Google Ads


Site Stats

AR-Sen: GOP Smurfs Beating Lincoln in New Poll

by: James L.

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM EDT


Rasmussen (9/28, likely voters):

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 39
Gilbert Baker (R): 47
Undecided: 8

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 41
Curtis Coleman (R): 43
Undecided: 11

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 40
Tom Cox (R): 43
Undecided: 11

Blanche Lincoln (D-inc): 41
Kim Hendren (R): 44
Undecided: 10
(MoE: ±4.4%)

Back in August, Public Policy Polling put out a release with Lincoln in tossups with some of these same names. Research 2000, more recently, had a somewhat healthier diagnosis: she was ahead of all of these guys by anywhere between 7 and 19 points, but she only did so while scoring in the mid-40s -- well under that magical 50% line. Whether or not Rasmussen is painting an exaggerated picture (and, arguably, they're not that far out of line with PPP) is questionable, but the fact remains that Lincoln hasn't posted a higher showing than the low or mid-40s in any poll we've seen this year.

RaceTracker: AR-Sen
James L. :: AR-Sen: GOP Smurfs Beating Lincoln in New Poll
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

AR-Sen: GOP Smurfs Beating Lincoln in New Poll | 252 comments
OK
No f@%king way Kim "That Jew" Hedren is ahead of Lincoln.  Again, I'm going to do the "Rasmussen Shift," taking 7% away from the Republican to get more believable results:

Baker 40, Lincoln 39
Lincoln 41, Coleman 36
Lincoln 40, Cox 36
Lincoln 41, Hedren 37

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

That said
These numbers are still horrible with unknown candidates.  I suspect Lincoln will lose.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
whatever
she won't even show the hell up and vote against the public option in person.  fucking coward.  i'll be glad to see her and Reid gone in 2010.
Maybe if she acts like a Democrat and stands for something
the Dems will come home.  If she continues to show no difference between herself and a generic Republican, then there is no reason not to replace her with the real thing.

it's basically the same thing as with Reid in Nevada.  2010 is going to be a whole series of local elections where the winner is the one who best brings out the base.  if healthcare/health insurance reform pass with the Public Option Lincoln and Reid will have a base willing to walk on glass for them and a dispirited Publican base that won't show up in the same numbers.  However, if they sell out their base, join a Publican filibuster, their base won't show, the other side's will, and they are gone.

I have said for a while that Harry Reid is the best thing the Publicans have going for them right now (ie if Schumer or Durbin were running the show in the senate Dems would be sky high right now).  Same thing with someone like Lincoln.  Her being a timid little mouse scared of her own shadow and voting Republican in order to get the meanies on the other side to stop picking on her is a recipe for an electoral beating.

I really wish
Bill Clinton would throw his weight around with this Arkansas Senator when it comes to the public option.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)
[ Parent ]
Bill Clinton doesn't even really support the public option
he said triggers were fine.  
[ Parent ]
Relying on $
Lincoln has $3 million cash on hand.  That's about the only thing she has going for her.  It is a small enough number that it could disappear overnight.  One slip of the tongue and Baker, for example, matches her in cash.

She stands for nothing?  Maybe she stands for the power of money.  In this environment, with unemployment so high and the public stirred up, that's not the best place to stand.  

[ Parent ]
Impossible, lol
For Baker to match her over a slip of a tongue and for her to make such a slip. 3 million dollars goes a LONG way in Arkansas. Very cheap state to run a campaign.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
That's not the problem
her support was tepid among Conservative Dems too, she has a primary challenger FROM THE RIGHT.

there aren't any liberal Dems here to come home to her. There is no base in this state. Lincoln is between a rock and a hard place.  

[ Parent ]
what does she stand for other than Walmart and obstruction?
serious question, since I know she is on the record against the public option, against card check, against climate change legislation and energy reform, what exactly does she do that is decent or stand for that is good for America?
[ Parent ]
she stands for what the Democratic voters of Arkansas stand for
slightly less crazy than Republicans.

Regardless of what she stands for, the more important issue is that the people of Arkansas who claim to be Democrats are apparently not Democrats at all.

If that's the case we're either getting crazy or Blanche Lincoln from this state...and with the power the Senate has and the power small states have, that's important for us to realize and change.  

[ Parent ]
To Answer Your Question
Blanche Lincoln stands for Blanche Lincoln.

That vote on Tuesday might have killed any chance of having progressives support her anymore. You should see the opinion on Daily Kos; they want her head.

[ Parent ]
Well progressive support
is basically irrelevant in Arkansas anyway.  
[ Parent ]
Thank You ...
there are no Progressives in Arkansas to amount to anything. For Lincoln to have ANY chance of being re-elected, she MUST put some distance between herself and Obamacare.  

Everyone here sure is in a damn hurry to see Tim Hutchinson Jr. (or WORSE) elected to the Senate.  Gimme a break.

Cut her some slack, this is the Deep South for heaven's sake, not Vermont. Obama didn't win here, remember?

[ Parent ]
I'm willing to cut her slack
but I also think it's time for progressives to go to Arkansas and build support for their issues there. As long as we keep ignoring the state, we get Lincolns at best. Or did we forget the whole 50 state strategy thing?

[ Parent ]
The netroots raised a lot of money
for barely acceptable people like her in the last two cycles. But if she's content to forego that, fine.  
[ Parent ]
the netroots will still raise money for her
just not the DailyKos blogs, but she's better off without them.

Arkansas isn't an expensive state to run a campaign in, she doesn't need netroots money and she's better off not having their support in that state.

[ Parent ]
dkos is the grand poobah
of the netroots, for better or worse. I expect it to be hostile to her from top down, with some limited exceptions.  
[ Parent ]
so?
again DailyKos has about as much influence in Arkansas politics as RedState does in Rhode Island.

[ Parent ]
The topic was raising money

[ Parent ]
Money is not an issue for Blanche Lincoln

[ Parent ]
That may be
In which case, no issue. She's just on her own.
[ Parent ]
There is no issue
the question raised around here is whether or not progressives could help her, progressives can't, so it's not worth it for her to try to get help from them.

She's better off going at it alone, Progressive and Obama can only hurt her more. As PPP pointed out a month ago, her problem is with Conservative Democrats, not liberals, of which there aren't many.

In the end, it's also important to note Mike Beebe is up for reelection at the same time and is the most popular governor in the country. He, alone, could save her...and Beebe is no progressive.  

[ Parent ]
I'm going to enjoy
seeing a lot of conservative dems going down in the next election. While I once argued that conservative dems were better than republicans because they're not going to be shrill vocal extremist Christians, I now take that back in light of the public option debate. Let some Republican win this seat and yell about how we're all fornicators and we're all going to hell - it won't matter. If the Democratic party can't do something for the working class like get healthcare passed, then what do we stand for?

21, Male, Democrat, MD-02 (home/registered), MD-05 (college)
I agree. The cobras in the jungle over the cottonmouths in my house.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
That depends on how many of them win
that said, I give up on Arkansas.  
[ Parent ]
... you must long to be in the minority again
... cause that is exactly where that thinking will lead.  

If the blue dog seats are lost, you will have to compromise on legislation MORE because you have no margin for error, or votes to spare.

The more R's on the other side, the less power you have to affect legislation. PERIOD.

   

[ Parent ]
We're going to be in the minority again if the Blue Dog/DLC/"Centrist" bullshit continues.
See how far we go with a disaffected base.  See how far we go if Obama can't get a major piece of his legislative passed and becomes seen as ineffective.  See how are we go if we can't pass a bill that helps the common people, you know, the people we're supposed to be helping or pass a bad bill to please the likes of Lincoln and Baucus and the insurance companies they represent.  See how far we go when people can't tell the difference between the parties.  See how far we go if/when all of those things combine to stretch Democratic resources thin on top of a larger playing field, resulting in more losses.

Stop making excuses for bad Democrats.  They have to go.  I hope the likes of Lincoln go down.  That beast needs to be starved.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Democrats cant get anything done because of these people
That hurts Democrats far more than having Republicans in those seats.  Voters expected Democrats to get things done and will likely end their majority if they dont get anything done.  
[ Parent ]
No
As of now Democrats are being force to compromise . . . with members of their own party.  What's the difference if the Democrats have 55 instead of 60 in the senate, or 240 instead of 257 in the House, if those who lose wouldn't support you anyway?
[ Parent ]
Because everyone likes power
and power is being the vote needed to pass.

even if we get rid of the five we need to compromise with now, five more who are on our side now will turn into Blue Dogs and use the excuse "Well we lost seats in the last election, so we need to compromise"

There is ALWAYS going to be moderates and conservatives to compromise with...ALWAYS. It's the price to pay for being the majority.  

[ Parent ]
That's true.
This cycle it's Nelson, Conrad, Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln.  They could all disappear tomorrow, be replaced by clones of Bernie Sanders, and then it would be Lieberman, Pryor, Bayh, Carper, and Tim Johnson causing trouble.  After them, McCaskill, Hagan, Bill Nelson, Tester, Webb.  As long as you have sixty seats, the people and industries with REAL MONEY in this country will be hiring five of those seats to obstruct progressive policy and defend their financial interests.  The names of the people involved hardly matter; there is almost always someone in the Senate willing to take on the role.  It's too easy and too good of a deal for a pro politician to pass up.

This is the case as long as one party has an enormous majority.  If we lost ten seats, then the REAL MONEY would buy off Lindsay Graham and Susan Collins instead, which would be easier for us to stomach, but which would make a final deal even harder to reach.  (Any great deals come out of the last congress?)  

You have an important point that these people are actors in a role.  The people doing the acting don't matter; the role will continue to exist and be filled by someone as long as our politics is structured as it is.  

Personally, I think we still get some kind of public option out of the Congress.  I'm not despairing yet.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

[ Parent ]
This is really an excellent point
As long as you have sixty seats, the people and industries with REAL MONEY in this country will be hiring five of those seats to obstruct progressive policy and defend their financial interests.  The names of the people involved hardly matter; there is almost always someone in the Senate willing to take on the role.  It's too easy and too good of a deal for a pro politician to pass up.


"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I agree...
If Conservative Dems are going to vote with Republicans on most the votes that matter then it is better for them to be gone. I'd much rather have a foaming idiot Republican bring the image of the GOP down then a Conservative Dem who votes just like that Republican on issues that matter.
[ Parent ]
A foaming idiot Republican
winning a seat from a moderate Democrat isn't going to bring the image of the GOP down, it's going to bring the image of the GOP up.

It's going to be portrayed as the foaming idiots can win Senate seats.  

[ Parent ]
What's moderate about her?
Does she support ANY important Democratic legislation now? I don't see how Republicans with "D" next to their names are "moderate." A moderate is someone who's centrist, not a consistent right-wing vote who happens to call herself a "Democrat."

