The Deadly Liberal Delusion

[murielm99]

I don't always agree with Steve and Cokie Robertson, but I agree with this article. It is a topic that has been much discussed on DU, and illustrates just how much we need unity right now. We need to keep senators and representatives who are from red areas, even when they do not vote with us all the time. They may be moderate or conservative, but they are part of our caucus, and vote with us, as Manchin does, 75% of the time. We need every Democrat we can get:

"Does anybody here remember Blanche Lincoln? She was a two-term senator from Arkansas, a moderate Democrat who prospered in a red state by defying liberal power-brokers like big labor.

Th unions an the ultra-left pressure groups went after her big-time in 2010, backing a primary challenge by Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. She survived the primary - barely - but suffered mortal wounds in the process, and lost badly to Republican John Boozman.

We thought of Lincoln as the purist wing of the Democratic Party re-emerged this spring and threatened to run primary opponents next year against senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Their sin: daring to support nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch."

journalstandard.com steve and cokie roberts

[murielm99]

1. This link works:

http://www.newstrib.com/news/the-deadly-liberal-delusion/article_8515382b-ef1d-5e5e-82e6-d722198cf826.html

[Gothmog]

2. I agree with Steve and Cookie's analysis

I remember Blanche Lincoln and she was a good democrat. Trying to primary here out was stupid and lost us that Senate seat.

[zipplewrath]

3. One of two choices

Either we decide that each state should decide their own races, and external money should be eliminated. No more having Arkansas candidates go to LA to raise money from the liberal elites. The DSCC stays out of primaries. Move on only collects money from donors in states during the primary season. Bernie and Obama and the rest of the national leadership DON'T go to these states and help raise money for the local candidates during primaries.

OR, people are allowed to give money to people that reflect their views and beliefs. Leadership is allowed to participate and take sides in primaries. And you don't give money to someone you don't really support. It is even worse to give money to someone you DON'T support to defeat someone you DO support.

Something tells me that the former isn't going to happen, so the latter is where we are, unless we want to be a bunch of hypocrites. We either let people in each state sort out their own representatives, especially in primaries, or we work across the country to support and elect people that support our views. I don't see there are any other real choices.

[murielm99]

4. A good choice is the one

already implemented by Howard Dean: The 50 State Strategy.

Of course we help the local people win their elections! We would never elect any Democrats if we left them on their own.

But the purity tests and the divisiveness have to go. The far left does not get to dictate to our party.

Uh, Bernie and Obama? How about Tom Perez, Ellison, Schumer? That is the current Democratic leadership. Obama may want to speak up later, but he is enjoying his freedom now, and is not obligated to work in a leadership role currently.

[Bettie]

6. A question then

where is the line? Is there a line?

Say you have someone who says "I'm a Democrat and will run as one"

This person is anti-choice, anti-civil rights, doesn't support equal pay, and believes their religion should be the law of the land.

Do we say YES! This person has D after their name! YAY!

Or do we apply a "purity" test?

How far away from core values can we step?

[zipplewrath]

8. So my money, my choice

I'm not going to give money to people I don't support. The 50 state strategy is fine, as long as it doesn't favor one primary candidate over another. DWS got the DNC to not give data to her primary opponent. That's the national party dictating to the locals who their candidate should be. Obama and Bill Clinton both favored one local candidate over another in primary races. That's not a 50 state strategy, that's PAC like national donors dictating the direction of the party. The original article is fine as far as it went, but it did not also advocate the national leadership staying out of local races. It asserted that we should prefer incumbents over primary challengers. It suggested that representatives voting records shouldn't matter in re-election situations.

I'm curious of those two authors thought that in the early 60's it was wrong for the national party to force the state parties to integrate instead of recognizing that they were merely local politicians facing the reality of their constituents and realizing that they voted with the party 75% of the time.

[brer cat]

11. +1

It would be crazy not to follow the 50 State Strategy. Sure we have to hold our noses in some races, but we are literally fighting for our lives here. If that means supporting a conservative Democrat when we can flip a republican seat, we would be fools to abandon that Democrat because s/he failed some "purity" test. At this point, I trust Perez and Ellison to make the right choices in supporting local candidates.

[PoiBoy]

5. I wonder why...

..I have to agree with the premise of the article, but I have what I consider to be a bigger question in this regard, and that is why do these folks in red states constantly vote against their own self interests..?

West Virginia, Kansas, and other states.. what is the one common demoninator that keeps these citizens bound to the failed ideology of the Republicon party..?

I would submit that the common demoninator in every state is the media. A deep red media keeps the citizens of that state sufficiently uninformed to all sides of the issues (hello Fairness Doctrine) and propagandized every minute of every day.

So yes.. we have to support "conservative" Democrats in these red states, but the larger challenge is to provide the truth to everyone in these states. Bernie Sanders' town hall in West Virginia perfectly illustrated that if you sit down and talk with these folks, they really, really want a way forward...

[zipplewrath]

9. Leading versus following

The premise of the article is somehow that the more conservative candidates are the only ones that can win. It is the opposite attitude of the concept of that the "pretend conservative" will lose to the "real conservative" every time. Sometimes the way to win is to lead, not follow.

[NewJeffCT]

7. I'm pretty far left

But, having Blanche Lincoln voting with Democrats 80% of the time is much better than some radical right winger who thinks agreeing with Democrats any time is against his principals

[brer cat]

10. I agree.

I live in a red district, and I know that our best shot to flip it will be with a conservative Democrat. Even the voters who are fed up with trump are not going to swing far left that quickly. We have a great opportunity coming up and I hope we give every Democrat our support in order to take back Congress.

[NewJeffCT]

12. If the money was even

I'd be OK with primarying less pure Democrats, but with Republicans having a huge 3rd party money edge, it's self defeating much of the time