, in the context of its being a reply to Scootaloo's Reply 42. When you said the answer was to stop trashing the more liberal candidate, what did you mean?

[joshcryer]

111. Why didn't people vote?

Because 1) they wanted the more conservative person to win or 2) because the more liberal person wasn't exciting enough for them to go out of their way to vote?

What is the best way to make people lose excitement about candidates they might like? I dunno. Trashing them, no?

[merrily]

112. Where is this alleged "trashing" taking place, though? You said it was not on DU. So who was

trashing Landrieu and where?

BTW, no, I don't think criticizing a candidate (which is what I assume you mean by trashing) is the way to make people lose excitement about someone they like. I give you Obama 2008. Clintonites went at him tooth and nail, including I've gathered, here at DU. Low turnout was not an issue.

Does all the criticism of Hillary make you want to stay home (assuming she runs), or to make double sure that you get to the polls?

IMO, you put way too much on critics and not nearly enough on the candidates themselves.

Everybody criticizes everybody else. Voters look at how their lives change or do not change.

Just could be that low turnout in 2010, which gave us a Republican gerrymandered House, was because people did not perceive that they had gotten enough of the change that they had hoped for out of the Dem wave elections of 2006 and 2008.

[joshcryer]

113. In the mass media.

In the run up to the election it was only about the pipeline for Landrieu and whether she could shore up her base. This is what the media said, not what DU said, not what blogs or social media said, this is what the media said because it knew it would sell.

Obama 2008 is a non-starter, in primaries, candidates go after each other tooth and nail. After the primaries are over party members are supposed to unite. When they didn't in 2008 we saw the PUMA purge, for instance.

I don't put much on critics, so much the media uses critics for form and increase a narrative. It's still in the end the media's spinning things its own convoluted way for profit.

[merrily]

114. So, when you said the answer is "stop trashing the liberal candidate" you meant mass media

Last edited Sun Dec 7, 2014, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

should stop? That's not going to happen. Doesn't that mean that, in your eyes, there is no answer?

BTW, I know one real PUMA, but only from a message board, not RL--and she had been a Republican until Reagan. So, basically, Bubba was the only Dem Prez who had been "hers" anyway.

ETA: Party unity was not relevant. Clintonites trashed Obama throughout the primary and he got great turnout in the primary anyway. But, mass media did not trash him at that point.

[joshcryer]

125. You don't have to give the media the fire.

You don't have to be part of the mass consumer corporate mess of lies and deceit. You don't have to carry water for the right wing.

Again, candidates trashing each other in a primary is completely different from people in the party or involved with the party trashing the party in a general election. Clinton fought tooth and nail for Obama and the PUMA purge happened because Clinton wasn't going to let it tear the party apart. People accused Clinton of trying to do that by keeping the primaries going, but it helped bring a new base into the mix.

[merrily]

127. Let's see: the answer is for mass media to stop trashing the more liberal candidate, but

now, I am somehow fueling the mass media to trash the more liberal candidate?

You don't have to give the media the fire.You don't have to be part of the mass consumer corporate mess of lies and deceit. You don't have to carry water for the right wing.

How am I doing that exactly?

[joshcryer]

129. This is meta discussion for post #45.

I'm not accusing you or anyone of anything.

[merrily]

130. OK, the generic you. The generic I. How is anyone or any group doing that?

[joshcryer]

131. Through disinformation?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/the-worst-voter-turnout-in-72-years.html

6 years of bashing the President, 6 years of bashing Democrats for doing stuff they didn't do, 6 years of bashing Democrats for trying to get things done.

Republicans getting a pass on everything, even if the Democrats reach across the isle for even an tiny bit.

[merrily]

132. Again, where is this alleged lying bashing that allegedly fuels the mass media taking place?

You don't have to give the media the fire.You don't have to be part of the mass consumer corporate mess of lies and deceit. You don't have to carry water for the right wing.

[merrily]

70. No, at its finest, pretzel logic is looking at the record of the Dem Party post DLC and

concluding it should keep going right.

2014, worst election for Democrats since 1928--and, yet, not drastically worse than 2012. But, sure, keep thinking the left is the biggest problem the Dem Party has.

[joshcryer]

103. The party is not going right.

If anything both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are moving further to the left and right respectively, as proven by statistical analysis on their votes: http://voteview.com

Progress is one way.

The problem is not the left, right, middle, or conservatives, it's apathy, and persistent idiocy.

You remind me of another poster who just persistently responded to me and distorted everything I ever said. That poster told me to stop replying to them, and I did. I hope you're not that poster under a different nickname.

[merrily]

109. I simply can't be that rude.

But, since we're throwing around claims of distortion, my post said pretzel logic was looking at the performance of the Democratic Party (esp. in 2010 and 2012) and concluding that the party should keep going right. That is not the same as saying the Party is going right. Nor is a distortion of anything you said. It is a response to what you said that disagrees with what you said.

If you are going to be insulting, I do hope you get better at having your insults hit the mark.

[joshcryer]

126. "keep going right" assumes it had before

It hasn't. Landrieu was no doubt one of the most conservative members of the senate but she was still no where near as conservative as the person who beat her. But It's not like she even represented the party for that matter.

[merrily]

128. The issue was logic, Josh.

My statement was that criticizing the logic is not the same as saying the party is going right. However, I do think the goal of the DLC and the other Dem think tanks was to take the party right; and I think they succeeded. However, I think the left has been making enough noise that it is beginning to be heard again. So, at this very moment, is the party still going right? Maybe not. We'll see.

As far as Landrieu, I haven't said much about her on this thread or any other. She lost. I did less than nothing to cause her loss; and I haven't been dancing on the grave of her campaign.

[merrily]

119. PS I never told you to stop replying to me under another name.

Under my own screen name, I have on maybe two or three occasions, said I was done responding to you on a particular thread because that discussion seemed to me to be going nowhere productive, or going in circles or whatever, but I have never asked you to stop responding to me, even as to one specific thread. As far as I am concerned, whether you respond to me or not is entirely up to you.

As far as persistently responding to you, you are pretty persistent about responding yourself. If you don't want someone to keep responding to you, that is a problem you can solve very easily.

[treestar]

150. Wishful thinking and it occurs on the right too

I have heard from right wingers that Mittens didn't win because he wasn't conservative enough.

[aspirant]

138. How many La's are pro-SS vouchers?

[Recursion]

145. A majority of the ones who showed up preferred a Senate candidate who is (nt)

[aspirant]

148. Was this an issue

hiding under the radar with "I am not Obama" screaming from the rooftops. I wonder if the exit surveys would even ask this question?

[99Forever]

9. Seems there less and less actual Democrats in each election.

And none that can get anything done to stop the coming shitstorm.

[B Calm]

52. Exactly!

[Thinkingabout]

54. Perhaps it should be ask can Cassidy go further roght than Landrieu?

Hell yes he can and has, he is a Ted Cruz far RW TP guy. One does not get Teddy Boy's backing unless they can prove they are capable of being a nut job. Just to remind those opposed to the KXL what Cassidy's stand on KXL may be, he sponsored the bill on the house to olay the KXL. Now when the KXL gets passed all can cheer for pushing for Cassidy to win. It will not be the only issue he which he will never vote your way. Oh, and the Senate is where court confirmations are voted, this will haunt the Democrats in the future.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Are there any Louisianans in this thread?

The Landrieus are a dynasty in Louisiana. The only reason a person with a D after his or her name could win a statewide race in this milieu is because of their family affiliation. If Mary couldn't win I would argue no Democrat could win.

[Thinkingabout]

79. A former louisianan here, the Landrieu family has been deep in politics for years

But perhaps the RW bible belts have taken over. For those who wanted Landrieu to loose because she wanted a vote on KXL will never get Cassidy to vote against KXL or any of their other issues. I am thinking many are going to be forced to take a civics lesson in the next few years to understand why we do not need more Republicans in Congress. If any do not like Roberts and gang in SC it is a good possibility we have to get more in the future.

[fredamae]

58. "What could Landrieu have done to go further right?"

Put on that Colorful, but Oily Suit with all the Corporate Logo's she and her ilk work for?

It's gonna be painful to Flush these "Corporate Gems"........but in the long run, I believe it will be worth it.

[jamzrockz]

74. If you really want to know

Then he could have denounced the ACA as being too pro health insurance companies. He could have picked up liberal and conservative votes just on that. He would be moving right while at the same time appealing to some liberals who are against the ACA.

[madokie]

77. Stick her head a little further in the sand is all I know

I'm sure she would have if her shoulders hadn't gotten in the way

[Autumn]

80. She could have announced she had formally changed her party affiliation to republican.

[Rex]

92. Nothing, she was not going to get the majority white vote.

I don't care how much she tried to 'out republican' the republican, white votes are plummeting in the south for Dems. I just read she is the last Dem in the senate from the south. Looks like hate radio has accomplished it's mission.

IMO, appealing to your blue collar base is far more important than trying to get conservatives to decide to vote for you and not the republican.

[MisterP]

102. babies + tophet = 3-point bump!

Macrobius says they shrivel up real good when you put 'em on the heated bronze statue (though that reasoning didn't help Qadima over in Israel)

oh, anyone read Gaiman's "Babycakes"?

[TheKentuckian]

106. More critically is if there are folks that feel she was too liberal to win what do they advise

she should have been more regressive about? Or are they saying the overall party needs to be more regressive to provide a context that makes candidates like Landrieu more viable with their electorates or are they saying she was to conservative for her voters and they abandoned her or what is it that these folks think was the path to keeping this seat and what could have played out different that would have swung that loss?

All I hear is gnashing of teeth about "purists" and "the left" both unsubstantiated and disconnected from what the cause, nature, and what would be different completely parts of the problem are.

Just rudderless blame, petulant whining, and contrived outrage to match a steady but nonsensical and unsupported fabrication that blames the ills of the world on the hated "left" every time one of their corporate owned hacks shits their own britches because the dumbass strategy to draw independents and "moderate Republicans" is bullshit and they won't admit it.

[B Calm]

110. If she wanted to be a republican, she should had run under the republican ticket.

She gave the democratic base in her state a reason to stay home on election day.

[Vinca]

118. Bingo! You're exactly right.

[treestar]

151. She is pro-choice, etc

She could not be a Republican.

[B Calm]

155. Are you honestly saying there are not any pro choice republicans?

[Zorra]

120. Sponsor a Constitutional Amendment to privatize the federal government!

[Savannahmann]

124. Well, she could have avoided insulting the voters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025739866

She could have listed the concerns of her constituents and then talked about how she was trying to address those issues and what she saw for the future. Instead, she listed the concerns of the voters in the state, and then insulted them by saying they were nothing but racists and sexists.

So the lesson here is not what issues matter, Senator Landrieu had those pretty well identified. The trick is to keep from insulting those who you ask to vote for you. You see, you need their votes to win the election, and if you've got the issues that the people care about pegged, you actually have to do something to address those issues. You don't call those same voters a bunch of racists and sexists and then say you're confident they'll vote for you in the end. Because they won't.

Landrieu provided this election cycle's real rape soundbite. It's past time we acknowledged that.

[merrily]

133. If only politicians could rid the nation of the accursed scourge of voters, all would be great.

I hate the smell of democracy in the morning.

[AgingAmerican]

135. She could have burned piles of used tires at her campaign rallies

That would get her more Republican votes.

[on point]

139. Too far right already. No reason for dems to vote for her

[L0oniX]

141. I'll buy a "Clean coal"-burning truck when the clean coal revolution begins.

[Aerows]

143. The only people mourning her loss in the Senate

are the people that don't have to put up with her and thought she was a slam-dunk Democratic vote. Any Democrat that has been a constituent of hers (thank God, I no longer am, but I have been before) eyes her alternately like a feral hound (never know when it is going to bite you) or a garbage dump that stands with you - right now. It stands with you, but it sure does leave a stench.

[doc03]

144. How about shooting a target with you know who's picture on it n/t

[neverforget]

152. The conservative Democrat lost to the conservative Republican.

If she had run as a liberal Democrat, would she have won? I don't know. She was way down in the polls leading up to the runoff so I don't see that running with more liberal positions would have hurt her. She had nothing to lose so why not?

[TheNutcracker]

154. Now we can get a candidate who will not sell out to Big Oil

[brooklynite]

158. ...who will become a Senator who "will not sell out to Big Oil"?

You can get that progressive elected in Louisiana? Please enlighten us.

[Freddie Stubbs]

157. No Democrat would have won in Louisiana this year

[brooklynite]

159. Well Manny, I guess she could have given up her pro gun-control stance...

...and her pro-choice stance...

...and her pro-ACA stance...

...and her pro gay rights stance...

...and her support of repealing the Bush tax cuts for the top income groups...

...and her support for President Obama's Supreme Court nominees.

But yes, besides those, she's a cookie cutter image of her Republican replacement.

[True Blue Door]

165. Go big in the opposite direction. All it takes is one victory to re-emerge the left in the South.