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
She supported the stimulus
she voted for Obama's judicial nominees, she voted for SCHIP and equal pay.

[ Parent ]
Always there...until we really need her
Ooo.  Ahh.  A bunch of lopsided votes where her vote was irrelevent.

While she's voted against the public option, to send American troops to die in a liar's war, and has opposed EFCA.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Her vote for the stimulus was quite relevant actually

[ Parent ]
That's the only one.
And had Kennedy been there, it wouldn't have mattered.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Cloture votes
she's been very important on quite a few cloture votes, broken filibusters with 60 votes. Odds are she'd still vote to break a Republican filibuster on healthcare reform, even if she doesn't actually vote for it.  
[ Parent ]
If she votes for cloture and against the bill
she will have my support and should have our support.  For those in a position like Lincoln, all I ask is don't obstruct (no support of filibusters) and when you have to vote against the party line, do it quietly.

Democrats who want to obstruct or want to publicly bash the President or leadership personally are cancers and should be removed, even if that means electing a Repub.

The only ones so far who deserve that are Joe Lieberman, Dan Boren, Parker Griffith, and possibly Mike Ross.  

[ Parent ]
He wasn't there
and you can't take that vote away from her.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
She voted against the Hatch amendment today
to strip funds for abortions from the bill.

I'm honestly not sure I would vote against that.  

[ Parent ]
Actually, what it might mean
is that she may start moving back to the center-left a little after she wins reelection, depending on what she perceives as the mood in her state. I wouldn't trust her, but given that she wasn't a hard right-winger until recently, she could just be running scared. I don't defend her craven behavior, though.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I do
look I knew more than a few people on the Hill and I can tell you if she wants ANY chance of surviving next year, voting with the President, or at least voting with the President without question, is off the table.

Her office and Pryor's have been bombarded by crazy.

If progressives want to change this, there are two options either A.) give up on the 50 State Strategy, because it relies on people like Lincoln or B.) go into Arkansas and change minds.

[ Parent ]
It's Arkansas.
And as bad as she is, any Repub would be far far worse.

Even if on a 100-to-1 shot someone to her left should win the Dem. primary, the odds of that him/her going on to win the general are slim to none.

[ Parent ]
If Lincoln is losing
because she isn't supporting the public option and Democrats won't support her for being too conservative, then she should therefore be vulnerable to a challenge in the primary from the left against someone who can win a general.

If she is not primaryable, then she is not losing for being too conservative, she's losing for being too liberal.  

Was there any trigger point
that caused Lincoln to start going downhill?  She was never thought to be competitive up until she was.
Her favorables flopped with the recent downturn of likability for public officials. Nothing special like Dodd.

[ Parent ]
The trigger
was when Obama was elected President while at the same time tanked in Arkansas.

Arkansas is the new Oklahoma.  

[ Parent ]
yes, there is ONE poster in here that GETS it. !
DTOzone, you speaks wisdom.
[ Parent ]
Ag
She's going to be chair of Agriculture.  Maybe she can use that to claw her way back to popularity somehow?  Can she at least get some major pork for Arkansas?

It's very frustrating that all her incentives, at least through the primary, are to tack right.  This stinks.  Usually, most of the point of primary challenges (from the left) is to get incumbents to tack LEFT...

Maybe she could have an ad that says:
"Are you sure you want to fire the person who's a powerful chairman, only to be replaced by a newbie in the minority with little power? Is that smart?"

But that's a logical intellectual argument.
It won't get through to the birthers, teabaggers, Glenn Beck fans, etc. who are mainly operating on an screaming emotional level. Emotions trumps intellect.  

[ Parent ]
Lincoln is going to lose
And I can give her a hint:  Blocking healthcare reform is going to make things worse, not better for herself.  
Lincoln...
thinks that voting for "liberal" (as in the majority of the state) policy is going to cause her to lose election because the minority will not like the vote. She is too stupid, corporate, and bought to realize that voting for things that will improve the nation and that will be very popular will increase her popularity.  
[ Parent ]
This is a state where 45% think Obama is a foriegn born muslim
trust me, they don't support anything he does, even when they do.  
[ Parent ]
And...
this makes them not want cheaper better health care how?
At the end of the day few people care about the politics of a policy that is actually visibly working.
And according to research 2000 55% to 38% support a public option. And guess who opposes it? Republicans people who probably would never vote for Lincoln over a GOPer.
[ Parent ]
Because a n*gg*r is trying to take over healthcare
The people of Arkansas are not rational people. If they were, half of them wouldn't be birthers.

I don't really believe that R2000 poll on the public option based on whatr PPP found here;

Barack Obama has a low approval rating, voters don't like his plans for
health care, and they think Rush Limbaugh's vision for America is superior, Public
Policy Polling's newest Arkansas survey finds.
56% of voters in the state disapprove of the job Obama is doing so far as President, with
just 40% approving. Those numbers are down from a March Arkansas survey that found
the spread at a favorable 47/45. 72% of Democrats, 30% of independents, and 9% of
Republicans give him good marks.
On health care, just 29% of Arkansans say they support Obama's plans with 60%
opposed. On that front he has the support of only 54% of Democrats and 20% of
independents.
When asked whether they think Obama or Limbaugh has a better vision for the country,
55% of respondents selected Limbaugh in spite of the fact only 35% of them have a
favorable opinion of him, compared to 44% unfavorable.
"These numbers, taken together, show why Blanche Lincoln's Senate seat is becoming an
enticing target for Republicans in spite of their candidate recruitment issues," said Dean
Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. "There are few states that have an electorate
more conservative than Arkansas' and if the GOP can effectively nationalize the race it'll
be close."
PPP will release new Senate numbers tomorrow. This survey also found Arkansas is
home to many 'birthers,' as just 45% of voters believe Obama was born in the country.

55% think Rush Limbaugh as a better view of the country than Barack Obama? and they want a public option? I'm willing to be Blanche Lincoln would be voting differently if it was President Hillary Clinton in charge, and the people of Arkansas wouldn't be so high on Limbaugh either.

If I were Blanche Lincoln, I'd freakin' retire, these people are not rational.  

[ Parent ]
Here's the question though
Can you imagine that, if implemented, the birthers and just about everyone else will love the public option a few years down the road? I think that's an exceedingly likely outcome, and it's one of the reasons why I don't question the positive results on the question in AR--or anywhere else--now.

BTW, one place you might expect "public" anything to be slightly scary to whites is in the deep south, where many have abandoned the public schools to blacks, creating de facto segregation. But I highly doubt that even most of those people would support abolishing public education. Nor does anyone seriously believe that private education will be shut down. (That was a right pretty much guaranteed by the same Court that foisted the evil, evil, evil Brown on them.)

[ Parent ]
If Arkansans are willing to vote against health insurance
for themselves because so many of them are racists, they deserve the extreme Republican they'll get. In the meantime, Lincoln ought to explain to them why they need health insurance, because if they want to vote against her for being an, excuse me, n----r-lover, simply because she's a Democrat, she has no chance. Her only chance is to appeal to their rationality in showing them she is fighting for their interests. Voting against health care for her constituents is no way to do that.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
you know, to be honest
she did try this...she gave a few speeches in Arkansas supporting Obama's healthcare plan earlier in the year, didn't help. She has appealed to their rationality, but there is none.

I agree that she's basically screwed whatever she does and that's why my opinion would be for her to just retire. Obama can give her a good administration job. Another Democrat could hold the seat...especially with Beebe on the ticket.

Although I suspect she's counting on the pork from the Ag committee helping her...and she's probably right. Entice the morons with fun little pork projects.

"I know you want to stop that Muslim Negro Kenyan, and I won't let him control me, see how I opposed him here and here, and look at the shiny new thing I got for you as chair of the Agriculture Committee."

Sadly, this is probably the only winning campaign in Arkansas right now.  

[ Parent ]
This I don't disagree with
She has to balance her own desire to be reelected against the possibility of brining down an entire administration. I would consider offering her a plum appointment.  
[ Parent ]
Obama might like that idea, actually.
If she thinks that she could lose reelection, Lincoln might go along with it. My question is this: Could Beebe appoint someone who could hold the seat? Granted, this is all highly speculative at this point.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, sure he can
but Beebe would appoint another Lincoln.

Lt. Governor Bill Halter could hold the seat easily.  

[ Parent ]
I am saying nothing about Lincoln's politics...
...only that she may be unable to win reelection. Maybe PPP should test Halter as a replacement for Lincoln next time they poll Arkansas to confirm that. I guess I'm concerned that Obama could attempt a Machiavellian move and find a cushy job for Lincoln, yet Arkansas could be so hostile to federal Democrats in 2010 that it might not matter and a Republican Senator would get elected anyway.
[ Parent ]
True
but you have to wonder why Lincoln is losing, but Mike Beebe, who may be more conservative than her, is winning in a landslide.

[ Parent ]
Governors versus Senators
Even in today's climate, where Governors are the bane of the public's existence (or so the public thinks), deep red states like Wyoming, Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, etc. are more than willing to send Conservative Dems to the Governor's mansion but certainly not to Capitol Hill.  It's the obverse of the Massachusetts-Hawaii situation.  If Beebe were in the race, I'm not at all sure he'd be cleaning house.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
SSP's race rating for AR is "Likely D"
Are you sticking with that?
I think the rating should stay
Rasmussen has been much more out of the average this year than historically.  For instance, they actually have Obama at negative job approval already.

These Arkansas polls are some of Rasmussen's most glaring outliers yet.

[ Parent ]
Trends matter..
and if Obama, having lost AR by nearly 20 points, is even less popular there now and probably by summer 2010, Lincoln really is in a tough place and she probably thinks putting distance btw her and the Prez is the right thing to do, but that is Inside the beltway stuff.

The question is two-fold: Is she in (a) generic national party ID deficiency a la DeWine/Chafee/Coleman/Sununu/Smith situation or (b) incumbent rejection situation a la Burns/Santorum/Dole situation. It's hard to tell but I would suspect she is safer in situation (a) than in (b). If it is (a), then putting some distance btw her and the prez might help, IF, and it is a big IF, AR voters can seperate Obama from Lincoln; however, if not, then Lincoln has to also run on her record. I doubt if it is (b) since she really hasn't done anything to piss people off, conversely, her become Ag Chair should help.

Assuming it is an anti-national democratic party electorate that shows up in AR in Nov 2010, then Lincoln has to stand on her record and what she's done for AR and do that loudly and clearly to preempt guilt by association tags. But cowering and hiding behind mealy mouthedness is not going to do it, even if she is Ag Chair because she will get her ass handed to her and AR will get the kind of Bunning/DeMint Senator they deserve.

Interestingly, since 1994, GOP Senate pickups have come mostly from Dem retirements, while Dem pickups have come mostly from defeating GOP incumbents (indeed all 2006 pickups were from defeating GOP incumbents). If that trend continues for 2010 and it is a situation (a) scenario, Lincoln must thoroughly and relentlessly destroy her GOP opponent before he/she can raise any money to tie Lincoln to the national Dem brand so the question for the AR voter in Nov 2010 is " While I really don't like Obama, didn't vote for him and Lincoln is a Dem, she is not GOP candidate X and her record is OK, so maybe she is OK to be re-elected". If she sits there twiddling her thumbs thinking she can run from party labels without showing her record, she deserves to lose.  

Indepedent/Lean D. Dude.
All 5s (now TX-5; frmly VA-5 and CA-5)  

You are absolutely right
The list of elected Dems who have lost since 1994:

1996:
Dem losses in NE, AR, AL open seats
1998:
Carol Moseley-Braun (IL)
Open seat losses in OH and KY
2000:
Chuck Robb (VA)
Open seat losses in NV
2002:
Max Cleland (GA)
Jean Carnahan-appointed Dem in MO
Open seat loss in MN.
2004:
Tom Daschle (SD)
Open seat losses in LA, GA, FL, SC, and NC

Total tally: 4 incumbent Dems lost, 17 total Dems seats lost.

[ Parent ]
And she will lose
Republicans are already going to tag her as a liberal who support socialized medicine.  She is braindead if she thinks Republicans will leave her alone if she blocks healthcare reform.  
[ Parent ]
so doesn't think Republicans will leaver her alone
she thinks the crazy conservative Obama-hating Dems in the state who usually vote for her will vote for her if she doesn't do everything he says.  
[ Parent ]
Arkansas
Arkansas Dems, because of Clinton and local factors, have been able to keep the GOP at bay here.  No more.  The electorate is a natural GOP base.  Things will not be getting better for us here.  
It might not be Oklahoma in five years; maybe more like Kentucky.  One or two Dem seats in the house, one senate dem (hoping Conway can pull it off, and assuming Pryor can't lose) and mostly conservative dems winning state-level races.

26, D, MO-05, Hispanic
I think the GOP is going to have a great time
in Arkansas in the next 10 years.  I predict that they will gain at least one if not both state Houses by mid next decade.

[ Parent ]
Good to see
Hope Ms. Stab-in-the-Back on health care and EFCA loses.  
And little gems like this one
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

"A Senate committee voted Tuesday night to restore $50 million a year in federal funding for abstinence-only education that President Barack Obama has pushed to eliminate.

The 12-11 vote by the Senate Finance Committee came over objections from its chairman, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.

Two Democrats - Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas - joined all 10 committee Republicans in voting "yes" on the measure by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah."

[ Parent ]
The key election element of 2010 is
the more the public knows you, the more they think you suck.

This is year when unknowns will poll better until they are known.

Lincoln still isn't in much trouble, though the flaming leftnuts who think it is better to have a dozen more Inhofes in the Senate certainly aren't helping her.

Leftnuts? LMAO!
More like people who are tired of being pissed on and taken for granted by the cowards, sellouts, and backstabbers that comprise the ranks of the DLC and Blue Dog Coalition and some outside those groups, too.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
then you shouldn't elect a Democrat
in Arkansas, you should completely ignore the state, because this is DLC Blue Dog voter central
[ Parent ]
Fine with me.
Better than having a cancer kill the party from the inside.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Then Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is a failure
because that strategery relied on electing Democrats in these states who CAN get elected...He even admitted that the 50 state strategy was going to rely on Blue Dogs.

If you think ignoring entire swaths of the country is a good idea, then the Democratic Party is going to end up being a Northeast/West Coast minority again, just like the Republicans are in the South.

I think "a cancer killing the party from the inside" is very strong. If people like Jim Eastland and William King weren't cancers that destroyed the party, I don't see how Blanche Lincoln will be.


[ Parent ]
Democrats should do what they need to do
to get elected where they live. But at a national level, Democrats no longer need to coddle white southern bigotry to win. we proved that in 2006 and 2008.
[ Parent ]
Well we're not
Lincoln has to, but the rest of the party doesn't have to.  
[ Parent ]
Lincoln is going to lose anyway
She may as well at least help the party on her way down.  
[ Parent ]
That's nice for control of the Senate
But that doesn't give us any sort of governing coalition either. Since 60 votes has become the de-facto norm in the Senate, you have to show me how to get those 60 votes outside of the South (and the mormon belt), especially if we can't protect all of our freshmen in 2012 (Tester, McCaskill, and Webb will almost certainly be ripe targets for the Republicans, and I wouldn't count on Sherrod Brown being given a free ride).

Without Arkansas's senate seats, our prospects for keeping 60 seats long term are nonexistant, and that's a cold, hard fact.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Referring to the whole Blue Dog/DLC/etc Axis:
Here's how they're a cancer:

1. Stalling a major portion of the Obama agenda and making him look ineffective, allowing the Republicans and the media to pounce and drive his poll numbers down.

2. Negating the very reasons why people vote Democratic, such as: we're going to fix healthcare, we're looking out for the common man and woman, we're going to fight for equality for gays, women, etc.

3. Causing the Democratic base of donors, volunteers, and voters to be disillusioned.

4. Giving bipartisan cover to Republican talking points and policies.  

5. Giving the Republicans time to fire up their base and then tap into that by stalling.

6. Delaying the benefits of Democratic legislation, possibly until after the election.

7. The combination of those factors end up souring the national environment, causing Democrats to have to defend more seats with fewer resources.  The result may well be losing good Dems like Grayson, Shea-Porter, Kagan, etc. to try to protect the likes of Bright, Lincoln, etc.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
and yet we'd be in the minority without them
so pick your poison.

Look, this isn't a new thing, we've ALWAYS had to fight conservatives in the party, ALWAYS.

and yet the party has always survived.

[ Parent ]
Jesus Christ, WE DON'T NEED BLANCHE LINCOLN
We don't need the Blue Dogs.  What we need is a clear platform and the results to show we've delivered.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Bingo

[ Parent ]
and we're still getting that
all she did is vote against a public option, voters aren't going care if healthcare reform has a public option or not, they're going to care that something got passed.

[ Parent ]
Um, yes we do
What we don't need is anyone who thinks being a party of 30 senators is anything but nutty.

Your argument is totally otherwordly. The archaic system of government known as the US Senate means that the minority of people who oppose a public option have the Senate votes to block it. And delivering here isn't the point either.  It's articulating an agenda, which Obama has utterly failed to do... does he support a public option or not?  Who fucking knows?

Obama needs to step up and present the public option to a Senate vote... and then lose.  And then we have a popular issue on our side to run on, with moderate voters either pressuring the Lincoln/Baucuses of the world one way or another.

[ Parent ]
The president has repeatedly stated
that he supports the public option that he in fact proposed during the campaign, and also why he supports it. If you aren't sure whether he supports it, I don't think that's his fault.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
What we don't need.
What we don't need is anyone who's willing to accept any bullshit that masquerades as a Democrat, even if it's a detriment to the party and to the country.  What we don't need is having dominant majorities in both houses and the presidency and still getting nothing.  What we don't need is passing a watered-down, do-nothing bill, or a destructive bill that benefits the powerful at the expense of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

I do agree that Obama needs to step up, but the public option is overwhelmingly popular...and yet we still can't get it through.  We're still getting Blue Dog/DLCers in states/districts that support it (see: Montana, TN-05) who oppose it.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Any Democrat who is willing to vote for cloture
on a decent health care bill that has a decent public option and real limits on the depredations of insurance companies, providing that there are otherwise enough votes to pass the plan, deserves a bit of latitude.

My problem is that I already don't like the fact that the President is proposing a public option that is available only to uninsured people who can't afford private insurance (where's the competition there?) and that the insurance industry is still protected by antitrust exemption and won't have its premiums or co-pays limited by law. "Medicare for all" would have been a great place to start. It's simple, popular, and hard to effectively demonize with lying bullshit. I hope that the result of starting with something that was already compromised and watered down doesn't end up being the same thing that happened (didn't happen) during the Clinton Administration. If that's the result, the people will have lost, and the ineffective Democratic Party will pay for it at the polls.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
He doesn't get to do that
The Senate leadership gets to decide that, and if it loses, chances are the whole thing dies and no matter how popular the issue is, Democrats are going down anyway.

This happened in Italy when the left wing parties demanding labor reform when the votes weren't there. It lost and they brought down the coalition. The assumption was the people would come out and vote for the left parties because they demanding this great thing for the people.

the left parties got swept completely out of Parliament...the reason, because they didn't compromise and instead picked a hill to die on and nothing got done.  

[ Parent ]
Because the US is so much like Italy?
Let me ask you a question, what do governing political parties run on if not their records?
[ Parent ]
their records
and you keep saying there will be none, there will be a record to run on next year, despite what Blanche Lincoln does. We're questions what goes IN that record.

Whether or not healthcare reform has a public option or whether card check is part EFCA isn't going to matter to swing voters...the fact that they passed in the first place is what's going to matter.

How did Bill Clinton get reelected? What did he run on? He didn't get anything done, but he still won...how?

[ Parent ]
He saved Medicare from Newt Gingrich
How quickly some forget that it wasn't all about school uniforms.  
[ Parent ]
of course he gave way welfare
in return, so really it was a wash.  
[ Parent ]
Is anyone calling
to put welfare back where it was? Personally, I'm not in a position to evaluate the policy.  
[ Parent ]
Well Kucinich was during the campaign
I'm sure you can find some kossacks and probably more than a few loonys at OpenLeft who think we should go back to pre Clinton welfare laws.

Actually, we never got it in 2005...when welfare reform was up for renewal, it passed by one vote in the House and Dick Cheney cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
You got a link for that?
What I'm finding is that welfare was extended in the 109th pretty unanimously. But that could have been more of a CR-type situation.
[ Parent ]
It was reinstated as part
of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  
[ Parent ]
Clinton was blessed with a fantastic economy
And a very unpopular Newt Gingrich running Congress.  
[ Parent ]
I totally disagree
The voters don't care if just ANYTHING passes. If it doesn't clearly benefit them, why will they support it? And you are picking the wrong analogy by mentioning Clinton's reelection. The analogy is 1994 ~ 2010.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I agree
People aren't going to be happy with just anything just because it passed.  No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Bill are two examples of bills with purportedly noble aims but were not very much liked.  So, if a healthcare reform bill gets passed whose benefits are outweighed by the hassles, they won't like it.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
and btw
the way we're not like Italy is that we're far more conservative.  
[ Parent ]
With the way that things are going
There is going to be no healthcare reform.  A public option cannot get 60 votes and the liberals in the House and probably the Senate too will block a bill that doesnt have a public option.  The resulted stalemate will likely continue to pull the President's approval ratings down and likely cost Democrats the House and leave them with around 51 seats in the Senate.  

Basically my advise to Democrats if they dare not to pass a healthcare bill is to find a skyscraper, go to the top level, and jump out of a window.  

[ Parent ]
Ok you're an UpstateDem sock puppet
because UpstateDem/Kent is the only person who finishes a comment like that. and the only person I've read who said something like this;

If Democrats lose the House in 2010, they probably wont be getting it back for another decade.

I'm sorry you got banned from kos for calling Lynn Sweet a c^^t, but get a life already.

[ Parent ]
Me?
Im not even a Democrat.  
[ Parent ]
yeah you

[ Parent ]
We need new Senate leadership
Harry Reid is completely incompetent, and I will support the Republican in Nevada if there is no other way to remove him as party leader.  
[ Parent ]
Leadership isn't going to change anything
I can't think of anyone who was considered an effective Majority Leader when they were the Majority Leader.

Liberal Democrats HATED Lyndon Johnson when he was Majority Leader. Civil Rights Activists wanted to oust him.  

[ Parent ]
I really doubt anyone's going to look back on Reid or Daschle and so they were wrong, that they actually were effective.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
and btw
there are 52 Blue Dogs in the House, without them, we'd have 205...a minority.

In a European country, the Blue Dogs would exist as their own party in a coalition with the left. If that was the case, we'd have to give into their demands or risk having them join the Republicans in a vote of non confidence and bring the whole coalition down.

[ Parent ]
There's some dishonest math right there
Not all Blue Dogs are alike. Consider the ones from California, New York, And Pennsylvania, for example. Compare them to most of those from the south.
[ Parent ]
So then "the Blue Dogs" aren't the problem
just some of them.  
[ Parent ]
Duh
If I ever said otherwise (and I doubt I did), I was just using sloppy shorthand. It is beyond obvious that Patrick Murphy is very different from Jim Marshall.
[ Parent ]
No they are the problem
If the more liberal Blue Dogs left the caucus, the Blue Dogs would be left with 35 members, not enough to block legislation, and the leadership could pick them off member by member.

The reason why the Blue Dogs are a problem is because in theory, they can block legislation if they stick together.

[ Parent ]
This exists in all democracies though
Why Patrick Murphy joined the Blue Dogs, I have no idea...my only belief is that he did because he represents a historically socially conservative Pennsylvania district...but then he sponsors the repeal of DADT, so that doesn't make sense.

But then again after he took over sponsorship of DADT, Blue Dogs began cosponsoring left and right, so maybe that's a reason.

[ Parent ]
Bucks County is like Westchester, NY
It's moderate Republican land--formerly.  
[ Parent ]
Part of the problem IMO
is the Blue Dogs from California and New York.  If they left the caucus, the Blue Dogs would be down to a number in the 30s, which would no longer give them the ability to hijack the caucus.
[ Parent ]
but they don't want to leave the caucus
because they actually consider themselves Blue Dogs.
[ Parent ]
Then the leadership should threaten them
Pelosi should declare war on the Blue Dogs and work to reduce their power.
[ Parent ]
She tried this in 2007
and they without their dues to the DCCC...the only way to really reduce their power is reduce their numbers and increase progressive numbers. Right now they're a major part of the coalition.

If you look at the Democratic Party as a coalition, they're one of the largest subsidies, you don't threaten the large subsidies.

They have to power to make life hell for Pelosi and progressive between now and next year. Pelosi isn't in a place to reduce their power.  

[ Parent ]
Actually she is
by threatening the 15 Blue Dog Dems whose districts voted heavily for Obama.

I learned yesterday that there are 7 California Democrats in the Blue Dog caucus.  Pelosi should be able to make their lives hell.

[ Parent ]
Indeed she could

[ Parent ]
and she is
as most of those Democrats support a progressive healthcare bill. She sure made Jane Harman's life hell.  
[ Parent ]
You miss the point
it is not enough for them to support the health care bill.  My guess is that out of the 52 Blue Dogs, 30 will do that.

She has to push them to quit the Blue Dog Caucus and thus reduce their power to bargain as a group.

[ Parent ]
And a signficant portion of said Blue Dogs come from blue districts.
Another handful come from only marginally Republican districts.  We can do better.  

Try again.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
you're the one using the broad term "Blue Dogs"
you admit then we need SOME of the Blue Dogs.  
[ Parent ]
No, we need some of their districts.
We can do better than Cooper and Barrow, for example.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Then run primary challenges
Arkansas is not GA-12 or TN-05, Arkansas is damn near close to being like Gene Taylor's district.

Like I said earlier, if you can get a more progressive Senator in Arkansas, priamry Blanche Lincoln, if you can't, deal with it.

Or better, go to Arkansas and try to educate the people there. Organize marches in Little Rock...go door to door and talk about how healthcare reform with a public option will help them and how Rush Limbaugh is only trying to hurt them.

or...give up on the 50 State Strategy...and accept Howard Dean was wrong.

[ Parent ]
Oh, believe me, I'm supporting primary challenges to them.
But I'm also not going to turn a blind eye to other Democrats who backstab us most of them.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
And, has an afterthought...
...we'll be in the minority a hell of a lot faster if we can't deliver on our promises, both stated and implied (e.g. the common man/woman over the big guy, equality for gays, women, and so on, do something about climate change).  See how fast things collapse if/when Democrats and independents alike come to the conclusion that there is no real difference between the parties.

A new generation of voters are coming into the forefront, along with other new votes, and the possibility of immigrants of all ages possibly entering the political arena.  Democrats can either build a new coalition of long-term Democratic voters through clear achievement (as was down by FDR) or we can piss it away to placate the cowardly, corrupt, or greedy (or some combination thereof) elements within our party.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely
You have the better of this argument.
[ Parent ]
Yikes. I need to proofread, though.
"As was down by FDR."  LOL

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Here Here


26, D, MO-05, Hispanic
[ Parent ]
Then we're going one way back to the minority
because I can tell you right now, outside of the blogsphere, the only thing people who are pissed at Democrats about...is that they're too liberal.

I don't know one person, outside of the blogsphere, who thinks they're not delivering fast enough on promises. I know plenty who think they're doing things without thinking or caring on what effect it does to the country.

[ Parent ]
and btw
FDR's coalition included throwing civil rights and immigrants rights under the bus, so he had to placate cowards in the party too.  
[ Parent ]
FDR got lots of progress for that
What are we getting out of our put-off priorities and under-the-bus condition?

I think that remains to be seen.

[ Parent ]
Yes
that remains to be seen...and if you've read history, Democrats thought the same thing about Roosevelt and their party in 1933.

Which is why Huey Long was ready to run against FDR.

Why don't we make these decisions AFTER stuff gets passed instead of while.

[ Parent ]
Did Huey Long wait?
"Just wait" is not a viable strategy for effecting change. Nor is it good politics. (Added because I think that's what this discussion is about, though I fear our discussion could possibly be read as being off topic).
[ Parent ]
yeah he actually did
he waited until a lot of FDR's reforms died in Congress or he watered them down to nothing.

[ Parent ]
The difference is that FDR didn't throw
everything on the left under the bus.  FDR did pass a Social Security bill (even though with lots of exemptions), he gave unions a huge weapon with the Wagner Act, he passed a minimum wage and maximum hours bill, and he put in good regulations of the financial industry.
If the price for a good health care bill is that it doesn't fund abortion, doesn't cover illegal immigrants, eliminate end-of-life counseling, and we have to fund abstinence-only shit, then fine, we pay that price and we fight to overturn it later.
But if the price to pay is basically a giveaway to health insurance industry, well that is not acceptable.
[ Parent ]
True, but he also got a hell of a lot down on economic issues.
Something that built a generation of largely loyal Democrats.  We can't get shit because we have one element stalling and backstabbing on social issues, another on economic issues, another on foreign policy, and many times, it's the same people across the board.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
That's how the Democratic Party is
it was always that day, FDR and LBJ had successes because they were able to counter those factions of the Democratic Party WITH REPUBLICANS.

Anti-civil rights Democrats...he got pro-civil rights Republicans. FDR got Republicans to cancel out fiscally conservative Democrats.

We don't have that luxury now.  

[ Parent ]
That ignores the change in ideological balance
in both of the parties. Dems have the left and the center now. Insisting on Republican support for healthcare is like insisting on dixiecrat support for desegregation. It delegitimizes their entire raison d'être.
[ Parent ]
well then we don't have the votes
in Congress for these things then...the Democratic Party has never EVER acted in a partisan united bloc...Democrats have always gotten their big things done by countering opposition from inside the party with support in the other...anyone who thought that was going to change now wasn't paying attention.

[ Parent ]
As it was always, so always it must be?
I don't buy it.

In any case, if we can't do grand HCR, then some small scale steps along the way would be good politics and good policy (i.e., more money for Medicaid and SCHIP, lower the Medicare eligibility age, fund local clinics and hospitals). But the big ticket stuff (a mandate) is not severable politically (IMO) from a decent public plan.  

[ Parent ]
those are things Lincoln supports btw
she supports more money for Medicaid and SCHIP, lower Medicare eligibility and funding local clincs and hospitals.

She's not even that crazy about the mandate either.  

[ Parent ]
The big mistake was
trying at all to negotiate with the GOP.  Everyone knew that they were purely obstructionist.
[ Parent ]
They never seriously negotiated with them
that was all a political ploy because the public wanted them to do it.  
[ Parent ]
Good, then let's do that
and make a big deal out of it. My ideal world has the eligibility age for Medicare and the poverty index for Medicaid converging over time, ASAP. Let's put that framework in place.  
[ Parent ]
I'll say this
the only way we will get a decent public plan is through reconciliation.

The only way the Dems will go through reconciliation is if there is no way to pass some health care bill through the normal way.

The situation is this:

1. A health care bill w/o a public option won't pass the House since liberals will vote against it.

2. A health care bill w/ a public option won't pass the Senate because conservative Dems will vote against and a few may filibuster it.

Unless some compromise is reached to get enough liberals in the House to vote for it and all 60 Dems to vote for cloture, the only way that it gets through is reconciliation.

At the end of the day, it is possible that people like Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad, and Blanche Lincoln may be doing us a favor by being assholes, in that it might finally get Reid and the Dems to use reconciliation to pass health care.

[ Parent ]
Agreed

[ Parent ]
That ignores what was said above.
The parties have become more cohesive.  Regionalism in party selection has become less of a factor while general ideological bearings have become more important.  Thus, the liberal wing of the Republican Party is dead and the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.  Thus, we have to adapt to this new reality by looking within the party for support.  But that can't happen when blue seats are wasted and conservadems prevent us from getting a message out and building the party to make more blue seats.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
we had that back in the '30s too

[ Parent ]
What circular strawman argument!
When did Blanche Lincoln make such a promise?

Uh, never.

How can you with a straight face talk about a "new coalition" when you reject and rudely insult both generally decent politicians and the people they represent?

