Is challenging a democrat in the primary working against the party?

[Marleyb]

or is it attempting to take back the democratic party? Isn't this what democracy is all about?

[Skidmore]

1. Challenge away.

Who are you challenging and what do you stand for? Am interested to know.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. This could be in response to Cindy Sheehan wanting to run and Boxer asking

her not to.

[Marleyb]

8. I'm talking about Cindy and Difi in the california primary

for some reason my post about Cindy challenging Dianne Feinstein was locked, said it was against the rules, however I do believe Cindy is talking about challenging Dianne Feinstein in the primary so I don't understand? Now it is not okay to challenge sitting democrats on democratic underground?

[leftstreet]

14. For what it's worth

I'm actively campaigning for a Dem challenger to a sitting Dem Senator in my state, but I'm not taking that activism to DU. That's how I interpret DU rules.

Besides which, it would be a waste of my time unless every DU member lived and voted in my state.

:hi:

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. The point is moot -- Ms. Sheehan isn't running

[KingFlorez]

2. It's working against the party when we are trying to win seats

It never helps to start fighting other Democrats when there are seats we can take for Republicans.

[havocmom]

4. What about challanging DINOs? DLC followers of the GOP agenda?

Some DEMS need to go.

[KingFlorez]

15. I don't follow that logic

I don't believe in all the the DINO and DLC talk

[havocmom]

17. So a vibrant DEM running against Lieberman... yea or nah?

I say if they aren't reliable against bushco, they have to go.

[KingFlorez]

18. Nah

I think Lieberman's record is good enough on most issues to stay in.

[havocmom]

21. Amazing

just amazing

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Is this the logic that keeps Lieberman coming back? In all honesty

I can vaguely understand this because I have actually even voted for a Repub before (Snowe) more because of the structure of the Senate (She has seniority) than because I think she is wonderful on the issues.

Truly our election system needs an overhaul, but so do some of the ways the Congress works (like seniority).

[MadMaddie]

5. You know the saying, "Pick your battles carefully"

Oh heck it's something like that..

We have to pick our battles very carefully, now if you were talking about "Lieberman" I say good riddance lets replace him with someone that is really a democrat. If you ask about "Feinstein" I say she is not as bad as Lieberman and she has the experience and knowledge to help us.

[Katherine Brengle]

6. If they are doing a good job and being true to the party's ideals, then it

is wrong. If they are DLC Republicrat DINOs then I say challenge 'em and to them I say "don't let the office door hit you in the a$$ on your way out!"

[Wetzelbill]

9. I don't think so

The problem if two or even more Dems have a rough primary, well then the winner might be bruised enough for the Republican to beat up on in the GE. But, I think more Dems should be challenged, because it keeps them honest and accountable. If a politician wins too easily all the time without repercussion then they become bureaucratic or worse yet they lose the convictions of their party's base. For example, if a Congressperson voted for CAFTA, the Bankruptcy Bill, Medicare Prescription drug benefit, the Iraq War,plus Roberts and Scalia yet they consider themselves a Dem, well they should be held accountable for selling out certain Democratic tenets. Somebody should challenge them, so they don't stray too far away from certain party ideals. I think it makes the party stronger and better to keep people fighting for what our party believes in. If somebody forgets it, then they should be held accountable so they won't keep doing it.

[cascadiance]

10. Challenging a Democrat in the primary IS working for Democracy!

Otherwise, what use do primaries serve? The question to ask is who do you vote for in such a primary. You try to vote for someone that has the best balance between representing you and the party's ideals as well as someone who can win the general election.

With Cindy Sheehan vs. Feinstein, that is a tough question, as there are reasons on both sides to vote for either one.

On the one hand, with Feinstein not representing us very well, I would like some "pressure" at least on her to represent us better. Could we have a better qualified opponent than Cindy Sheehan to go up against her? From an experience point of view, certainly. But she has all of the qualities that Feinstein is missing now. Perhaps a strong showing by Sheehan (and not necessarily me hoping for Sheehan to win) would get Feinstein clean up her act a bit. I'm still not convinced that Feinstein in her heart is about representing us well like Sheehan would, but if it's pressure like that from Sheehan (who probably got Feinstein to vote for the Alito fillibuster), then I'd like to see her enter the race. If Sheehan wins, then there's something really wrong with the way that Feinstein is representing us, that a majority won't vote her in as the incumbent, and it's a problem that might show up no matter who might run against Feinstein in a primary (or from the Green Party, etc. in the general election).

[Solly Mack]

11. Yes, that's a huge part of democracy.

In a free and fair system, that isn't infected by those who feel entitled to hold office, politicians expect to be challenged when others feel they aren't doing their job. Besides, if you're a decent politician with a good record of listening to your constituents there's nothing to worry about from a challenger. Your record will speak for you.

Doesn't speak well for democracy when people are discouraged from participating in democracy does it? Whether a person agrees with another person running or not - it's still their right to run for office - and someone who cares about democracy will respect that right. Doesn't mean you have to support the person running - and it certainly doesn't mean you can't work against their campaign. But it does mean you don't interfere with that person's right to run for office.

It's not much of a democracy to begin with if public office isn't open to those wishing to run. Certainly not a democracy worth preserving anyway. Can't really say being "qualified" makes a big difference, since newly elected people often have never held office before. Can't say amount of education or job title matters either - that would be rather elitist and subverts the entire philosophy behind democracy. ("the people", "the common folk" - can't claim to believe in a govt. of/for/by the people if "the people" can't run for office.)

Discourse and debate - and good old fashion competition - makes democracy stronger. It causes those already in office to better listen to the people - it forces their hand, so to speak. Especially when what the challenger has to say appeals to a broad base of people.

An incumbent might see where they're failing in their job and attempt to do better. Clean up their act, as it were.

If "the people" participating in democracy "hurts" any party then that party needs to rethink it's purpose. After all, like you stated, isn't that what democracy is all about?

Kind of hypocritical for anyone to claim "I support democracy - except when it gets in the way of what I want to happen" - sounds like something Bush would say doesn't it?

[Marleyb]

24. nice!

:applause:

[sandnsea]

12. Do they have a platform?

Running on a platform that has viable solutions and ways to implement those solutions is one thing. Ripping apart the Democratic Party based on half-truths and wild rants doesn't help anybody. Depends on what the primary candidates do. The voters will decide in the end.

[leeroysphitz]

13. No. It's the only tool we have left to force our representatives

to actually REPRESENT us. It has it's downsides but we are now out of other less confrontational options. IMHO.

[porphyrian]

19. Nope, you're right.

If you hear any differently, it's likely from people who are "fed up" with the "circular firing squad" created every time our representatives improperly represent us, and we have the nerve to complain about it.

[SaveElmer]

20. Depends on where and against who...

A successful challenge from the left in Nebraska, or North Dakota, or just about any red state would result in a Republican victory. However, in Connecticut it may work (though I actually doubt it), or any other reliably blue state with a conservative Democrat.

[eggman67]

22. Beat me to it

I agree. Take for example PA in 2004. The hard right HATES Specter, so they tried running nutcase Toomey against him in the primaries. The national party bosses saw the folly of risking what was a fairly safe seat in purple PA and got behind Specter.

Bush & Scrotorum caught flack from the wingnuts here for backing Arlen.

Had Toomey won that primary, I'm convinced that PA would have Sen. Hoeffel today.

[LittleClarkie]

23. No, that's democracy alright

And a better action than leaving the party in my estimation.

[mattclearing]

25. Cindy never said she would run as a Dem, did she?

Therein lies your answer.

[derby378]

26. Note to moderators...

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

Thus, to support Cindy Sheehan as a Democratic candidate for Senate, even though she would have been challenging DiFi, is not a violation of the DU rules.

[Marleyb]

27. Thank you for saying this...

This thread I started was locked unfairly...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x369543

[derby378]

28. I agree

My sense is that the moderator owes you an apology. But I must defer until I hear both sides of the story.

[Greyhound]

29. No, yes, yes. n/t

[davsand]

30. We define our party by participating in primaries.

I've never understood the people who preach that a primary is always a bad idea. IMO, a primary helps our party better define what the priorities are.

Having said that, I WILL also say that a primary needs to be about differences in vision rather than about character assassination or lies and slander. As a practical matter, it seems like very few really are clean races these days, and that probably feeds everyone's distaste for a primary challenger.

It is difficult to pull up your socks and work the full ticket after the primary is done--but we ALL have to do it if we want to stand a chance of winning in a General. The residual anger from a primary can be long lived and quite vituperative.

By way of example, I'll reference you back to the wars here at DU during the last Presidential primary. They STILL go on with people using terms like "Deaniacs" and "Clarkies". Party unity is not easy to maintain--even here at a message board that is dedicated to the idea of the Democratic party.

The key to survival for a thread is to make it plain that you are discussing a DEM primary, not somebody running as an Indy or Green or GOP candidate against a Dem.

Peace.



Laura

[rucky]

31. Goodness no! It's HEALTHY.

Incumbents need to know that they have to continue to earn our votes. We brought them into this world and we can take 'em out.

Part of the problem with congress is that there are no term limits, and the established Dems are proving that they are completely out of touch.