HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Weiland ran on Medicare F...

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 02:57 PM

Weiland ran on Medicare For All. He lost 50-29.

How do you go to the DSCC with that result and say this is what the party needs more of?

48 replies, 2531 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply Weiland ran on Medicare For All. He lost 50-29. (Original post)
Recursion Dec 2014 OP
Indydem Dec 2014 #1
pnwmom Dec 2014 #2
polichick Dec 2014 #4
Zorra Dec 2014 #21
polichick Dec 2014 #31
Jesus Malverde Dec 2014 #32
Recursion Dec 2014 #6
Bluenorthwest Dec 2014 #15
Rex Dec 2014 #18
sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #23
TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #25
LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #48
Recursion Dec 2014 #33
unrepentant progress Dec 2014 #3
tkmorris Dec 2014 #5
Recursion Dec 2014 #7
tkmorris Dec 2014 #14
jwirr Dec 2014 #8
tkmorris Dec 2014 #12
jwirr Dec 2014 #13
LiberalFighter Dec 2014 #29
brooklynite Dec 2014 #41
jwirr Dec 2014 #43
treestar Dec 2014 #36
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #9
frazzled Dec 2014 #24
DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2014 #10
BootinUp Dec 2014 #11
Rex Dec 2014 #16
JoePhilly Dec 2014 #26
JI7 Dec 2014 #30
Recursion Dec 2014 #34
Scuba Dec 2014 #39
Ykcutnek Dec 2014 #17
Bluenorthwest Dec 2014 #19
LWolf Dec 2014 #22
Recursion Dec 2014 #35
sadoldgirl Dec 2014 #20
on point Dec 2014 #27
JoePhilly Dec 2014 #28
neverforget Dec 2014 #37
alp227 Dec 2014 #38
B Calm Dec 2014 #40
mmonk Dec 2014 #42
Cha Dec 2014 #44
Autumn Dec 2014 #45
liberalhistorian Dec 2014 #46
LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #47

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:00 PM

1. There is a serious conflict brewing

 

Democrats are going to have to decide whether to embrace or purge the "progressives" in the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:02 PM

2. Progressives have to decide whether they're going to desert the party

and let the Rethugs take over, or compromise in ways that they're not happy with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:05 PM

4. The party has deserted the people by allowing "Rethugs" to take it over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 04:37 PM

21. And day after day, we have an element that is desperately imploring us to move further

to the right as the only way to win more elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 06:49 PM

31. We're at an interesting place. The Third Way has almost nothing to do with...

traditional Democratic policies - it's simply a takeover of the party.

Liberals have to decide what to do next. Many, like me, are no longer affiliated with the party but still vote for Dems as the lesser of evils. This is becoming more and more sickening to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 06:51 PM

32. Not much diversity with that bunch...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:08 PM

6. Or, I don't know, get more people to the polls on off-years (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 04:06 PM

15. Gee which States had the best turnout? Golly, it's all those dang liberal States like Oregon with

 

70%. Funny how that works. And frankly the folks who do no ground work then natter about turnout are hypocrites. But I'm sure you walked your precinct. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 04:09 PM

18. That would be hard to do in India. nt.

 

nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 05:15 PM

23. Now you hit the nail on the head. Maybe if you stopped trying to justify the wrong direction

this party has chosen to take, iow 'go to the right of center and win' which has clearly failed, (we won in 2008 because young voters and Independents heard a PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE and responded to it, then heard all the excuses 'blue dogs' whatever, and stayed home in 2010) maybe if instead you were to advocate 'Give the voters something to vote FOR' and of course, MEAN IT, it would be possible to get those non voters out again.

Why do so many people not vote? Why was the turnout so great in 2008? Those are the questions you should be asking yourself, instead of wasting so much time trying to justify failed tactics.

40% of registered voters are now Independents. Dems cannot demand their votes, they have to give them something to vote for. That happened in 2008, at least during the campaigns. And then the promises were not kept and all they heard were excuses.

I'm for Dems running as Dems because Dem policies are so popular.

If you want to keep pushing the old Third Way tactic of 'running to the right' then expect to keep failing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 05:51 PM

25. Good luck with that approach, we've already passed my acceptability line. Keep going and it is you

who dictate the TeaPubliKlans take over win or lose and more likely in losses. Who the hell is going to vote for these "compromise" candidates?