The leftnut Club for Growth element in the Democratic party are the real problem we face from a swing state perspective.  The fanatical idea that anyone who disagrees with you is cowardly/corrupt/greedy is one thing above all, the attitude of losers.  Dean articulated a strategy that was inclusive, where the middle and the left reject the literal "agree with us or go to hell" ideology of the far right.  That process needs to coninue instead of emulating the CfG losers.

[ Parent ]
Reply
When did Blanche Lincoln make such a promise?

She made that promise when she ran as a Democrat, same as any other Democrat.  All parties have implied promises.  That's why people gravitate to one or the other.  That's why I did, and that's why you did.  People put the Democrats in office because they thought we'd be better than the Republicans and would bring about a real difference.  

Dean articulated a strategy that was inclusive, where the middle and the left reject the literal "agree with us or go to hell" ideology of the far right.

Dean articulated a strategy to go to and build the party up in these states, not to sell out everything or damn near everything that makes one a Democrat.  Did you pay attention to what Dean said during his campaign?  How many times did you hear "Why in the world are Democrats..."?  Have you noticed just which organization is airing ads against Baucus, et al. over healthcare?

The leftnut Club for Growth element in the Democratic party are the real problem we face from a swing state perspective.  The fanatical idea that anyone who disagrees with you is cowardly/corrupt/greedy is one thing above all, the attitude of losers.

You can spit "leftnut" and "fanatical" and invoke the Club for Growth all you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that what will kill us is doing nothing or passing something crappy and ineffective.

Nor does it change the fact that the Republicans reached their most recent zenith at the time when they were most cohesive and could rally themselves (including their rank and file bases) and the voters around a reasonably clear message.  The Republicans reached their heights AFTER the Rockefeller's were out of power, not before.  And what collapsed it for them was not that cohesiveness, it was the fact that their policies sucked.  How in the hell is it a good idea to incorporate elements of those same destructive policies into our platform?

Oh, and for the corruption angle, follow the money.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Agreed completely

[ Parent ]
Yes, but I know people
who don't support a public option, don't support EFCA, and support the war i Afghanistan who voted Democratic too.

There are many reasons people vote Democrat...but the agenda isn't always one of them. What agenda were people voting for in Alabama-2 when they voted Bobby Bright AND John McCain? What about in Washington-8 when they voted for Dave Reichert AND Barack Obama? Here people voted for two different agendas? What happened, are they politically schizo?

Most of them people vote for people for no good reason, because they like said person, because of commercials, because that know that guy, because someone told them to.

Case in point, in 2002 my ex-girlfriend, who support abortion rights, voted for the Right to Life candidate for Governor of New York because he was her high school social studies teacher.

Howard Dean also repeadidly argued that we need Blue Dogs if we're going to have a 50 state strategy, so he may have said "why are we Democrats" but he openly supported people like Lincoln, so maybe Howard Dean isn't the beacon of progressivism people think he is.  

[ Parent ]
Reply.
What agenda were people voting for in Alabama-2 when they voted Bobby Bright AND John McCain? What about in Washington-8 when they voted for Dave Reichert AND Barack Obama? Here people voted for two different agendas?

But that is becoming rarer.  Most districts and states voted for representatives and senators of the same party as their choice for president.  Most of our pickups from the past two cycles have been in districts/states that were either Kerry seats (e.g. IA-01, I-02, PA-Sen) or would become Obama seats in the next election (e.g. OH-Sen, Both VA-Sen, CA-11, VA-11, NY-20).  Conversely, Republican pickups in recent cycles have come in states/districts that vote Republican in presidential elections (e.g, GA-Sen in 2002 and 2004, all those Texas seats in 2004, MN-02 in 2002).  Notice also, that even when a seat has a daliance with the opposite party due to scandal, etc., there's sometimes a "snap-back" as Sabato says (e.g. TX-22, KS-02, etc.)

in 2002 my ex-girlfriend, who support abortion rights, voted for the Right to Life candidate for Governor of New York because he was her high school social studies teacher.

Is that why you broke up with her? :p  Seriously, I'm guessing she wouldn't have done it otherwise and won't do it again.  And would she have kept voting for him had he won and starting violating her principles?

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
in fairness
there isn't a soul in the political world who believes the Republicans would've kept power after 2000 if not for 9/11.

[ Parent ]
Correct
BTW, nobody says that there aren't issues Democrats disagree about. But I think a general rule of legislative governance is that you ought to have serious and deep-felt disagreements with your party over an issue before you consider voting against a majority of your caucus. Sadly, in America, the parties have almost no central mechanism to regulate this. (Jay Cost has written on the topic).
[ Parent ]
Ranting doesn't help
What sellouts?  Jeezus, get a grip.  Some people have different opinions than you do.

And more to the point, Lincoln is left of center of the people of Arkansas in general.  

There is nothing more irrational than thinking another Inhofe, someone in the right 15% of his state, is better than someone like Lincoln, someone about 75% of the left in her state.

This party, and this country, is center-left.  Neither is  leftist.  Deal with it.

[ Parent ]
-
We are sick of being told by Democratic leaders and their self-styled "pragmatic" apologists to accept anything with a "D" beside its name, to vote for it, to donate to it, and volunteer for it, even after we're thrown under the bus. Deal with that.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Here's hoping all non-liberals lose...
I so love the thought that we need all non-liberals to lose because they disagree on this.   It just makes me laugh.  

I remember a time when winning in Montana would have been crazy for Democrats unless you're last name was Baucus.  Wasn't North Carolina going to be part of the repub south no too long ago.  And weren't dems in the minority not too long ago.  Gosh how things have changed...sorta.

Look, at the end of the day, its a double standard.  People say get rid of Blanche Lincoln and let a right winger take over, because she's a cancer to the party.  Seriously, then these same people complain about Michelle Bachmann or ohter right wingers.  Its just nuts.

We have people on here who spend hours drawing new re-districting maps who design them to eliminate republicans in states, but then complain that Texas is rigged republican.  Seriously?  

C'mon, the whole goal of government at any level should be for those elected to represent who they were elected by.  We will not, NOT NOT NOT, have 100% agreement ever.  As such, civil discourse would say try to work together and get the people's will done.

What happened in the last 9 months is everyone thinks the country voted for universal health care, EFCA, 100% troop withdrawals from Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.  

But guess what, we didn't vote for those things.  You might think that we did, but we didn't.  People voted for alot of things: change, hope, excitement, etc.  Heck many people probably voted for a guy because he was black (and many probably voted for McCain for the very same reason).

But what we really voted for was pretty much more of the same.  I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm guessing about 90% of the house is the same now as was elected in 2006 and about 95% is the same as 2006 as well.  Sure the president is different but he is an executive and can't legislate.  And the Supreme court is about 88.89% the same as it was before Obama was elected Prez.

So why then do we expect overnight change and wish that if we can't get something done now it will never happen?  Who likes being backed into a corner with that argument (or any for that matter)?

I think people want better healthcare, and I think such a bill will get passed.  Why?  Because most people want that.  I think universal health care with a public option won't happen.  Why?  Because I don't think large enough majorities in most states are ready for that.  And why would they be, do we know yet how to pay for Social Security and Medicare that are already entitlement programs?  Of course not.  But I bet a compromise will work for now.  And guess what, if it works, Democrats will get credit, more pro-healthcare democrats will get elected, and eventually better and better healthcare will win out.

So here's what I do.  I hope for better things.  I think that having awesome majorities in both houses is great.  I like the Democrats in control, and I for one like the pragmatic approach to most issues.  I like the public debate on things, and even though i don't like some of the social sub-currents (birthers, "I want my America back" crazies, etc) its still nice to see democracy being democratic again.  I don't think Democrats compromise on everything like some, I think they try to do what they can and improve things more at a later date (I like to think of minimum wage on this idea, remember what it was a few years ago and hadn;t been raised for a while, then Congress acted and gave it a big bump up, with another kicker a few years after...and they probably won't deal with it again in the next 5 years).

Here's what I don't do.  I dont wish for losses by Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, etc because they are "cancers".  They are elected representatives of their state who differ with some other elected representatives.  We have certified vote tallies to prove they were elected, but only blogger heresay that their states want this or that and that they are betraying their constituents.  If they are, they'll lose, and rightly so.  

Of course if they lose, it'll be most likely to Republicans, and I fail to see how that's going to help the Democratic agenda.  However, many a man was made to look fool by cutting off his nose to spite his face...

We have opinion poll results
on support for a public insurance option, not just "blogger hearsay." Opposition to a decent public option, let alone one at all, is primarily driven by insurance industry contributions to members of the Senate and House, not a lack of public support for one.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
we also have opinion polls
that show a huge majority want the whole thing scrapped if it doesn't get any Republican votes.

We have opinion polls that show the majority don't think Republicans are acting in good faith, but they want Democrats to bring them into the debate anyway.

What the people want is a red herring, the people don't know what the fuck they want.  

[ Parent ]
???
we also have opinion polls that show a huge majority want the whole thing scrapped if it doesn't get any Republican votes.

Really? Please give me some kind of reference. I have indeed read that a majority of respondents want a bill that can garner bipartisan support, but you're telling me that the question was actually put to them on whether they'd prefer no bill to one that doesn't get Republican votes and they chose "no bill"?

Also, if we take your claim at face value, politicians should just do whatever the fuck they want at all times, since:

What the people want is a red herring, the people don't know what the fuck they want.

Do you really want to take that to what seems like its logical conclusion to me, or are you mostly engaging in rhetoric - or what? Your clarification is appreciated.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
I have to find the polls
there was one from August and another recently that both asked if Democrats should pass healthcare with Republican votes or try to get their votes, and the majority in both polls said they should get their votes.

Quinnipiac had a poll that showed the majority wanted a government insurance option, as long as they didn't have to use it, but then said overwhelmingly that government healthcare is bad, but overwhelmingly approve of Medicare and Medicaid. They're all over the place.

I'm looking for them...I'll dig them up.  

[ Parent ]
Thanks very much
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Then they should have voted to...
...bring about more change.  Polls once showe GW Bush in the high 70% approvals, but alas just polls.  No way 70% ever really approved of that man.

But alas the point is, the representative democracy didnt change...you're argument is public opinion changed and everyone voted for the exact same people to do a very different thing...

Does that make sense?  Is it really Blanche Lincoln's fault?  

Explain to me while all the same senators would suddenly do this?  And dont site public opinion polls.  It doesnt work, polls elect no one.  If they did President Gore would have been great.

[ Parent ]
President Gore
won the election. He actually won the popular vote by over half a million votes, as I recall, and would have won the Electoral College, too, except for an abusive U.S. Supreme Court and deliberate, felonious vote-suppression.

As for what you claim is my argument, congratulations on putting up a straw man!

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
What is a straw man?

[ Parent ]
Straw man
you're argument is public opinion changed and everyone voted for the exact same people to do a very different thing

That is not my argument.

But the fact is that not everyone voted for the exact same people, and public opinion clearly DID change some, as witness the DIFFERENCES in the election results in 2006 and 2008, as compared to 2002 and 2004.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
I would still stick by my statement
The majority of the senate in place in 2000 is there today.  While I see your point, if the democracy changes slowly, shouldn't too the policies?

And I would argue, though proving this is impossible, that the vast majority of people who voted in 2000 voted for the same people in 2008, just 2008 saw much higher vote totals.  I dont know the demographics of new voters either.

And deciphering what these new voters were voting for is hard.  

[ Parent ]
Reply
if the democracy changes slowly, shouldn't too the policies?

In my opinion, no. And I'll tell you why: This country is in crisis. What would have happened if everyone had twiddled their thumbs during the Great Depression? There are times when politicians need to rise to great challenges.

I do get your point, though. Just don't attribute to me arguments that I didn't make. Thanks. :-)

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
Well for a time
everyone DID twiddle their thumbs during the Great Depression. It took a lot to get FDR's New Deal through Congress, much of it never even got enacted. It took years to get it all through, and there was a lot of opposition from within the Democratic Party.

[ Parent ]
That's a useful historical perspective
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
I guess my dual BAs in Political Science and History are showing
I'm convinced those who are saying nothing is getting done and the Democrats are useless are going to end up with egg on their faces by the next election.

Although I suspect the David Sirotas will cherrypick the disappointments as to not have to say he was wrong.

But I guess my dual BAs in Political Science and History are showing  

[ Parent ]
RED STATE RESIDENT
As someone who lives in a blood red state... TX...  I'd be tickled to go door to door for any conservadem who didn't support EFCA or the public option.  I'm for both but I'll take a conservadem over Cornyn or Kay Bailey any day.  Reasons why

1. I'd take a moderate repub over a crazz repub, for instance, I will be and already have been to a smal degree campaigning for Kay for Gov.  Perry is insane, Kay is a conservative.  

2. It isn't arkansas' fault we can't get a public option.  You can blame Maine democrats, NH dems and indies, Ohio, Florida et al.   These states elect conservatives dems (Florida) or republicans when they don't need to.  So that is what is hurting the party right now... not maxing out our potential.

3.  Reffering to point two, Blanch is probably the best we can hope for in a blood red souther state.

4. Even if we do lose her, she acts as a buffer to the rest of the party.  While republicans are spending money on states they should already have we can pick off one of theirs.

So basically it i s a good thing to have sheep for the slaughter.  The problem is the republicans haven't been defeated everywhere they need to be defeated.  If any of you New York Liberals have a problem with Lincoln, imagine another Ooburn, Vitter (who has committed a felony and yet will still win) etc.  Get Bent!

Good argument
and well stated.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
exactly....
and I like the sheep for slaughter metaphor...though I can only assume you don't mean Louise Slaughter (D-NY-28).

Ahh lame political humor...I'm so lame.

[ Parent ]
If Tom Allen had beated Susan Collins
and Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman, and Betty Castor beat Mel Martinez, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Actually we probably would be, but the bill would look better.  

[ Parent ]
I'm a red state resident, too.
As someone who lives in a blood red state... TX...  I'd be tickled to go door to door for any conservadem who didn't support EFCA or the public option.

Red state (although hopefully getting bluer), red congressional district, red state senate district, red state house district.  Yet I'm no longer in the mood to see Democrats here work their asses off for someone only marginally better than a Republican.

Reffering to point two, Blanch is probably the best we can hope for in a blood red souther state.

If we can't get better, let's look elsewhere.

Even if we do lose her, she acts as a buffer to the rest of the party.  While republicans are spending money on states they should already have we can pick off one of theirs.

That works both ways, though.  We're also spending money to defend a recalcitrant senator in an increasingly unfriendly state.  We may have had the money advantage last time, but that won't last, especially if Democratic fundraising dries up while Republican fundraising heats up.  And that could stretch us thin, causing us to lose far better Democrats elsewhere.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm....
Sorry about your location Unknown, but even the reddest of places still has hope.

You make good points all, but I wonder, would you work to elect a conservadem today if you though having a dem of any kind might help change people's perceptions of dems in your area in a positive way?  My old home District was repub, but finally elected a Dem (Gillibrand) after like 30 years and when she became senator they elected another Dem.  You mught not like either of them, but they are decent enough dems for what was once solidly republican turf.  They also seem to be making a better name for the Dem party in the area...

I like your second, point, if we can't do better, look elsewhere.  I find that more palatable to people looking to see Lincoln defeated by a right wing repub as punishment.  You're exactly right, and I think like most on here that Maine should be ground zero (both Repub senators are decent, but still need convincing on every dem agenda item).  Someone jus tposted about Lamont winning in Connecticut 2 years abck too, so yeah we can focus on getting liberals in New England now and deal with Arkansas whenever.

Your last item is thought provoking, but I'm not sure how the effect works near-term.  I think it favors her in Arkansas, but you're right, if the tides turn we will all push to see out $$$ given to candidates who are better/safer than Lincoln.

[ Parent ]
Re: Conservadems planting the seeds
I've seen far often conservadems in red districts end up poisoning the well by running their mouths.  Look at the damage Zig Zag Zell Miller did or what damage Parker Griffith's comments can do.  I've seen others switch parties.  With regard to your Gillibrand example, remember that upstate New York in general and NY-20 were becoming more conducive to Democrats nationally anyways.  I think what you're seeing may be more if a function of that, something Gillibrand's victory was a result of.

Furthermore, the typical path toward realignment, from my observation, is more top-down.  Case in point: the South.  Republican presidential candidates started winning their in the 1960s.  It was until decades later that Republican strength filtered down the ballot in a significant way.  Same goes for New England: first goes Democratic in unison in 1992; it takes a decade before it filters down to the point where there are no New England Republican house members, and soon to be only two Senators.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Upstate NY wasn't really trending Dem...
She really only won by running against a guy who I think had a DWI and maybe something else (I forget) but honestly it wasn't vice versa.  She paved the way for Murphy, no doubt.  I cant think of a time a Dem won in the area in my 32 year life.  The whole NY turning blue thing wasn't really happening when she first won in my opinion.

So couldn't the same thing happen in your area?  Do you do nothing for fear of the next Parker Griffith or do something in hope of the next Gillibrand?

[ Parent ]
He was allegedly a wife-beater
Actually, there were a whole bunch of bad things that helped sink him.

All that said, I think Gillibrand deserves a lot of credit for helping to get that district to trend Democratic. I don't think that she was merely some kind of beneficiary of demographic trends or something. She campaigned very vigorously and met lots of constituents.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
that basically means drop the 50 state strategy

[ Parent ]
It means to see the writing on the wall and be willing to let go of spent fields in favor of greener pastures.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
we're running out of greener pastures

[ Parent ]
I never was really that hot for it
Tom Schaller had it right in the first place.

Forget it Jake, it's the south.  

[ Parent ]
Really?
We have actually stemmed the tide havent we?  We have Dem Senators/Guvs in VA & AR, Dem guv and 1 dem Sen in NC, Dem guv in Tennessee, 1 Dem senator in FL, etc.

Id rather focus on winning Georgia gov next election than Alaska.  

[ Parent ]
We're succeeding
in places that are seceding from the south (that's Chuck Todd distilling what I think is an essential part of Schaller's thesis). Georgia may get there eventually.

(BTW, his editorial from a year ago holds up pretty well. He was wrong about NC, but he essentially got the rest right).

[ Parent ]
Right, but...
...if we didn't fight there to begin with, would they be "seceding"?

If you're not for the fifty state strategy, you wouldn't want us to waste time in the South according to the link you posted.

I dont understand an argument against competing in the south and then say you're for the south in places where we are winning again.

And what is with chuck Todd's hair?  LOL

Its almost like you're "against" the strategy but "for" the results.  Please clarify.

I'm also curious about you're not being fond of the 50 state strategy.  I find a lot of people have that view.  I love it but would enjoy hearing your view in more detail.

[ Parent ]
The south is shifting because the people are changing
not because we are "spending time" there. In politics, demographics is pretty close to destiny.  
[ Parent ]
Please elaborate...
I'm not sure I get the demographic changes...
[ Parent ]
Liberal notherns moving down south
also the younger generation in some of these states are more liberal.

and immigration.

The inner south; Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas are not part of this because there isn't much of a change in demographics there. But Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida and Texas, there are.  

[ Parent ]
I expect that in my lifetime
Mississippi will have a black majority. That ought to be pretty interesting politically.  
[ Parent ]
I should say that it will have one AGAIN
Many southern states had black majorities well into the 20th century.  
[ Parent ]
Isn't this more of a reason for a 50 state strategy?
Without a strategy wouldn't the areas stay repub longer than without.  

Why are VA and NC turning Dem faster than GA?  Why does TN have a Dem governor and AR is democratic in every way except prez elections?  And if population is the key shouldnt TX be turning Dem faster than it is?

And if all the northern Dems are moving south and voting Dem, why is it at the same time the remaining people in the north seem to be voting in increasingly Dem numbers?  Are they in 2 places at once?

I think we might be giving the demo's and population stats too much credence.  There's a lot of factors.  The south was growing rapidly when it turned hard republican too.  

[ Parent ]
Exactly
The three blue Southern states all have certain things in common: demographic change.  Influx of immigrants (who eventually enter the political system, Northern migrants, and succeeding generations of natives in those areas become more liberal (for whatever reasons, I suspect education and exposure to non-whites has something to do with it).

That extends to three other Southern states: Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, where Obama closed the gap significantly over Kerry and Gore.  On the flipside, the demographically stagnating states like Arkansas are moving away from us rapidly.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Exposure to non-whites?
Not sure about that part of your speculation. White Southerners had plenty of exposure to blacks during segregation; many of them had black nannies.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Yeah probably not. I'll have to find a way to reword that.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Im not sure
The Dem Senator in AR, the Dem governor in VA, and the Dem governor in Tennessee are not likely to last past this next election.  

Georgia is very tough.  Just look at the runoff against Chambliss.  

[ Parent ]
Right but I mean...
The dem control on governors in NY and MI might change enxt election too, that's not directly my point.

Giving up the South makes little sense because we aren't as weak as everyone thinks.  

We've had Dem govs in VA for the last 8 years, if we lose an election in an anti-incumbent year, is that really proof of abandoning the 50 state plan?  Same with a 12 year Sen in AR and an 8 year Gov in TN.  Also VA just elected its second Sen last year I think, so its clearly a reason to at least keep the 50 state plan an option.

[ Parent ]
HOWEVER
a Dem governor in Florida and second Dem Senator in North Carolina are very real possibilities.

Unless it's you UpstateDem, then we're all fucked.  

[ Parent ]
Whatever man
Moving on, I think Sink has a far better chance at winning in Florida than any Democrat does at beating Burr.  Non-federal races hinge more on local issues than federal races.  
[ Parent ]
I could live with a 45 state strategy

which means: letting the remaining elected conservative Dems in AL, MS, LA, AR, and OK crater.  It's not clear we can stop that from happening, anyway, even if we adamantly wanted to.

My impression is that Democrats have pretty much bottomed out in KS, MO, KY, NC & SC, and FL at the state level and the slow reascent has begun.  TN and GA haven't quite bottomed out yet but they seem to be closing in on it.  TX seems to be a mix, with both fairly liberal Democratic gains being made in the cities and conservative Democrats losing ground in the small towns.

[ Parent ]
Do Democrats have anyone left in LA and OK to lose?
I mean seriously.  
[ Parent ]
Boren (OK) and Melancon & Landrieu (LA)
Boren is, along with Griffith, the leading anti-Dem Democrat in the house, and does more harm than good.

Melancon and Landrieu are moderate only considering how far the window has been moved to the right in the past 40 years, and neither of which will receive any time or money from progressives due to their both (i) their clear and unambiguous anti-progressive platforms and (ii) their inability to refrain from insulting democrats in the hopes of getting the radical right to stop being mean to them.

[ Parent ]
Thing is
there were worse Democrats in these areas even 40 years ago.

[ Parent ]
For practical purposes
it amounts to Mary Landrieu.  I just don't see Melancon winning even against crud like Vitter.  And she's hesitant about running for reelection at best given the hardline partisan Republican trend in Louisiana.  I suspect she hangs it up in '14.

I think Democrats win the open NH, OH, and MO seats in '10, with a possibility of also taking out Burr in NC.  That pretty much makes the votes of Lincoln, Landrieu, and one other conservaDem Senator (say, Ben Nelson) extraneous in '11.  Nelson and Lieberman retire in '12, maybe Snowe too, and there will be opportunities posed by the Nevada seat held by Ensign and Kyl's Arizona seat to make up losses....

The long term lengths make the Senate a slow-shifting institution.  The bad news is it takes long to arrive anywhere.  The good news is that when it agrees to strong positive changes, those tend to last.

[ Parent ]
This is not a leftist country, and there will always be moderates in the ruling party.
I'm kind of surprised by what I'm reading in this thread. Let's not allow our emotions regarding the healthcare debate and Blue Dogs get the better of us... This isn't the Daily Kos, and we're not here to advocate for ideological purity. Let's stick to the analytical.

Now then...some of you are basically condemning the Blue Dogs, saying that the Democrats don't need them and that you'd rather have a crazy right-winger representing Arkansas in the Senate than Blanche Lincoln. Well, you're entitled to your opinions. But I'd urge you to think about this for a moment.

This is the United States of America. We have a government by the People -- a People that is a patchwork of different ethnicities, cultures, religions, viewpoints, etc. This is not a leftist country. You may be a progressive -- thousands of people on the Daily Kos might be -- but that doesn't represent most of the country. This is a country where our government must make legislation that is acceptable to a diverse range of viewpoints. We have a system of government that is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is difficult to pass healthcare reform and other legislation in our bicameral national legislature because of the diversity of interests and opinions in the United States, the different opinions of different states and districts (as demonstrated by their elected senators and representatives). This is the very nature of our federal republic: the sheer number of interests represented in the Congress make it nearly impossible for the majority to ram through legislation that the minority views as harmful.

That's why ideological purity is not only unrealistic, but a concept that runs directly counter to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the writers of the Federalist Papers. Moderate/conservative Democrats (or moderate/liberal Republicans) were not elected by their constituents to represent the interests of the progressive base. They were elected to represent the interests of Arkansas, and to evaluate how legislation will affect the nation as a whole, when voting. And in order to pass bills that are not only desired by the progressive base or even a center-left majority, but acceptable to a broader range of Americans, liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats need to be hammering out compromise, like the Senate Finance Committee bill. I thus commend Max Baucus. The Daily Kos loathes him, but I appreciate his dedication to compromise and his respect for the interests of the whole nation, not just a slight majority.

Full disclosure: Although I count myself as an Obama supporter, I am a centrist and an independent and I do not support Democratic candidates blindly. Take that as you will.

Curious NJCentrist...
and you dont have to answer this if its personal.

But as a Centrist in NJ, who has your vote for guv?  I'm In Philly and although our governor choices in recent years weren't amazing, I find NJ's choices fascinating in the weirdest way.  I think I'd vote Daggett.

[ Parent ]
Daggett's got my vote.
Corzine has been a terrible governor, and Christie is a slimy candidate who stands for nothing but being someone other than Corzine. Daggett, I'm pleased to say, is an intelligent, moderate candidate, beholden to no political machine, with detailed plans for improved policies on ethics, the environment, and, most importantly, property tax relief.  
[ Parent ]
There is much truth in what you say
Especially in your larger points about the nature of the Legislative branch and the intent of the framers.

My big problem is that I see the disproportionate influence of companies that make gobs of money by essentially legally killing their customers. And at bottom, I don't think that Congressional opposition to guaranteed national health insurance is either a liberal or conservative interest, but mainly the corrupting effect of self-interested corporate money - something that is likely to worsen if a pro-corporate Supreme Court votes to eliminate all restrictions on corporate expenditures on election campaigns.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

[ Parent ]
There are a lot of people out there
who may not like corporations, but feel they're too powerful to destroy in one swoop because they control too much of our lives already.

Basically it's like living in a dictatorship...we hate them, but we're willing to please them because of how much they can hurt us.

That was my argument against single payer destroy the entire insurance industry plan...is it smart to eliminate an entire industry and it's jobs in the middle of a jobs crisis? No.

Politicians don't like raising money and they don't particularly care for lobbyists, but when Wal Mart threatens to take away thousands of Blanche Lincoln's constituents' jobs, she listens.  

[ Parent ]
Walmart supports the public option, though
I do get your argument about not destroying the insurance industry, but if we can't even get some kind of weak, "level playing field" public option, I want to throw up!

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Agreed on many points...
Its actually too bad states tax tobacco so much, as a federal tax levy on cigarettes could pay for much of health care, as could the infamous soda taxes.  If they could pay for it with those 2 items alone it would be awesome, as not only would it solve the healthcare problem but also (hopefully) change public mindset.

as for the insurance companies, I wonder of the D party will have a leg to stand on to take them on as long as Trial Lawyers are so pro-dem with their $$$...

[ Parent ]
Are you seriously making the argument
that trial lawyers, who are hired to sue in the interest of plaintiffs, are comparable in evil effect to medical insurance companies that profit from legally killing their customers? I'm not sure I get your point, and I'm sorry if I'm unintentionally caricaturing it.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
LOL it didn't seem unintentional
Just kidding.

Repubs have done a very good job of painting Dems in the pocket of trial lawyers.  

My comparison is that will Dem's have a leg to stand on against the insurance companies if they are in bed with insurance companies.  

Let's stop acting like insurance companies sole purpose is killing people also.  Its a bit much.  We also don't need to act like trial lawyers are in it solely for the plaintiffs...there's big money involved.

[ Parent ]
That goes to my argument
My comparison is that will Dem's have a leg to stand on against the insurance companies if they are in bed with insurance companies.
 

No.  Will we have a leg to stand on by criticizing Republicans for voting against climate change legislation, pay equity for women, and healthcare when the corrupt/cowardly/conservative Democrats did it, too?  Like I said, it gives the Republicans bipartisan cover and makes us look like petty partisans.  Instead of "It's okay if you're a Republican," it becomes "It's okay if you're a Democrat."  I'm saying it's not okay.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
I agree and disagree
I dont think the discension really gives reupblicans cover, but I think based on my history on here that I'm in the minority on this opinion.

I think I agree with your last statement but we're so far into this and tis so late I forget the original post :-)

[ Parent ]
Agreed
The whole issue of corporate money being equal to corporate "free speech" is ridiculous, in my opinion. The framers, of course, did not foresee these problems with corporations; the idea of treating corporations as individuals with the same rights as individuals didn't emerge for almost a century. I personally feel that corporate money corrupts the electoral process, so I'm hoping the Supreme Court doesn't strike down campaign finance law regarding corporations in Citizens United v. FEC.

That said, I don't think (as some might) that opposition to healthcare reform is entirely "astroturfing," as it's called. There's definitely a large portion of the population that doesn't want a public option, and while some of those people may be concerned about death panels or something b.s., many have legitimate concerns. The expensiveness factor is probably the biggest legitimate concern; it's certainly mine. I don't support a public option that would dramatically expand the national debt, and I'm pleased to say that my congressman (Leonard Lance) doesn't either.  

[ Parent ]
No-one is proposing a public option that would increase the debt
Instead, they are proposing a public option which is completely paid for.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Let's not allow ourselves to become faux-"pragmatism" and platitudes.
It's not just one issue.  It's a pattern of being thrown under the bus, whether it's Iraq or FISA or bankruptcy or healthcare or choice or gay rights or pay equity or blocking conservative extremists or the environment, all accompanied by calls to vote/donate/volunteer and the attitude of "you'll take what we give you and shut up."  Getting mad about that and becoming concerned about the solvency of our party is not a case of being ruled by one's emotions, it's a case of paying attention and being fed up with it.

And it's always our side that talks about compromise.  Some of the worst policies and most unpopular have come about from compromise: the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, etc.  The simple fact of the matter is that the Republicans have been taken over by religious extremists, the cult of capitalism, and warmongerers.  You don't compromise with someone who has no good faith.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
That title should be:
"Let's not allow ourselves to become wrapped up in faux-'pragmatism' and platitudes"

I need to get to bed before my typos get worse.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
we got the point lol...
But I think the issue of compromise on the items you listed is different because we're compromising on an issue we bring to the table.  No doubt compromising on the Bush republican issues was god-awful, sorry, i mean GOD AWFUL, but I think this one is different.  I'm not even sure they were compromises, what did Dems get out of the laws you listed.  I still get angry thinking about each of them.

I thinkDems can control the debate, tactics, etc on this over time.  And its a good one to have for the public good and for political reasons.

[ Parent ]
and yet at least 46% of the country still votes for them
and we probably are, at any given moment, one bullet with a sense of direction away from fascist military dictatorship.

When the crazies are getting 33% of the vote instead of 46%, we may see some of what you're looking for.  

[ Parent ]
Be fair
There have been bad things that have emerged from compromises, but there's been plenty of good as well. One of the things that made the late Senator Kennedy so great is not that he was so liberal, but that he was so talented at hammering out good compromises.

Anyway, I don't mean to criticize the Democrats exclusively; I think both parties should compromise much more often. Too often there's this concept that the winner of the latest election must ram their agenda down the other side's throats. That's wrong and, as I said before, it runs counter to the intent of the Framers of our Constitution.

[ Parent ]
Feel free to pounce on me if I'm out of line...
...but how productive is the continuation of this discussion? Clearly, no one is convincing anyone who wasn't already in agreement from the beginning. How much more can be said about intraparty warfare before we get back to election nerdity? While I rarely and sporadically comment, I often enjoy reading what information and insight the comments can add to the main posts. In the past (I've been reading SSP since a little before the 2005 OH-02 special election), there have of course been heated ideological discussions in the comments (such as when the DSCC endorsed Bob Casey in the Democratic primary over his pro-choice opponents), but I have come to love this site for having a primary focus on electoral, rather than ideological, politics. Daily Kos (which I started frequenting around the same time as SSP) seems to be where most ideological fights take place, and I have found myself tiring of those fights and more and more coming to SSP to seek refuge, of sorts. Now, I'm not disparaging Markos, the other editors, or the site as a whole, and I think that Daily Kos has done some great things for the Democratic Party over the last several years, but I am just not interested in hearing the ideological arguments as much anymore, and I hope that these arguments don't continue to spill over to SSP as they apparently have in this post. Again, if I'm out of line, tell me so. However, this thread seems very out of character for what is normally discussed on this site. Might we consider burying the hatchet on a seemingly endless argument?
You're not out of line...
but I don't feel like I've been hatceted in this thread or used a hatchet in this thread so maybe the passion you're reading just comes off a bit blunt.

I dont even bother with Kos, do they have such wide bandwith arguments there?  This thread had Dems, Repubs, Indies, lefties, centrists, etc.

Regardless, it will die soon, we'll all go to bed.  I've enjoyed it for nothing more than I got to know some fellow posters better.  

[ Parent ]
Productive, I dunno
but it is interesting to see other people's opinions, and sicne it affects how we maintain our majority, it's pertinent to here.
[ Parent ]
If you look at the '10 matchups
and the most plausible outcomes, the picture that emerges is that the likely winners are a pretty conventional lot of Democrats and Republicans overall.

But if you look at the net losers, i.e. plausibly defeated incumbents or incumbents opening their seats under term limit laws or for greener pastures, that picture is a lot more cohesive.  They're conservative Democrats in Red states/districts and moderate-ish Republicans representing Blue states/districts.  Ideologically they're roughly at the same parts of the American spectrum: center-Right.

This sort of discussion is a getting a sense of the national political mood and national needs, and thinking over what the Parties need to do, and so on preparatory to projecting and interpreting the outcome of the '10/'12 elections.

I think every election cycle Democrats should take the most worthless prominent Democratic politician (or two) up for reelection and see to his/her defeat.  Just to prove to the others that there's some serious quality review going on by the grassroots.  

[ Parent ]
Politics 101
I'm a political science major and one of the first things about politics I learned is that voting isn't about picking the perfect candidate, it is about picking who most represents your beliefs and ideals, who has the best judgement, or whatever criteria you set up.  Sure you'd love to have a liberal if you are a liberal.  That'd be great.  But should you settle for a blue dog if a republican who is worse is the other choice?  I'd hope not.  I will say it again.  Democrats failed to win where they should have won and thus we have to rely on seantors that we are damn lucky to have.  That's not Blanch Lincoln's fault that she isn't a New York/Chicago/San Francisco liberal.  She's not and nor should she be expected to vote that way.  A public option is a small step to a government takeover (aka single payer)  I'm all for that but there is a locial argument to be made against that.  Medicare is bankrupt, In the past week we reached a point where Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in.  The Post Office is a FAILURE!!!!  I could go on and on.  

One of my close friends is VP for a construction company that bids on contracts for the DOD.  His comapny had 7 days to read a 1,932 page document for a building that this limb of government wants to use the lsat of their budget money on.  It is almost the end of the year (September) and they have to spend all the money in the budget (even if they don't need it) so they can get the same ammount next year.  Needless to say the VP just threw fgures out there because there is no way he can actually sit down and figure out how much this will really cost but it doesn't matter because the gov will pay him for a shitty building or a not quite perfect fit because they just need a building that costs so much.
 Governemnt isn't fantastic either.  I'd much prefer a non profit heavily regulated entity to exhist and have it be a single payer of sorts.  That seems like the best way of doing things.  But that is unlikely to ever happen.  So everyone needs to calm down and take what we can get.  Democrats aren't stupid enough (I hope) to force everyone in the country to buy insurance that sucks.  There would be riots in the streets and I'd be leeding the way with torch in hand.  Can't we have a little faith that this will all work out for the best?  

I have faith
I'm a registered Dem, probably liberal to center.  I have hope, but even I'm not sure I'm ready for everything that has been propsed to happen all at once.

I like the staggered approach, and whether that happens because of Blanche Lincoln or James Inhofe, its my preferred route to get to an end solution of better health care for everyone.

[ Parent ]
NH Sen
Ayotte Leading in New Hampshire
A new American Research Group poll in New Hampshire finds Kelly Ayotte (R) leading Rep. Paul Hodes (D) in the U.S. Senate race, 41% to 34%, with 25% still undecided.

Politicalwire.com

Ayotte leads among indies 34 to 17.  I think that is pretty good news for Hodes honestly.  As long as Obama is still popular and Lynch is still popular, then Hodes should be able to bring those indies home.  Plus Ayotte has a primary to win against some pretty mean conservatives.

Dude, ARG is a crappy pollster
Hell, I could probably do a better job by calling my relatives (all of them Democrats) in Brooklyn and asking them who they plan to vote for in New Hampshire and still come closer than they do.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
It's bad that there's so many polls we have to ignore
ARG, Strategic Vision, and now even Rasmussen seems to have gone over the edge.
[ Parent ]
Little reason for Hodes to worry
I live next door.  NH is an ever more solidly 55+% Democratic state.

Republicans and their leaners united in polling already, not because they love their candidates but because they're agreed on wanting to vote Democrats out so badly.  Under the circumstances Ayotte's number will be close to her ceiling-- so her 41% looks like good news for Hodes to me.

[ Parent ]
Lincoln
I've always been fascinated with Arkansas politics, even before Bill Clinton was elected.

Gov. Faubus was the "George Wallace" before George Wallace was even elected.  He played on the fears of integration and at the same time was an economic populist.  He could turn on the state to support his actions.

Lincoln comes off somewhat "wishy-washy" to me.  I can't see what she stands for except for Wal-Mart and some other large corporations.  Her voting record has been somewhat consistent with other moderately-conservative Southern Dems over the years, but she's not very good at communicating her ideas.  I think that she's really shown a lack of communication in the Health Care debate.  If she could get out of this position, and instead promote some economic prosperity to Arkansas, communicate it to the electorate, she will be fine.  She should consult with Dale Bumpers on how to relate with the Arkansas electorate.  Bumpers was able to get organized labor mad at him for stopping pro-labor legislation, but was always able to win re-election.

OTOH, I'm not that enthusiastic about Lincoln.  She lacks charisma, is unreliable on many issues, and cannot shake Wal-Mart's control over her.  However, compared to most of the Arkansas GOP, she's by far the better candidate.      

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

Just as an over-all comment
I think the thing Democrats need to realize is that us calling ourselves Democrats it the only thing that unites our party.  Unlike the GOP, we have a huge rift in the party between progressives and conservatives, which we all obviously know.

To understand and, as I have become, to become more at peace with this to realize how this came to be.

As I assume most of us know, during the Civil War time, it was the conservative Democratic South and the liberal Yankee Republican North.  Post-Civil War, it was the liberal Republicans sticking it to the conservative Democrats.  With the New Deal era, the liberal North became the liberal Democratic North and up until the present, this shift to the Democrats has solidified everywhere, with it being arguable that NH is just nearly there and ME just needs to get rid of Collins and Snowe, which will come in due-time.

But what became of the South?  Nothing until the 1960's, which is when they started to shift to the Republicans.  The South will probably take longer than the North did to fully shift to the Republicans as they have a lot further to shift as the South has put the term "one party rule" to levels not seen anywhere else in the country currently.  (Ive always been amazed that states like GA and SC voted for FDR 95%-3%)

What we are currently living through is the liberal northerners now being firmly in control of the Democratic Party.  However, the conservative South isnt done being a part of the Democratic Party, either.

This is how I reconcile Blue Dogs now.  We share a party but we have never shared an ideology and for most of history, we've been on opposite sides of the political aisle.  The choice that needs to be made is do we support the final purification of our new Democratic Party and do we support the transformation of it becoming a northern liberal party, which at the same time, means one supports the final touches on the big re-alignment of the 20th century and ceding the South to the GOP.  

If you think the Repubs aren't in full on civil war
You are kidding yourself.  While I would be content to have a moderate to conservative Dem than ANY republican in a state that would be hard for democrats to win races in, the hard core conservatives are absolutely hell bent on making their party ideologically pure.  They are currently trying to get Marko Rubio nominated for the open senate seat in Florida, who will most likely lose to Meek in the general if he actually wins the primary.  Same thing is going on in New Hampshire, though not as prominent as Florida's race.

While the south is shifting, towards repubs, I don't think this poll is indicative of anything.  Lincoln has always had a semi-tough re-election run.  While it's entirely possible she may loose, just remember that the Republicans didn't even run a candidate against Arkansas' other senator in 2006, which is indicitive of how strong democrats are locally in the state.

I doubt she will lose, unless the democratic name gets dragged through the mud due to the failures of health care and the energy bill (which very well may be derailed by Lincoln herself)

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

[ Parent ]
It is by no means a forgone conclusion
that Meek would beat Rubio.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Valid point
and awkwardly, something I didnt really consider.  Awkward since Redstate is a daily read.

But the difference between us riling against Blue Dogs and the GOP riling against the imperfect GOPers is that, first there is very little actual voting difference between them and their politicians, the difference is purely rhetorical.  But the main difference, they are not in power and we are.  Their rift is against the small fraction of their caucus that wont follow their ideology to the tee.  Our rift is against those who make up a large percentage of our power and who wont follow ideology at all.

We have history to explain our division, they have purity.

[ Parent ]
Attempt at compromise
In recent years, the majority of the party has stopped making gun control a big issue, and has toned down the rhetoric on abortion, in an effort to appease conservative Democratic representatives.  Yet these same folks, for the most part, have screwed us on economic issues, the issues representing the party's tradition, such as Social Security and Medicare.  If those Democrats can't back us on those issues, then I don't see why we should appease them at all.  Larry Kissell should be the model of candidates we run in the south, whether we win or lose, not the Blanche Lincolns of the world.  I still believe there is a "market" for economic populism in the sought.  I'd rather try that than have the corporate stooges we, for the most part, currently have.
[ Parent ]
AR-Sen: GOP Smurfs Beating Lincoln in New Poll | 252 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox