Who cares about the Bayhs of the party? Let's run progressives everywhere...

[polichick]

It's self-defeating to buy into the myth that Dems need to be corporate whores like the Regressive party.

Let's bring Dean back and run progressives EVERYWHERE, along with a clear message that wakes voters up to the fact that they're voting for corporate criminals and against themselves when they vote for the Regressive party.

I know this is almost impossible given the usual stance of Obama, Rahm and Kaine - but it's what Dems need to do if we actually want to be the party of change.

[jenmito]

1. The reason we're in the majority is because we had Dems. who won in their red states.

If we run progressives everywhere, we'd be in the minority, with people like McConnell and Boehner as the leaders. No thank you.

[polichick]

2. We're already in the minority when it comes to getting anything done. nt

[FrenchieCat]

3. Not as far as what bills come up for a vote......

with a Republican majority, the bills to be voted on will come from Republicans....
as well as they will be the one chairing committees.....

if that's what you want, then it would mean that you don't really care what happens to this country.

[polichick]

4. You're assuming we'd lose if we ran populist progressives - I don't think so. nt

[FrenchieCat]

5. Yeah.....OK.

You know.

[polichick]

8. Too many Dems have bought into the myth that this is a center-right country...

...and we have to be Regressive lite to win. That's simply not true - and idiotic to boot.

[jenmito]

11. There are "center-right" states in this country. You must know that. n/t

[onenote]

28. You realize that Obama didn't carry every Congressional District and State

I would be interested in seeing your list of districts and/states that McCain won that he would have lost if someone more "progressive" than Obama had been running for president. You show me that list and we can discuss whether your idea of running progressives "everywhere" has any chance of producing more victories than losses.

[jenmito]

7. So federal funding of embryonic stem cell would've come up for a vote? I don't think so.

And there are MANY more examples...

[wisteria]

13. Go do some research and find out who the reliable voters are.

Who can be relied on to vote. I think you will find those people may not be so keen on just a Progressive agenda.

[vaberella]

51. +Infinity, I'm always surprised people think Progressives will be able to do everything.

It doesn't work like that. I believe in running a viable candidate that is more liberal than most. And I find the Conservadems tend to be more Republican from what I can see. But posts like this don't make sense to me.

[goclark]

55. Give us names of these sure fire winners please

Thanks!

[jenmito]

6. Wow-you really don't understand the importance of being in the majority vs. the minority in Congress

? We'd be much worse off if we lost control of the House and/or Senate.

[polichick]

9. You're also assuming we'd lose if we ran populist progressives. nt

[jenmito]

10. Glad to see you finally acknowledging it DOES make a difference whether Dems. are in

the majority or not. Now, all you have to do is realize that certain states will not vote progressive Dems. in.

[polichick]

14. Why do you buy into those right-wing talking points?nt

[jenmito]

16. I don't. Read more carefully next time. I didn't say this is a center-right country. That's the

RW talking point. Why don't you understand that there are SOME center-right STATES?

[polichick]

20. That too is a right-wing/corporate Dem talking point...

Indiana is the same state that elected Birch Bayh, a progressive Dem.

[jenmito]

34. No, it's called, "reality."

[vaberella]

53. I love you girl. You get a heart emoticon.

:loveya:

[onenote]

36. I'd like to know which states and congressional districts won by McCain

would have been won by a Democratic candidate if only he or she had been more progressive than Obama/

Presumably, you can share that with us since you seem to be fairly certain that running progressives everywhere will result in a boat load of victories. So give us an example or two.

[jenmito]

38. Don't hold your breath. n/t

[brooklynite]

45. and California elected Ronald Reagan, so it must still be RW today...

States change...times change...progressives may be competitive in moderate districts, but there are still 150+ conservative districts where a Moderate Dem MIGHT win, but a Progressive will not.

(nb - my wife and I contributed approx $40,000 to Dem candidates last time around. I do a LOT of research, and the unwillingness of conservative districts to elect a progressive, absent unique circumstances, is not a talking point)

[Eric Condon]

54. Yeah, 50 years ago, when this country was still liberal (economically, if not socially)

I don't think the "America is conservative" argument is a RW talking point. If anything, RWers complain how "liberal" the country has gotten. I suppose you could try to contend that America is still "liberal at heart" (I hear this kind of argument a lot here at DU), but to me, that requires still having some sort of faith in America, which I don't.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. I see exactly zero evidence to the contrary.

So unless you want to offer some to support your hypothesis...

[stranger81]

31. But even as the majority, we're still not able to get anything done --

precisely because we have a whole lotta Dems representing us who don't want anything done.

[polichick]

32. That's right - the status quo works fine for corporate Dems...

...which is why progressives either have to reform the party or start a new one. Two corporate parties will bring the collapse of this country.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. 0 > -1

Meaning, no progress (which I don't agree with, but for the sake of this argument...) is still better than regression, which is exactly where our country will be with Republicans in charge again.

[treestar]

44. Amen, why do so many posters think progressives could win in those states?

They don't. They are just venting frustration. But it's so unrealistic.

[wisteria]

12. Things do not get done in Washington when no one will yield.

Our polarization problems will not be resolved by a party of only Progressives who block everything Republican, just as the Republicans are doing to us right now. I actually fear for our country's future and the people who are the backbone of this country. SO, IMO, Dean is not the answer.

[polichick]

15. If Dems drew a clear distinction between a peoples party and a corporate party...

...the "polarization" would resolve itself - that's just a story both sides use to keep the status quo intact.

[Jennicut]

17. Nice in concept but not so good in reality. And right now Mass is electing Republicans.

Not really the best time to be trying out this concept.

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. Look at all the Message Discipline LLC ops racing to unrec this thread.

We absolutely need to run REAL Democrats against every DLC and Blue Balled Coward in the primaries, or if it's an open seat, like the one that WellPoint piece of shit is vacating in Indiana.

Run as Democrats, win as Democrats. As we have seen time and time again over the last decade, it does us absolutely no good to elect fake Democrats who vote with Repukes.

As Joan Jett said many years ago "You don't lose when you lose fake friends". And good riddance to fake friends like Evan Bayh. Let's not replace him with a clone.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

21. "Let's bring Dean back and run progressives EVERYWHERE,"

When did this happen: 2006, 2008?

[tranche]

22. And you get a progressive, and you get a progessive, and you...

I'm glad to see the base is fired up and ready to go! Can't wait to see all these conservadem seats turn blue, blue, blue.

[polichick]

23. I'd be a lot more fired up if the prez and the head of the DNC were on board...

The way we're going, Obama may need to be primaried by a progressive.

[sandyd921]

24. You can win with a progressive

in places like Indiana IF and only IF the candidates run as populist progressives with strong economic populist stances that appeal to working people. Their message needs to be strongly anti-corporate with a laser beam focused on economic justice issues (e.g., jobs, health care, anti-free trade).

[polichick]

27. Exactly - paint a clear picture of the difference between the candidates...

We have to be able to show how people vote against themselves with the Regressives.

[asdjrocky]

25. I see you're finding out the truth about GDP-

Progressives are no longer welcome here. Nothing but lame DLC excuse makers.

[polichick]

26. It's been that way for a long time, but I'm still amused from time to time. :)

[ProSense]

29. You're amused? You want Dean back, who were the progressives he ran in 2006 and 2008? n/t

[AlinPA]

30. And we will win over the long run.

[polichick]

33. Agreed - with this party or another. nt

[TheWraith]

35. Progressives everywhere? That wasn't Dean's strategy.

Or do you forget that Dean was one of the guys encouraging us to expand into red states by running big-tent candidates? Do you forget Dean and Rahm Emanuel were part of the same freakin' team that did 2006 and 2008?

[polichick]

37. One of the reasons they don't get along today is that they had different ideas...

...about what kind of candidates to draft.

[theothersnippywshrub]

39. The major differences they had were about where to spend money.

Emanuel thought Dean was wrong to spend money on a 50 state strategy.

[SoxFan]

40. You do realize that Vermont "progressives" loathed Dean, right?

Ran third party candidates against him, tarred him as a corporate Dem, a closet Republican, a sell-out, complained that he dragged his feet on civil unions, etc?

But go ahead and run Kucinich/McKinney clones in North Carolina and Arkansas. Let me know how that works out.

[Sebastian Doyle]

41. McKinney won in fucking Georgia, for Christ's sake

And when the right wing sent in a mole to knock her out in the primary, she came back the next time and won again. And Dennis wins in Ohio, a so called "center right swing state".

So much for that weak DLC argument.......

[nsd]

42. Neither McKinney nor Kucinich has ever won a statewide race.

Which is the point.

Sure, McKinney can win in a left-leaning district with an African-American majority, but there's no way she would win statewide in Georgia. Same with Kucinich. In his district they'll tolerate him, but not in Ohio as a whole.

[onenote]

43. so how do you think McKinney (or Dennis for that matter) would do in a state wide race?

How did McKinney do in her home state when she ran for president in 2008?
How did Kucinich do in Ohio in the 2004 primary?

Answers: McKinney got 250 votes statewide. And Kucinich got 9 percent.

All you have shown is that in some districts, even in conservative states, progressive candidates can win. You've actually disproved the notion that they can win "everywhere" as the OP seems to think is possible.

[Arkana]

50. Dennis is a Congressman.

Even red states have blue districts.

It doesn't mean he'd win a Senatorial election.

[Born_A_Truman]

52. 2004 he got 9% of the primary vote in Ohio

[Odin2005]

48. He's a policy moderate, but he is vehemently anti-establishment.

[smalll]

46. Run progressives - EVERYWHERE? That strategy sounds a little, well, you know --

fucking ret*rded!

:hide:

Sayin'!

[Odin2005]

47. As far as I'm concerned there is no difference between a DLCer and a Republican.

[Arkana]

49. Enjoy 40 Senators!

The same ideologies DO NOT WIN everywhere.

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe Washington State requires a different kind of Democrat than Florida?

[Ganja Ninja]

58. I agree with the sentiment.

As long as Democrats keep running conservatives then it doesn't matter which party is in power.

[Lorien]

59. Agreed. The number of unrecc's shows you just how deeply infected we are by

RW DLC trolls here. Democrats ARE progressives. Republicans ARE conservatives. What's so difficult about that distinction ?