I assert that you don't even know what the word means or are willfully misusing it for framing purposes. The one you seem to be seeking is capitulate and to do so utterly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 12:27 PM

48. Conservadems have already abandoned the party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 08:05 PM

33. No, nobody needs to be "purged". We have excellent progressive politicians in states they can win

But their message isn't the message that's going to win over voters in many of the states and districts we need to win next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:04 PM

3. Other people see things...

Other people see things and say why? But I dream things that never were and I say, why not?
-- JFK, 1963, paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw

Other people see things, and say why? But I see things, and say, what the fuck, I've got mine.
-- Democrats, 2014

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:08 PM

5. Sure, but can you really say that's WHY he lost?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:11 PM

7. No, but it's not a good place to start a pitch from

The two scalps we got were in the House, and were from two Democrats who were visibly and loudly distancing themselves from the President and the national party as much as possible. That's what the party is going to listen to, and it's not hard to see why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 04:01 PM

14. Meh, politics is cyclical

By 2016 you will see candidates tying themselves ever closer to Obama, and Repubs running as far away from the teabagger contingent as they can. It doesn't mean much.

Landrieu just got smoked in her runoff. I don't think she was running on the President's coattails, or espousing a Liberal philosophy. So what do we take from that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:41 PM

8. Yes, that big a lose cannot be blamed on one thing. First of all what state are we talking about and

what other problems did he have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:57 PM

12. South Dakota

Furthermore, the Dem leadership did very little to help him. They let that race die on the vine. http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-weiland-dscc-south-dakota-senate-race-2014-10

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 04:00 PM

13. And there is the problem. We need to go back to Howard Dean's 50 state plan, especially in off years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 06:12 PM

29. Exactly! When a candidate receives little or no help it makes it more difficult to win.

Putting the blame on that one issue is ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 08:24 AM

41. Actually, no they didn't...

...there was an effort to support him (he called me in September) when it looked as though the vote might get chopped up by several Independent candidates.

That said, once again, people are completely mis-remembering what the 50-State strategy was. It had nothing to do with candidate support, focused exclusively on State Party building, and ended primarily with the blue dog candidates everyone claims to hate getting elected in Red states in 2006 and 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 11:21 AM

43. Okay. That explains a lot. I listened to Big Ed talk about that race and like the three party race

this one worked against us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 11:35 PM

36. No. But if he supports that, he is a TRUE progressive

So he should have won. According to the theory that we'd win if we only ran true progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:42 PM

9. It was South Dakota! Reddest of the red states.

 

I know. I spent years there. I still vote there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 05:34 PM

24. Yes, but they've elected Democratic senators for decades

Let's take a look: George McGovern (1963-1981), Tom Daschle (1987-2005), Tim Johnson (1997-2015).

I don't know what caused Weiland to lose so badly. It may have been his politics; it may have been his personality; it may have been the presence of former (very moderate) Republican senator Larry Pressler, who took 17% of the vote without even spending a thin dime (though even with that 17%, Weiland would still have lost to Rounds). (Also, the DSCC famously did not throw much help to Weiland: but he was really down the whole time, so I'm not 100% sure I should blame them.) It was a Republican year.

But that doesn't mean the right Democrat can't win in South Dakota. Next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:46 PM

10. Medicare is a truly great program though it does have some flaws./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:51 PM

11. Step 1: Get into the DU/netroots bubble

Step 2: Easy as pie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 04:07 PM

16. So how do Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Elizabeth Warren and Tom Harkin keep getting elected?

 

Just keep trying to appeal to republicans and losing, I guess that is what people here want? Sure doesn't seem like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 05:55 PM

26. Because every state is different?

Na, can't be that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 06:28 PM

30. Feingold lost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 08:07 PM

34. Feingold lost, and Warren has been elected once

Boxer is in one of the most liberal states in the country, and Harkin had been there for a thousand years -- the populist liberal who attempted to replace him just got beaten pretty badly too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 08:14 AM

39. Feingold won three times, lost once (in the teabagger wave of 2010). In 2012 ...

 

... Wisconsin elected Tammy Baldwin who the right smeared as a "Madison liberal lesbian".

That's four liberal wins vs one teabilly win in a "purple" state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 04:08 PM

17. Because we've ran away from that principle for so long it's now considered fringe.

 

Time for every single Democratic candidate in this country to carry the Medicare For All banner and hit the media circuit until it's ingrained in the American psyche as much as the "low taxes good" mantra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 04:18 PM

19. Personally I go to the DSCC with Jeff Merkley's victory with a 20% margin.

 

But then again, I'm proud of what we did here and I'm not shopping the country for facts to create some narrative about how bad liberals are.
Did you knock on any doors? Of course not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 05:03 PM

22. Yep. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 08:09 PM

35. This cycle? You obviously know I didn't, which is kind of a cheap shot. Though I did phone bank.

I have all the previous ones, though.

I'm proud of what we did here and I'm not shopping the country for facts to create some narrative about how bad liberals are.

You guys did great, but I'm not worried about keeping Oregon, I'm worried about getting the Dakotas back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 04:20 PM

20. We can of course change to

the right. In that case, however, let's be honest and call

it the DINO party. There, problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 05:56 PM

27. By telling them to make the case on a national 50 state basis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 05:56 PM

28. Different states are different.

Should be obvious.

Some don't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 11:44 PM

37. he obviously should have run on a conservative Democrat platform

because I'm sure the Republicans would vote for the conservative Democrat over the conservative Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 11:51 PM

38. You left out the ~20% in SD who voted for Pressler (the ex Republican now independent)

Had Pressler NOT run, imagine how many more voters would go for Weiland!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 08:18 AM

40. More right-wing dribble. . drip drip drip drip. . .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 08:30 AM

42. I can't think of a better reason not to do the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 11:28 AM

44. the voters would rather give Billionaires a better life than have a better life themselves.. you

can't reason with stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 12:17 PM

45. Ho about that pesky fact that Reid didn't want or support him and in fact said

" Weiland "wasn't my choice" in South Dakota" and had all but conceded the race last year and Weiland accused the group of intentionally sabotaging his operation to help the Independent in the race. Do you think the party needs more of that?


http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-weiland-dscc-south-dakota-senate-race-2014-10

Now I'm gonna follow old Harry's example and say that Hillary isn't my choice and I'm gonna vote my conscience and I'm gonna support the Independent, Bernie.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/219278-reid-daschle-feud-erupts

I well remember how here in CO we had a wonderful progressive Andrew Romanoff running against a blue dog Dino Michael Bennet . I worked my ass off for Andrew, Obama came here and campaigned for Bennet. Bennet rode to victory on Obama coat tails. Of course the first thing Bennet did was vote against a bill Obama wanted. I laughed my ass off on that one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 12:23 PM

46. You are not grasping the context

of his loss. I live here in South Dakota, and can tell you what happened.

First, this is, after all, South Dakota, where republicans almost always win just for having an R next to their name. A republican could kill and eat a baby on live tv and still be elected because he's, well, a republican. Seriously. They have such a tight grip on this state, including the legislature, that I'm not sure anything will ever change that, not even being named one of the top most corrupt states in the country. People bitch and moan about it, but they'll find a way to blame the completely powerless Dems, who are barely alive as a party in this state, and keep pulling the lever for repubs no matter what.

Second, we had the factor of former Senator Larry Pressler being an independent candidate and sucking a lot of potential Weiland voters into his orbit. Rounds, the republican former governor, was so bad and corrupt and deeply into the EB-5 scandal that was a major part of the race (and is a big deal in this state) that several of the state's major newspapers took the unprecedented step of endorsing Pressler instead of Rounds, which had almost never happened before. Rounds actually did pretty badly for a republican in this state, he and his people and analysts and pundits had been expecting the usual republican blowout in these types of races, but he barely cleared fifty percent. And that's only because the RNC and worried PACS began pouring millions of dollars into his campaign a few weeks before the election. Had Pressler not been in the race, Weiland would have done far better. He still may not have actually won, but the percentages would have been far closer.

Third, you have the idiocy of the state Democratic party leadership, which, in the past four years, has lost two of the three federal offices (we only have one congressional rep for the whole state, which is bullshit if you ask me and many others, but that's a whole other can of worms for another thread) that we had and will continue to lose what precious little we do have in the legislature (we have no statewide offices) if they don't pull their heads out of their asses. Instead of proposing a real vision of what WE would do and how, which is what people would respond to, they spend ALL of their time on how bad and corrupt the republicans are. Well, yes, that's true, but you've got to also give people a reason to vote FOR you and not just be AGAINST everything all the time. Plus (and here's the big thing) they have GOT to get realistic and recognize that this is NOT a progressive-oriented state.

One of the reasons we've lost especially badly over the past four years is their refusal to recognize that. They rebuffed Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for running again and then running for the senate seat (and she's the only Dem who could have had a chance, frankly) because she wasn't "progressive or liberal" enough. Except that this state will NOT NOT NOT vote for the kind of liberal progressive they're insisting on. It just won't. It's like expecting Alabama to vote in Martin Luther King, Jr., as governor. Ain't gonna happen. They really need to pull their heads out of their asses on that one.

And, fourth and finally, Weiland had NO name recognition here, in a state where that is very important.

So there are all kinds of other factors that went into his loss other than just his campaigning on Medicare for all. And this state is even more hypocritical than usual when it comes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, because economically we, as a state, rely very heavily on those especially in rural areas where they're the main source of medical payment and income sustenance. Yet they keep voting in idiots (and all three of our reps are now teanutter idiots, sadly) who enjoy their own lavish benefits while doing their best to take such benefits away from their state and away from the very people who pay those benefits. And yet idiots keep voting for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Dec 8, 2014, 12:26 PM

47. I admire your work to make Democrats more like Republicans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread