PPP: McAuliffe 42%-Cuccinelli 37%; Dems Lead for Virginia LG, AG as Well

[lowkell]

http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/9398/ppp-mcauliffe-42cuccinelli-37-dems-lead-for-virginia-lg-ag-as-well

Basically good news, although in a sane world we should be 20, 30 points ahead of these right-wing extremist wackos (Ken Cuccinelli, EW Jackson, Mark Obenshain).

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. I suspect many feel about McAuliffe like I do, but still,

this is great news.

[montanacowboy]

2. Don't the Dems have ANYONE else besides this loser?

warmed over DLCer, - can you imagine if they had a Real Dem running they could flatten this Cooch asshole like a pancake

Terry McA - Jesus H Christ I thought he had faded long ago with the old Clinton cadre

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. It's Virginia, and you're wrong. Flat wrong. No love for TMc, but your assessment is ludicrous.

What, in Virignia's recent history, gives you the impression that an avowed liberal could not only win a primary, but go on to win a general? Neither Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, nor Jim Webb were/are all Democrats, but not a single one of them ran or claim to be liberal. They are all moderates, or as they're known around here, DLC types.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. Agreed. The state elected Gov. Ultrasound and Cooch in the first place. The legislature is dominated

by wingnuts...all because not enough Dems came out in 2010 and voted. We vote, we win. It's so simple.

I'm not a big TMc fan, either, but for a state like VA, that's probably the best Democrats have.

It's a state that still celebrates Confederacy Month for crissakes!!!

Don't you wish you could cross the Potomac and join me in Maryland?

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. I love MD, but I'm in NC, where we just elected Pat McCrory for Governor (yuk). I sure hope Hagan

will be able to hold on, and she is no liberal, but center left is better than far right, anyday. I wish progressives would quit claiming that liberals can win anywhere. It's just not the case, and it makes us all look ridiculous, and ill informed.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. Agreed! I am attacked for stating that some on the left are no different than the Teabaggers...

...both sides have established a purity test. Anyone who fails at being purely ideological are dismissed. I wish that liberals would accept that progressive Democrats cannot get elected in places like VA or KY or AR. At least not now. It's going to take some time for the rest of the country to evolve to a new way of thinking. Not everyone is a liberal. We need to accept that the Democratic Party is a big tent--we include EVERYONE in our ranks; it's one of the party's greatest, most endearing strengths, but there is also a price.

It's amazing how many people on the left hold Howard Dean in great esteem for his 50 State Strategy and yet fail to realize or accept that as a direct consequence of that strategy, the party includes moderate and conservative Democrats. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Either we want to be a member of a party that accepts everyone regardless of their brand of Democrat or we don't. And if we don't, try the Greens. Yeah, the Greens are really doing well.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. "try the Greens. Yeah, the Greens are really doing well".

And you're right, there's definitely a "price" to be paid for the big tent. The further reaches of the left work overtime in spaces like this to drive that wedge, but while they are a big noise here, there are many more of us who aren't for issuing and/or passing their purity tests. I also agree, they should give the Greens a try. They need the help. Their divide & conquer strategy was an utter failure in the past two election cycles.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. Ralph Nader wasn't effective. He was out for himself. He didn't build a viable party from the ground

up. He didn't himself run viable Greens for lower office. I'm witnessing the same will Jill Stein. Sure she talks a good game, and being a liberal myself, I agree with her views *in theory*. However, I need to know if those views work in practice. I need to know how well it is possible to have a viable, resilent, effective progressive party. And right now, I don't see it. I'm sure money in politics is the reason, but I don't see any effective moment to address this issue. OWS is being drowned out. The media is corporate owned. The media only cares about the Tea Party's point of view. I get it. I understand what's going on. But until we liberals accept that change will take time and that we NEVER give up, we won't be successful. As I stated above, the older conservative generations will eventually pass on from his life. The younger generations are more tolerant and progressive. Let's start grooming potential progressives for lower office---just like the Teabaggers do.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Exactly. The teabaggers did the groundwork. No office was too small. They quietly took over.....

school boards, city councils, and eventually state legislatures in their grand scheme to groom these local officials for national office. They have an awesome GOTV machine for midterms. That's the period when Democrats take a break, for some reason? The Greens, for all their purist ideology, are seen as fringey. Like you, people may agree with some or all of their agenda, but most folks don't want to think they've thrown away their vote, and that's essentially what happens when you vote Green.

I want to see how the Greens, or some truly liberal third party performs in the South, and that will tell us all we need to know about their viability as an alternative to the Democrats.

[tabbycat31]

15. +1000

[Chan790]

22. I don't think they can win everywhere...

I think they have to start being on the primary ballot everywhere so we can start getting some ideas that are not right or center-right into the political dialogue. The people will move left if they start hearing these ideas being discussed and can think "Hmm...that actually benefits me."

What are now labeled as center-left or DLC ideas are historically center-right positions...the window has moved that far because of the dearth of liberal ideas in the national and local dialogue everywhere. I agree with you that Hagan is the best you can do in NC...but I view that as liberals failing you by not making liberal ideals palatable to run on.

We, as liberals, need to start jumping into races to talk about liberal ideas even if we know we cannot win in order to move the discussion.

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. Of course, liberals should be running everywhere. But they can't continue to blame their inevitable

failures on everyone else. In the marketplace of ideas, sometimes you have to suck it up and admit that folks just might not be that into you. It never ceases to amaze me when people are polled, they agree with traditionally progressive ideals, but when you put a face to those ideals, people run away in fright. The progressive movement needs new faces.

[montanacowboy]

6. Well "moderation" is the curse of the Democratic Party

this middle of the road - compromise our values just to go along to get along

Maybe if a real Progressive fire breathing Democrat talked turkey things might be different and I don't mean in Virginia, I mean in the whole country. Why do we Always settle for the Moderate who is going to give us more of the same. I am sick and tired of it and tired of waiting in my lifetime for a real Progressive leadership.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. THEY CAN'T WIN PRIMARIES. What's so hard to understand about that?

The electorate (That's Us) chooses who gets to face off in a general election. Your naivete re: a "fire breathing" Democrat talking turkey just defies anything we've seen in recent history. If it were that simple, we'd probably be saying Pres. Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson today. "Talking turkey" ain't worth shit if you can't win a primary among potentially like minded voters.

You guys are beyond boring at this point. Draft the candidates you want; get them on the teevee & radio; and turn 'em loose. Stop blaming the DLC, DNC, the corporate media, Cap'n Crunch, and everybody else. Just as Pres. Obama did it, you have modern day tools at your disposal, but it takes a certain amount of dedication on the part of your following. I just don't see that with today's liberals. It's just a big old blamefest for their own inadequacies. Stop it!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. Unfortunately this country is middle of the road. Until that changes, both sides are forced to run

candidates who are down the center if not center-right. It's going to take time for things to change. The Old Guard will soon die off. Younger generations are more tolerant, open minded, and progressive.

Remember that the conservative movement has done a great job convincing this country that government is no good; that progressives are anti-God; that we are immoral. The progressive movement, in stark contrast, did little to combat the propaganda. The anti-government meme has taken root, but it didn't occur overnight; it took decades of convincing the American people that government is bad. It took decades of brainwashing and pro-corporate propaganda. It's going to take many years to convince the average American that government does good. It'll take some time. I work for the federal government and most agencies are currently forced to take furlough days. I'm hoping that one good will come of this: that the average American will see how not having government programs affect their daily lives. When that IRS tax return doesn't come in the mail; when the Social Security check doesn't arrive. These things matter to most Americans even if they don't realize it.

'Til then, liberals/progressives cannot give up. If you notice, the Teabaggers never give up. The conservatives NEVER surrender. They can lose elections and when they do, notice how they never act as if they have lost. They just continue to push their agenda. It has taken Republicans years to build their party from the ground up. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party used to excel at grooming candidates for local offices and for becoming professional politicians.

Again, some of the blame belongs to us. How we allowed the conservative movement to co-opt morality and nationalism. How we allowed them to pretend that they care about small businesses, rural communities, etc. We allowed them to exploit religion and use it to justify hatred and bigotry...and the biggest heresy: convincing the majority of Americans that being rich is somehow God's reward so we therefore have to reward corporations and the wealthy because somehow they are deserving while the poor deserve their unfortunate plight. Even the poor themselves have accepted their subjugation, many believing that just rewards provided in the afterlife...in heaven.

We allowed the conservatives to propagandized the American people and failed to create a convincing and contrasting narrative.

These problems existed long before Obama or any of the current moderate or conservative Democrats. They took years in the making. It'll take time to turn it around.

[Parable Arable]

17. Agreed.

I do understand the whole "what's the point of running Blue Dogs if they won't represent liberal policies?" argument and I get the sense that some of us here follow the logic that "If a real Dem was running in Virginia, the state's Democratic caucus would be more enthused". But that isn't how it works. Now, this line of reasoning is indeed correct in assuming that enthusiasm is a crucial part of a successful campaign, but that enthusiasm need not only be spared to progressives. I guess here's the line of reasoning I'd like Democrats in battleground states to follow.... Bear with me, it's a poorly thought out line of reasoning and isn't explained very well...

1: Collectively, the Democrats in a state of Virginia should ask themselves: "what is the single most important issue to us?". If that issue is say, the protection of Social Security, than they should set out to find the most exceptional, and electable person that is committed to protecting it. This protector might not be a progressive in other areas (he or she might be a fan of Keystone XL, who knows) but he or she is committed to upholding the thing the state caucus values most.

2: Generate enthusiasm primarily based on that issue and the candidates credentials on that issue. Even better if the opposing Republican is against it. If the state seems to be against something like Social Security, than make a concentrated effort to educate the public about what it does for the state.

Now, bear in mind that I don't believe that this line of reasoning should apply in every election. Democrats in the east coast should be looking to elect as many progressives as possible, as Democrats usually tend to have an advantage in those parts of the country (though for the life of me, I still can't discover why the current MA senate race is even this close).

You had pointed out the fact that conservatives had employed a lot of propaganda to control the narrative of the country, and I agree with this. A common criticism I've heard of this current administration is that it hasn't been aggressive enough in punishing Wall St and the past administration. As many have pointed out here, by letting men like Cheney or the higher ups of Goldman Sachs go, the administration has enabled them to continue the spread of misinformation and the abuse of power. I agree, this is indeed a really troubling cycle of events, but perhaps punishing them isn't the priority. Perhaps the main goal should be redressing the climate that has enabled these types of people to emerge. For starters, the Conservatives have twisted things around so much that punishing men like Cheney has become incredibly difficult. A criticism could be made that Obama hasn't TRIED hard enough to punish these people, and that's a valid point, but I digress for the moment. Now, despite the fact that these men/women are left off the hook, the ideas they espouse lose some measure of credibility after they screw things up. Granted, the government hasn't punished Wall St, but I get the sense that as a whole, it has lot a lost of legitimacy in the eyes of the public following 2008. The same goes with the Bush administration. Although none of the higher ups went to jail, a great number of them have been branded with a stigma that they are still trying to cleanse.

So this brings me to my main point about what the Democratic party needs to do: Hammer the point home that Republicans have created this mess, and really try and drum up enthusiasm. Previously I had criticized Eric Holder for not being aggressive enough in persecuting Wall St., to which you raised the valid argument that he is unable to actually do much to persecute it, do to how deregulated congress has made things. What a man in Holder's situation is to do, however, is not to flat out state, "the banks are too big to fail", but to basically say:

"Due to the actions of Republicans, Wall St has taken on a symbiotic relationship with our economy. Republicans have enabled it's rise and indirectly, they have enabled the Democrat parties move to the right. The solution to this mess, is to vote out the party that has enabled Wall St to become this powerful, and elect men and women who can and will try to rein it in".

Granted, the Democratic party has it's own share of the blame for enabling Wall St, but I think most of us agree that it flourished due to Reaganomics, an economic policy that is overwhelmingly Republican. In regards to dealing with Wall St and the previous Bush administration, the best I could ask of this administration is to counter their attempts at misinformation at every turn, and promptly set the record straight so that the public won't be fooled. I don't want President Obama to flat out declare war on the GOP, but if Cheney tries to spew anymore of his deceitful crap on how this administration has made us less safe, than I fully expect Jay Carney or someone else in the WH to promptly call the scumbag out on it.

I recognize the frustration that many of us have here. Our economic situation isn't one that's going to be fixed by the end of Obama's presidency... Hell, it most likely won't even be fixed by the end of the decade. But it's absolutely crucial that we fix the climate associated with Wall St's rise, so that we may prevent stuff like this from ever happening again.


/finishes stupidly long post/

[BlueDemKev]

28. +1,000

I couldn't have said it better.

[RBInMaine]

20. VA overall is purple to slightly red. The nation is purple overall. Kucinich types can't win VA.

That is the reality. The nation is slowly moving more progressive, but overall we are still very much a purple nation, and the entire government is founded on compromise. You need to understand the reality of the electorate. Obama barely won VA. The R's control the legislature there.

[TroyD]

18. We Should Just Be Glad That Virginia is No Longer a Red State

I think it's pretty impressive that Virginia voted for a Democrat in the last 2 Presidential elections. Even Bill Clinton, who was from the South, didn't win Virginia.

Winning Virginia in 2 Presidential Elections and having 2 Democratic Senators is pretty darn good for a state that was basically totally red until the past decade.

There are far more conservative states like Idaho & Oklahoma where the Democratic prospects are dim, so we should be glad that the people of Virginia have moved to becoming a Purple State!

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. And don't forget we won my state in '08 as well. NC & VA were huge surprises to a lot of us.

Some progressives believe that if you just spout enough liberal jibberish, a red state will turn blue. That has never been the case. When John Edwards ran for the Senate, he did not run as a liberal, and neither did Kay Hagan, which is why they were "electable". It's the same for VA; none of the Democratic senators ran as liberals, but I'm just glad they're there to keep Dems in the majority.

[RBInMaine]

21. You are saying TeaLeftist stuff, and THAT is the LOSER. Please, understand the electorate of VA.

It is a very purple state. Only moderate Dems can win there statewide. That is the reality. Be glad there is a chance to win there. pr would you rather have the crazy teabaggers Cucinelli and Jackson?

[Cha]

13. Good for McAuliffe! K&R!

No, I'm not going to dump on him.. It is what it is.. for Virginia.

[BlueDemKev]

14. Focus should be on GOTV!!

We'll win so long as we get our base out to vote in November (just like we did last November).

[RBInMaine]

19. Ya but also gotta win the Indies/Mods there in PURPLE VA and ATTACK the GOP ticket as radical.

[Beacool]

16. Second best news I've heard today.

First good news was Bachmann announcing her retirement.

[DCBob]

23. Two pathetic candidates..

but of course I will take Mac over Cucci anyday.

[graham4anything]

26. Good for Terry. We need Virginia and Virginia Needs to elect Terry.

[Arneoker]

27. I don't love McAuliffe, but I will vote for him.

Because I will really vote for my daughter, who just a month ago won some science awards, over any shitty politician, especially one like Ken Kookynelli. Voting for anyone else but McAuliffe would be betraying her. If the Left can make their case better so that I can actually vote for someone more progressive in this state, with the realistic chance that they might win, then great. But first that effective case has to be made. If it can't be made then I don't want to hear how sick and tired someone is about the choices that are available. I turn 60 in August, and believe me I am pretty sick about my disappointments in politics over the past few decades. But does anyone here really want to hear me whine about it? No, I didn't think so.

[mgcgulfcoast]

29. this one is over

we will win by +12