And now, the Senate. Which Democrats actually won and lost?

[Recursion]

In my similar thread on the House, a DUer rightly pointed out that the Senate was more on people's minds because the GOP keeping the House was a foregone conclusion. Fair enough. So.

Here were our incumbents who lost in the Senate:

Begich (AK)
Pryor (AR)
Udall (CO)
Landrieu (LA)
Hagan (NC)

By my count that's three liberals (Begich, Udall, Hagan) and two conservatives (Pryor, Landrieu) who lost.

EDIT: I misread Hagan's DREAM vote, she was against it. So I'll knock her down to "moderate". That's two conservatives, two liberals, and one moderate who lost.

Here are the candidates from open seats that were also GOP pick-ups:

Braley (IA) liberal ("populist", even)
Curtis (MT) liberal
Weiland (SD) liberal -- ran on Medicare for all
Tenant (WV) probably best called a moderate, though strongly pro-choice and a favorite of Emily's List

So, in the Senate, we had three liberals lose their seats as opposed to two conservatives. And in the open seat races, we had three liberals run, including someone running on Medicare for All, which allegedly would save the national party, and lose, along with a moderate.

EDIT: to be clear, my argument here is weaker than it is for the House. The Senate doesn't seem to have had many clear liberals (though I still put Udall there) failing to hold seats, as happened in the House.

[mmonk]

1. Hagan a liberal? Thanks for letting this NC'er know.

[Recursion]

2. Sorry, I misread her DREAM vote.

So, she is for background checks for gun purchases, for ACA, pro-choice, anti-DREAM (I had thought "pro&quot , and pro-marriage equality. If you'd rather I put her at "moderate" I'll do that.

[mmonk]

5. She is pro-choice, marriage equality, and luke warm

on the ACA but a proud Third Way Democrat.

[W_HAMILTON]

3. I would be interested in finding out what your definition of "liberal" is.

Because under my definition, none of those that lost are "liberal" -- in fact, they are some of the most conservative Democrats our party has -- well, had -- to offer.

[Recursion]

4. Udall? Begich?

I copped to misreading Hagan's DREAM vote (I don't know much about her), but Udall and Begich?

Begich is pro-choice, favors cap-and-trade, considers climate change a serious problem, supports marriage equality, supports raising the Federal minimum wage, wants to repeal the PATRIOT act, and supports legalization of cannabis.

Udall is (was) the strongest opponent of NSA surveillance in the Senate, supports legalization of cannabis, supported EFCA, and against fracking.

Yeah, I'd say they're liberals.

[W_HAMILTON]

7. Begich was one of the few Democrats that thwarted gun-control legislation after Newtown.

Hell, even Manchin was for it.

You have an odd way of classifying liberals. Using your method, virtually everyone in the Democratic caucus would be considered a liberal.

Regardless of your method, even if you classify all these electoral losers as "liberals," fact is they were some of the least "liberal" Senators we had.

[Recursion]

9. Well Begich sure as hell didn't lose Alaska over being too anti-gun-control (nt)

[W_HAMILTON]

15. No, but he sure as hell didn't win because of it, either.

And that's the point that people were making that you were trying to discredit.

[joshcryer]

21. Udall is associated with the Third Way.

So he automatically gets tagged a neoconservative fascist monster.

Even though his record is clear and he's one of the more liberal senators (same ranking as Elizabeth Warren).

[sabrina 1]

22. Thanks, I've been scratching my head too wondering what the definition of 'liberal' is. I suppose

that too has moved to the right so we shouldn't be surprised.

The struggle to justify the Dem Party's shift to the Right and BLAME THE VOTERS is puzzling. There is no question that the party has moved to the Right. They are PROUD of it as far as I know.

But to list some of these people as liberals, because they support the few issues that they need to support in order to pass as Democrats at all, as Liberals is a stretch.

[Blue_In_AK]

25. Begich is pretty liberal on most social issues,

but conservative on economics, especially if it involves oil, and with Alaska being Alaska, he has to support gun rights. Even though he's moderate, not liberal, we were much better off with him in the Senate than Ohio Dan Sullivan. The Kochs bought the Alaska election, and now we hear that they've set up shop here, with AFP having weekly meetings. It's disgusting.

[merrily]

28. It seems to be mostly about the so-called "cultural" issues.

Medicare for all would be a huge exception to that, though.

But, you have to analyze each election. For instance, did Adlai Stevenson lose to Eisenhower twice because Stevenson was a liberal, or because Eisenhower was a World War II hero and Stevenson was not perceived as a charismatic personality?

What if the Party had decided to go Third Way because Stevenson lost twice? No JFK, RFK, LBJ, at least not as they behaved then.

[wyldwolf]

6. you're approaching this the wrong way

Better to break wins/losses down by state/district and ask how many liberal/moderate Dems lost in red areas. Our losses occurred in red states so the better approach is would we have even held those seats if liberals had originally run in those races.

What this election showed is the further partisan breakdown of the American electorate.

[mmonk]

10. Running alternatives to right wing messaging

will yield the best results, even in the red states. Far right voters with blinders on will vote the Republican candidate. Democrats should concentrate on Democrats and independents.

[wyldwolf]

14. you say that as if it's true

Like libertarians, 'progressives' base their entire electorate strategy on hypotheticals. There are no real world examples of 'progressives' winning in red areas.

[mmonk]

16. Sure there is, at least in my state which is now

gerrymandered rightwing.

[wyldwolf]

17. If your state is now gerrymandered rightwing, it is no longer a blue area

Has a 'progressive' won there SINCE it was gerrymandered rightwing? If so, who and when?

[sabrina 1]

23. Are there any real world Progressives being supported by the Dem Party running in those states

at all? All I remember from the past decade or so is being told 'it's not possible' so let's not even try.

We can't win if we don't try and it looks like the right leaning Dems are losing anyhow, so why not go for broke and FIGHT. Which means talking to the people about the issues that we know are popular across the board, seek out NON Voters who clearly need to be identified and given a reason to vote.

[wyldwolf]

46. That's a loaded question

1. Are there any real world Progressives being supported by the Dem Party running in those states

That's not an easy question to answer because 'progressives' themselves don't agree on the terms of the question. There is one faction screaming for the return of Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy that supposedly worked. So apparently the Dem party must have supported some. On the other hand, there are those who question whether the Dem party has ever supported 'progressives' in red states at all. The answer to that is yes - if they do what it takes to win the race's nomination.

We can't win if we don't try and it looks like the right leaning Dems are losing anyhow, so why not go for broke and FIGHT.

SOME centrist dems are losing. Some aren't. There are are no 'progressive' dems in red areas - there were none to lose. Why aren't there any in red areas? Are they running? Raising money? Organizing? I'm active in Georgia and see very little of that from 'progressives.' The do like so stand on the sidelines and take pot shots at those who are running, though.

Which means talking to the people about the issues that we know are popular across the board, seek out NON Voters who clearly need to be identified and given a reason to vote.

This distinction people in the netroots try to draw isn't grounded in reality. Most red state dems support issues like reproductive rights, civil rights, economic improvements for the middle and lower classes, etc. What they're NOT doing is using language that either scares voters or has been proven not to interest voters. Sorry, the average voter in Georgia isn't interested in hearing about 'corporatist fascist CEOS' and 'whores for the media.' 'Progressives' LOSE votes by acting like angry revolutionists. Environmental issues don't resonate well in red states, either. You're asking people in economically depressed areas to chose actions won't reap benefits for years over jobs to feed their families right here and now.

[sabrina 1]

47. I'm not associated with the 'netroots' so don't know what you are talking about. Never

was, never liked the people who set it up.

There is no problem identifying actual Democrats. You do it by the issues they support.

Not sure why you think that is so hard.

Why are there no Progressive Dems in those states? Because the Third Way leadership makes sure they don't win even if they do run. We've seen it numerous times, even if it means their Corporate Third Way candidates end up losing.

You really don't like the 'left' do you?

That last paragraph is a picture perfect plethora of Third Way attacks on the Left. Of course it's hard to distinguish right wing attacks on the left from Third Way attacks on the left, but there is a distinction. I was privy to one of their 'discussions' once about how to denigrate the left wing of the Dem Party. And there it is, all in one paragraph. I guess you agree with Third Way Rahm, that our ideas are 'retarded'.

We on the Left were wrong to go along with their hair brained ideas for so long.

And now that the left has finally come to its senses, it isn't going to hold its nose anymore. So without the Left on board, what are they going to do? Hope for their preferred 'moderate' Republican votes? That didn't work so well in the past few elections did it?

I KNOW they would like to get rid of the Left out of the party altogether, but they need the votes. Voters will only take abuse from politicians for so long and then they rebel. But the Left isn't going anywhere, it is our party and now we have to try to undo the damage done by these geniuses who think they can attack the base of the party and still expect them to go along with their failed ideas.

Think tanks don't make good leaders of political parties.

[wyldwolf]

48. You've gotten way off track in your reply

There is no problem identifying actual Democrats. You do it by the issues they support. Not sure why you think that is so hard.

Why do you think I find that hard? Just what makes people like Mark Warner, a centrist Dem, NOT a Democrat? Where do you get your criteria?

DU's The Magistrate said it best. Accepting that there is an imperfect fit between the Democratic Party and the furthest aims of left and progressive people, several things must be acknowledged.

First, it has to be acknowledged that left and progressive people really do not have solid ground to proclaim they and only they are true Democrats, or are the real base of the Democratic Party, and that people who are left of center or center-left or even centrists are not really Democrats.

Second, left and progressive people need to consider whether the tactic of attacking people who are perhaps a bit to the right of them, though generally well to the left of a national average, or of the average in the locale where they reside, as rightists who do not belong in the Democratic Party, is likely to expand and increase their influence in the Democratic Party, and advance the prospects of actually getting laws and regulations they would like to see adopted come to pass.

There is a perennial brouha here about what constitutes a "real Democrat", most of which is conducted along lines that bear very little relation with the actual states and history of the Democratic Party. What is repudiated at the polls by the overwhelming preponderance of Democratic voters cannot be the real face of the Democratic Party. It really is that simple.

Why are there no Progressive Dems in those states? Because the Third Way leadership makes sure they don't win even if they do run. We've seen it numerous times, even if it means their Corporate Third Way candidates end up losing.

And here I thought you were going to have a fact-based discussion.

[sabrina 1]

50. People who support and vote for right wing policies, such as cutting SS benefits eg, are simply

not entitled to be called Democrats.

If we wanted right wing policies we would be Republicans. THEY want to cut SS and forever war, and to privatize all social programs AND the public schools. They have their own party, we don't need two Republican parties.

That is why I am a Democrat rather than a Republican.

And THIS is not only ironic, it made me laugh out loud:

Second, left and progressive people need to consider whether the tactic of attacking people etc etc ...

And then THIS:

And here I thought you were going to have a fact-based discussion.

I take it btw, since you refer to 'left and progressive people' as a group you do not belong to, that you yourself are not left or progressive?

[wyldwolf]

51. Says who?

People who support and vote for right wing policies, such as cutting SS benefits eg, are simply not entitled to be called Democrats.

Says who? Where is this secret policy manual that has the litmus tests Democrats must pass?

If we wanted right wing policies we would be Republicans. THEY want to cut SS and forever war, and to privatize all social programs AND the public schools. They have their own party, we don't need two Republican parties.

Don't know any Democrats for these things.

And THIS is not only ironic, it made me laugh out loud:

Second, left and progressive people need to consider whether the tactic of attacking people etc etc ...

And then THIS:

And here I thought you were going to have a fact-based discussion.


What facts have you state in your rebuttals? You've repeated 'progressive' memes, that is all. I'm especially curious about that "third way won't let progressives win" charge you made. But I won't hold my breath. You'll never show the secret documents you're obviously privy to.

I take it btw, since you refer to 'left and progressive people' as a group you do not belong to, that you yourself are not left or progressive?

I am progressive, not a "progressive"

[Rex]

8. We are losing the white vote in the South.

Hate radio seems to have won out over facts and real issues.

[madville]

20. In the short term

Things like immigration will drive more White independents into the arms of Republicans in the short term, but demographically over the next few decades we will see the White voting block's power continue to diminish.

[99Forever]

11. Blue Team or Red Team.

If that's all you care about, perhaps football is more your style.

I care about issues and real people, not which jersey they wear.

[Recursion]

12. You have to win first before your issues can go anywhere

It's not enough to be right, and it never has been.

[99Forever]

13. Well we all see where your type of thinking has gotten us, don't we?

And you wonder how come the Democrats keep getting their asses handed to them. When you stand for nothing, you'll get exactly that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. Yes - it won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.

Democrats controlled the Sentate and Congress for a good chunk, but not all, of that time, too.

So your premise is false, never mind your conclusion.

[99Forever]

54. Because that's ALL that's important, right?

Winning the presidency. What's happened to working people in this nation means nothing.

Your priorities suck.

[sabrina 1]

26. Well we've heard that for over a decade now, and apparently it isn't working. So how about

a change of tactics? Even in sports when a team is losing they bring in a new coach or something. Because the ones we have are not doing to well. Maybe it's time to change the leadership and get some fresh thinkers in there rather than the same old 'we have WIN, and our only way of winning to be something we are not'. Maybe voters prefer a Real Republican over Republican lite? Maybe they might prefer an honest working class Dem who is proud to be a Dem proud of what the Party did for the working class when it was the party of the working class.

Too many think tanks and stratigists issuing proclamations, most of which seem to be wrong, rather than real people who know what they are talking about because they are in touch with real people.

[merrily]

30. You have to stand for something besides "I want re-election" before you can win.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Kay Hagen is an co chair of Third Way and was one of the last elected Democrats to support marriage

equality. Her support was grudging at best and very recent.

[Zorra]

38. Truth and facts don't matter. Moving the Democratic party as far to the right as possible

is the goal, and for conservatives, the ends always justify the means.

[sadoldgirl]

19. As far as Udall is concerned

you are dead wrong. He is an honorary member of the third way.

I have never seen such a lousy campaign in this state before.

Don't blame the voters if they reacted to it, and don't try to make

out that Udall is a liberal.

[fredamae]

29. New Dem Coalition/DLC/Third Way

New Third Way Members:
http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/new-dem-of-the-week
General Membership:
http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/membership
Third Way Think Tank:
http://www.thirdway.org/about
Sounds about as "pure" as ALEC.
DLC:
http://dlc.org/ndol_ka9951.html?kaid=86
NDN
http://www.ndn.org/

[merrily]

31. Progressive Policy Institute (offshoot of DLC) and Center for American Progress, too.

[fredamae]

34. Thanks-I did not know that n/t

[merrily]

35. Will Marshall started PPI. He and Al From were the first two full time employees

of the DLC. While head of PPI, Marshall signed the 2003 PNAC letter. Clintonite Podesta started Center for American Progress.

[fredamae]

39. Yeah-just looking

it up-It was founded in 1989....

After many Dems jumped on the Reaganomics Train in the 1980's and after regans reign ended .....I guess they felt they needed to go Further Right. And man have "we" been steamrolled ever since. They got the smell of "easy" money (stealing ours) and they were hooked.
I remember many good folks trying to warn the masses and they were Destroyed by them and their corporate media-just like they are today IF they can get on MSM!
Me? I was a single mom, working two jobs trying like Hell to survive the "ronnie regan" years...
I didn't have time for "politics" then.
I know that is at least part of the problem in trying to get people educated about what's going on......

[merrily]

41. DLC 1985; PPI, 1989.

But, the Democratic Party always had its conservative wing, dating all the way back to when Stephen Douglas ran against Lincoln. And the conservative wing always struggled for power within the Party.

If you look at the DLC website, most of the founding members of the DLC were Southerners with Presidential aspirations, Lieberman being the stand out exception. He had Presidential aspirations, too, but, of course, he was not a Southerner.

People still don't have time for politics. Many are working two and three jobs.

And, if they did spend time trying to find out about politics, they'd find the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth hard to come by. Certainly, media doesn't tell them. All Democrats are most often referred to as liberals. You don't hear a whole lot about there being more than one kind of Democrat. I didn't know a thing about it myself until I started reading on leftist message boards.

[fredamae]

42. The Political Learning Curve is a B!tch!

"And the conservative wing always struggled for power within the Party."

My, how things have changed. ^^^

You're right-even if folks had time for "news" that's something else that is long ago gone....and many, many people still haven't realized it. My husband is just now accepting that reality and finally responding by turning MSM off. He's still struggling with NPR "goin' south", however.


I still learn new stuff and new perspectives everyday....and probably always will.
Thank you.

[merrily]

43. On the bright side, learning new stuff every day is better than

not learning new stuff.

I know a woman, a lifelong Democrat, who was graduated from Barnard/Columbia University as a history major, top 3 in her class--and she still wants to know where in the top 3 she placed, LOL. Reads the NYT and the Asbury Park Press (pretty good paper) every day, watches news on TV, etc. So, very bright and at least reasonably well-informed.

She still had no idea about the DLC, etc. until I told her. All she knew before that was that she was fed up with both Republicans and Democrats.

Thank you as well. Enjoy your evening.

[fredamae]

44. Enjoy your evening as well :) n/t

[merrily]

37. Forgot: No Labels. Started (supposedly) by a Bushite and flocked to by Clintonites.

No traditional Democratic or liberal type think tanks at all. And, while the House has a (shrinking) Progressive Caucus, as well as a New Democrat Caucus, the Senate has only a New Democrat Caucus. (Sanders still belongs to the House Progressive Caucus from when he was a member of the House.)

[JI7]

45. so that's why even though he is one of the biggest critics of the NSA

liberals couldn't vote for him

[LWolf]

24. Why not include

our incumbents that won?

My incumbent senator, definitely liberal, WON.

[merrily]

32. So did mine, but that will be attributed solely to my being in Massachusetts.

(As if Massachusetts didn't elect Governor Romney, Governor Elect Baker and Senator Scott Brown, to name just a few).

There will always be a reason why the liberal victory should be discounted and a liberal loss should prove the need to go right.

I don't even know how many of the losses that are being attributed to liberals were actually liberals anyway.

[LWolf]

33. Yes.

[fredamae]

27. Blue Dogs in Congress are

losing big time over the last two elections.
I wonder if that explains my blue dog rep suddenly voting With the Dems instead of the GOP?
The only reason he "won", imo-was because nearly every vote For him, in reality-was simply a vote against the crazed tea bagger running against him. And I called and told him so.
They've been whittled down to a mere 12-15 or so seats from a once strong 40 or so in pre-election 2010.

[rhett o rick]

36. What are you trying to insinuate?? nm

[DanTex]

49. Not sure about calling those three "liberals".

The actual liberal incumbents all won. But really that has nothing to do with the wisdom of running liberals versus moderates/conservatives. It's because the liberals come from safe blue states, whereas the five that lost were from purple or red states.

And the fact that someone lost in South Dakota running on medicare for all is also pretty meaningless. It's South Dakota, and I'm assuming the Dem establishment didn't put much effort or money into that race.

Sure, run conservative Dems in red states, I have no problem with that. A win by a conservative Dem is much better than a loss. But that doesn't mean we should drive the whole party to the right just to cater to red state voters that probably aren't going to vote for Dems anyway.

[Recursion]

52. You're right, compared to the House, my argument is weaker here

And my view of elections and politics probably is influenced by having worked on the House side but not the Senate side.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Your argument here is not 'weaker' it is mendaciously phrased and excludes liberal Democrats who won

you count co-chairs of Third Way who opposed marriage equality until the last as liberals. That's truly dishonest. Here is the Third Way's description of Third Way:
"We believe that America is best led from the center. ....That conviction makes us highly allergic to the orthodoxies of both the left and right.....That means we are passionately moderate on economic, energy, and education issues, unabashedly forward-thinking on social policy, avowedly internationalist on national security."
http://www.thirdway.org/about

Moderate, centrist. According to them. But you say she's a liberal while excluding Jeff Merkley from your victory list.
Spin like a top.