Google Ads


Site Stats

TN-03: Flowers Drops Out

by: James L.

Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 6:21 PM EST


Can we now say that there is a disturbing new trend of Democratic House candidates pulling the plug on their own campaigns? Recently, we had the termination of the candidacies of Todd Book (OH-02) and Dave Roberts (CA-50), and now we can add Paula Flowers to the mix:

Former Tennessee Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Paula Flowers is leaving the race for Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District, she said this morning.

Ms. Flowers, a Democrat, said she had been looking forward to serving the district, but the needs of her husband and three sons had to come first.

"It's been a very difficult decision," she said.

Ms. Flowers' exit from the race leaves one Democrat, systems analyst Brent Benedict, and a crowded field of Republicans.

Flowers was viewed as a strong recruit to test this R+13 district that hasn't elected a Democrat to the House since the early 1990s, but her fundraising never really hit the levels needed to bankroll a strong campaign. Still, unless Democrats can come up with a suitable replacement, this means that Republicans can put away the elbow-grease after their primary is settled.

RaceTracker Wiki: TN-03
James L. :: TN-03: Flowers Drops Out
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

TN-03: Flowers Drops Out | 98 comments
Not really too disturbing
She wasn't rasing good money. Lots of examples of Dems dropping out the last two cycles.
Agreed
And why would she want to put herself through this?  This is a brutal district in a brutal state -- and even if she had a united Democratic party, a divisive Republican primary, had raised a lot of money, and then ran a perfect campaign -- she still would be an underdog.  Don't get me wrong -- I have a lot of respect for serious men and women who represent the party well and take a crack at difficult or impossible districts, but I also understand why someone wouldn't want to!
[ Parent ]
Here's an idea
Let us run a progressive in this district.  One that will certainly lose, yes, but will defend our values and why we hold them.  One that doesn't hedge on health care, but explains to people in this hostile district why health care for all is a good idea.  One that doesn't hedge on the environment, but one that explains how a new energy economy will create jobs and protect the environment, and why that will help people in this district.

Yes such a candidate will lose and lose badly.  Yes the result will be electing a teabagger.  But such an effort might just change a few minds, and put the seeds for a new progressive movement in the rural South.

At the very least, gauge a baseline.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
It was tried in NY-23 ('08), and I'm guessing in lots of other districts
Oot/McHugh in '08 - loss 65/35.

I'd bet a little research would reveal a number of other progressive sacrificial lambs, placeholders for the 50-state strategy.

[ Parent ]
I think this is only a test
that can be measured in an open-seat.  Races with entrenched incumbents I dont think would really accurately show a baseline for progressives.
[ Parent ]
Similar tests in the open seat NY-23 (and predecesors)
were tried in '92 (McHugh's first election to Congress, won by a 2/1 margin) and I think '78 (whenever Krupsak ran against David Martin, and lost something like 40-60).  
[ Parent ]
And the person willing to be the sacrifical lamb
would be...?  Seriously, that's even worse than a suicide mission - they'd be harangued by conservative local press the entire time and would be humiliated come election night after spending time and money actively campaigning.  If you can find someone to do it be my guest but don't hold your breath.
[ Parent ]
Probably not actually
Most likely the GOP candidate would just ignore the opponent since he/she is going to win anyway and would just like to give the opponent as little press as possible.
[ Parent ]
Actually one possibility
is college professors.  I think there is a good pool of Democratic candidates in these kinds of district in that demographic.  

Another possibility is union leaders.

[ Parent ]
Now that would be a waste of resources
Any dime spent on getting slaughtered can be spent better elsewhere... and the reality of that will mean little money goes there, which means the slaughter would be even worse, and that means the rejection of progressive politics would look stronger than it is.

It's a completely backwards philosophy.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think we should spend anything there.
But we're going to have sacrificial lambs no matter what.  I'd rather have a sacrificial lamb that goes down fighting than one that goes quietly.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
But that isn't the choice
The choice is a moderate who could win, and a full progressive who would be humiliated and be hard-pressed to get 30% of the vote.
[ Parent ]
In realistic districts, I agree with you
But in eastern Tennessee, I think it's more that a moderate could get 40% of the vote, while a progressive coudl be hard pressed to get 30%.

All of that said, we're talking like we get to pick the candidate for TN-03.  Local Democrats living there might have something to say about that -- and my guess is they could go with a more moderate/conservative Democrat, but it's their choice.

[ Parent ]
If Bobby Bright can win
then this district could be won by a solid blue dog.

Of course the odds are against it, but unlike the Republicans and their litmus tests, we should run the best candidate for that particular district... which to me means a solid person who is as far left as the district will vote for.  In some districts that ain't very far left at all, but the way we move these areas left is for people to reject the wingnut agenda.

[ Parent ]
Have to agree
Republicans resorted to doing that sort of thing (running candidates far right of the district) and have had little to know success.  Even in Tennessee republicans ran a guy who believes in eugenics (seriously) against John Tanner a few cycles ago and he got destroyed.  

Running a democratic candidate who is far out of touch with the district only alienates voters and probably destroys the democratic brand in republican-leaning districts over the long term.  Say what you will about people like Bright and Griffith they made it possible for the democratic label to win in conservative districts.

[ Parent ]
Rejecting the wingnut agenda
How do you get people to reject the wingnut agenda by running candidates who imitate it?  That only enforces the wingnut agenda.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Most of our candidates are not "wingnuts"
We have several democrats elected to right-leaning districts in Tennessee.  People like Lincoln Davis and John Tanner are conservative dems but not wingnuts.  I don't see why it would be a problem running a similar Dem in TN-03.
[ Parent ]
Not necessarily wingnuts but definitely imitating a lot of the agenda.
When you have Democratic representatives bad-mouthing the Democratic agenda with right-wing talking points, they're not helping turn their constituents away from the wingnut agenda.  They're just reinforcing the beliefs that go with it.   How do you turn people away from the homophobic agenda when you say you too don't think gays should have the rights to hospital visitation, inheritance, and marriage?  How do you turn them away from the laissez-faire belief when you act like everything government touches is bad?

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Show me someone in TN-03
that was as established, well known and respected as Bobby Bright, and I'll go along with it.  As I said downthread, I basically agree with you we should find the best fit for the district that, as you say, is as far left as the district would vote for.
[ Parent ]
Let me clarify ...
.... reading my comments, I even sound to me like I'm contradicting myself -- it's been a long day!  I AM NOT advocating running across-the-board leftists in places like this -- but with specific regards to this district, I don't think a progressive or a blue dog or someone embodying the second coming of Jesus Christ is goign to win with a (D) after their name.  That doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea, however, to run someone who is progressive populist oriented on economic issues.

I think Chad mades a very important point in this thread as well -- if the Democratic Party becomes exclusively associated with what is seen as an across-the-board leftist agenda, it's going to make life very difficult for Democrats in places like my home state of Indiana.  While we'll be fine here in my liberal Indianapolis district, in places like IN-02, IN-08, and IN-09 and their corresponding state districts (and districts 2 and 9 are likely to become a lot more difficult after 2010 redistricting), life becomes very difficult indeed.  Now, some may say (not without some merit) that we should cut those districts loose for the benefit of a more consistent progressive national message -- but I have to live here!

[ Parent ]
The problem is that many of these
Southern Blue Dogs vote against our agenda on bread and butter economic issues as well.  

If you can get a Democrat who will vote with us some of the time (on big issues, not some piddly ones that gets 300 votes), then I'm willing to compromise.  But not when they vote against everything.

I can accept Ellsworth and Hill in their districts.  But if the best we can do in a district is Bright or Griffith, then that is not a district worth contesting.  I'd rather nominate a progressive.  

[ Parent ]
Economic issues
"The problem is that many of these Southern Blue Dogs vote against our agenda on bread and butter economic issues as well."

100% right.  There's no populism there.  It's not a case of them being liberal on economics and conservative on foreign policy and social issues.  It's just conservatism period.  

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

[ Parent ]
Sure Bright was a dream candidate
We can't expect to get the mayor of the largest city as our candidate in every R+10+ district, but Flowers sounded like a good candidate.

Perhaps there is no one in this district as good as Bright (or Flowers even), but there certainly are decent, competent people on the left edge of "mainstream" for this district, and that is where we should be primarily looking for our candidates, not among the decent people who are far outside the middle 70% of the people in the district.

[ Parent ]
I basically agree -- so let's find that person, and best of luck to them!

[ Parent ]
Sorry but I just don't get excited
about electing more Bobby Brights.  If Bobby Bright was the Democratic nominee in my district, I would probably skip the race.

And I would vehemently object to the Dems wasting money in such a district, unless it made the GOP waste significantly more defending their nominee.

[ Parent ]
Then try to find the joy in...
utterly crushing the dreams of some fanatical asswipe wingnut.

Forget about the Bright side of things, think about ponding sand in the ears of a wingnut who lost an R+15 district!  Think about how it pisses the wingnuts off to lose and lose and lose... and then their politically mistaken responses to that phenomenon!  

I think you look at the small picture, rather than the big one.  Bright could burst into flames for all I care... but there are some wingnuts whose dreams were crushed by him winning.

And again, as John Hall and Steve Kagen waltz to reelection, it is wonderful see them dumping money into these R+10+ districts.

[ Parent ]
Actually
Forget about the Bright side of things, think about ponding sand in the ears of a wingnut who lost an R+15 district!  Think about how it pisses the wingnuts off to lose and lose and lose... and then their politically mistaken responses to that phenomenon!  

I want wingnuts elected in some of these districts.  I would much rather have wingnuts than sane Repubs elected in the heavy GOP districts, because it makes the GOP look like an extremist party, which allows us to move leftward.

[ Parent ]
And there is the mystery of your SSP philosophy
You don't like to win.
You don't like to humiliate them.
You don't like having more congresscritters voting progressive more often.
You don't like how their party is in total disarray because we beat them in moderate and conservative places.
You don't like them eating their young and doing more damage to themselves than we can do.
You don't like how they are peeing their pants in frustration.

You seem to be looking forward to a day that is already here.  How much more looney can they get than having Palin seriously considered a national leader (both for her own aspirations and guys like Kirk wanting to kiss her butt)?

Smell the coffee.  They can't get any more functionally worse... short of taking power again, and I hope you don't want that.

[ Parent ]
Actually having Palin nominated
and seeing her lose by 20% would be what I want to see.  And seeing all the Repubs in swing areas go down with her.
[ Parent ]
Paling losing by 20% would create 20 more blue dogs!
In a nutshell, this is where philosophy collapses under its massive contradiction.

On the one hand you want wingnut extremists in swing areas, and then you turn 180 degrees and want Palin to be crushed so they lose the swing areas later.  It's just so illogical.

What you argue about the House should make you want Palin to lose by 7 or 8%.  The logical next step of your House argument is the anti-50 state argument... win the Kerry/Gore states, plus Missouri and most/all the Obama states, plus put in play Arizona, Montana, and the Dakotas.  You should be arguing for Team Blue to win by huge margins in the Northeast, midwest, and west, and by small margins in the west and southeast Obama states... and lose overwhelmingly in the Confederacy/Appalachia/Mormom belts.  You should be arguing for change via polarization of the map, which would mean beating Palin soldidly, but not in a landslide way.

Palin losing by 20% would lead to far more blue dogs than we have now, and giving them much greater power than they have now.

[ Parent ]
No it won't
The rural Southern wingnuts would win reelection even with Palin getting crushed.  The quasi-moderates in Cali, Michigan, Illinois, etc won't.
[ Parent ]
Actually I think he has a point
If you had to choose between a moderate Republican winning a R+15 or a teabagger, who would you choose? I think that an extremist would be better for national politics. (See Michelle Bachman as an example of this).

This is, however, assuming that it leads to more victories elsewhere (and hopefully against this wing nut) and motivates a Democratic base to vote across the country.  

[ Parent ]
I was bashed here repeatedly
for rooting for Doug Hoffman (that I retracted after Dede dropped out).  But look the fruits of the Hoffman challenge, independent teabagger candidacies throughout the country, which may save several Democrats next year.
[ Parent ]
Actually I don't want any of these things
I want to see a progressive agenda passed and a progressive movement enhanced.  I'm not interested in all the rest of the stuff.  

Who cares if Jay Love or Wayne Parker or Greg Davis lost when the Democrat elected effectively votes the same way on progressive issues?

[ Parent ]
Well
"which allows us to move leftward."

Which in turn makes you no better than the extremists you rail against in the GOP.

[ Parent ]
It makes us a million times better.
We're not offering up some watered down version of their disasterous ideas.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
No
It makes you a million times better to do exactly what they're doing except going in the opposite direction?

Are you serious?

[ Parent ]
Yes
I's say it does.  Progressivism leads to things like single-payer healthcare and full rights for gays and othr minorities.  The far-right taking power leads to mass discrimination, criminalizing gays, severely cutting social services to the needy and regressive taxation.  There is no comparison between the two.  
[ Parent ]
Then
You think the majority of our country wants a far-left approach to government?

We're a centrist nation. By pushing the GOP to the far right you're neutralizing their effectiveness, yet you're digging your own hole by willfully pushing the Democratic Party to the far left.

I'm not a big believer in third parties but I think your approach would lead to something like that eventually.

[ Parent ]
It didn't in the 1970s and 1980s
The Dems moved heavily to the left, which put them out of the mainstream at the time, which allowed the GOP to move even more to the right.

The opposite is happening now.  By forcing the GOP to the extreme right now, it will discredit the GOP and allow the Dems to move more to the left and still win elections for a good while.  That and demographics.

[ Parent ]
Let's see.
The opposite of disaster?
The opposite of the destruction of our planet?
The opposite of misanthropy toward other people?
The opposite of warmongering?
The opposite of bigotry?
The opposite of keeping people in poverty?
The opposite of allowing people to die due to lack of healthcare?
The opposite of allowing indefinite detention of suspects?
The opposite of a system titled against employees and consumers?
The opposite of discrimination against women?
The opposite of denying gays their rights?
The opposite of American troops dying due to lies?
The opposite of allowing gays to be discriminated against in the workforce?
The opposite of allowing our education system to fail?

All sound good to me.  

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

[ Parent ]
Just because you're right-wing and we're left-wing
doesn't make us extremists. My position would be slightly left of center in any European country. That doesn't make me an extremist at all, and I take offense at that remark.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Wait
I'm not calling everyone extremists. I'm simply saying that JSmith and TheUnknown advocate an extremist position. Instead of taking advantage of a GOP shift and plucking moderates from that pack, they'd rather shit the Democratic Party to the left, creating a void in the middle.

Not sure how or why you'd take offense to that. As far as me  being right-wing, if you look around I actually point to the problems on both extremes. Thanks.

[ Parent ]
It looked to me like
you were calling anyone who advocates partisan redistricting an extremist.

I also don't think it's an extremist position to question supporting people who choose to run as Democrats but oppose guaranteed health insurance, environmental protection, economic stimulus programs that benefit working and currently unemployed people, union rights, women's rights (and I'm not even speaking about abortion rights here, though they're relevant, too, but Lilly Ledbetter), and any kind of civil rights for gays. If someone opposes two or three or even four of those things but is a reliable vote for others, fine, but if they oppose every element of a progressive program, why should they get any kind of funding from any Democratic organizations? Maybe you can explain this.

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

[ Parent ]
Well
If I was doing that then I'd still be talking about the left AND the right, right? Come on now. I think JSmith and TheUnknown tend to be extremist in their purity views because it does more harm than good.

"but if they oppose every element of a progressive program, why should they get any kind of funding from any Democratic organizations"

Not all Democrats equate progressive with Democrat, sorry. Maybe most do, and that's fine. If you consider gay rights an important element then that's fine but there are plenty of Democrats who do not. Same with the environment, etc.

Why should a Democrat who does not support gay rights or the stimulus receive party money? Again, it all boils down to numbers. I believe Minnick even votes with the party over 65% of the time. Even though he has opposed some major legislation, he still votes with the party a majority of the time.

How many major party-line votes has the party lost because of Minnick voting with the GOP?

He normally votes for the procedural stuff which gets it to the stage it needs to get to.

[ Parent ]
I thought the figure for Minnick was 40% voting with the Democrats
And understand: I'm not saying that everyone who's bigoted against gays or opposed to protecting the environment and cleaning up pollution can't be a Democrat. I'm saying that if you oppose every one of the core progressive issues, economic and social alike, I don't see why Democrats should support you. What sense does it make to have two right-wing parties?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Well
I don't think being liberal and a Democrat necessarily go hand in hand.

Many Blue Dogs are economic populists overall, most tend to get great ratings from union groups and others. They might not support every piece of legislation but again, 70% is better than 30%.

I don't like using one vote to judge someone, especially someone like Taylor who has been in there a long time. Look at how he's supported fair trade policies throughout his career.

Now, for someone like Minnick, yeah looking at one vote can make or break him.

[ Parent ]
I've never opposed all Blue Dogs
and I've made that clear. I'm not so sure "most" are economic populists. It looks to me like at least something close to half of them vote for the interests of large corporations, rather than their constituents (and I'd cite their votes on health care, bankruptcy "reform" and cramdown legislation as examples). But it should be obvious that I don't oppose Democrats who are against part of the progressive agenda but strong supporters of other parts of it, and represent districts that aren't very liberal.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Having a party operate like a whorehouse or a Swiss Bank does more harm than good.
When you can't come up with a reason for people to vote for you other than "We're not Republicans," you're not helped.  Or you have you're own reinforcing right-wing views and poisoning the well or being used as political props by the right-wing.  Or when you can't get anyone exciting to turn out.



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

[ Parent ]
Rhetoric
Nice overblown rhetoric. At least you're not throwing out cuss words left and right.

Taylor - Fair Trade / Pro-Union

Marshall - Staunchly Pro Public Education / Fair-Trade / Pro-Union

I'm guessing because these are not hot button issues like the environment or gay rights then they're not "true Democrats" right?

Issues like fair-trade, public education (opposing vouchers), even union issues, are important. Those are the types of issues where Blue Dogs tend to side with the party. That's not to say all Blue Dogs side with the party on all of these issues, but it's what makes Taylor, Marshall, and others Democrats.

[ Parent ]
No they're not.
You oppose equality for gays and have no problem poisoning our air and water, you don't deserve to be a Democrat.

Economic issues are being buried and opposed by the conservadems you continue to defend.  See healthcare reform.  See Lilly Ledbetter.  See SCHIP.  See their votes in favor of free trade agreements.

Oh, and fuck you and your genteel ears, Republican.

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

[ Parent ]
I'd like to disassociate myself with the curse-out
n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Again
And you wonder why I use the word extremist? I don't care what words you use, it doesn't offend me, it just kind of nullifies your arguments and shows that you're more about expressing anger than having a substantive discussion about the party.

Again, you cannot group all Conservative Democrats together. Some are socially liberal/economically conservative like the New Democrats.

Taylor supported Ledbetter and has opposed most free trade agreements. He also supported S-CHIP.

[ Parent ]
So, Lilly Ledbetter is extremist?
Banning insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions is extremist?

Healthcare for kids is extremist?  Healthcare period is extremist?

Protecting gays from employment discrimination is extremist?

Nice use of Republican talking points.  

I'm through having so-called "substantive discussions" with "Democrats" whose strategy is to be like Republicans, except, you know, not.

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

[ Parent ]
Huh?
Yeah, Ledbetter is an extremist and I guess since Taylor supported it that means he's an extremist. Blah.

I wasn't referring to legislation, I was referring to your over the top language. If I didn't know better I'd think the sky was falling because of the Conservative Democrats!

[ Parent ]
You know what? I'm done with you.
You can continue to defend the conservadems who destroy what is supposed to make us the better party and arguing for two parties exactly alike all you want to and spend all the time worrying about bullshit like pretty district lines you want to.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
As a fellow progressive, I'm asking you to please stop

[ Parent ]
And that's to TheUnkown

[ Parent ]
We have to warn you
not to use this kind of language again. Please keep it civil.
[ Parent ]
I think it's the other way around.
The short-term picture is focusing on your attention in hopes of winning an ultimately meaningless race in the hopes of sticking it to the wingnuts.  Yeah, it's fun watching them cry or to see CNN have light blue for a Democratic pickup.  Or to haven see Rothenberg, Cook, CQ, et al. change the rating in our favor.

But then you get to the big picture: One, we're probably not going to win that race anyways. Two, because we spent all that money, we had fewer resources to spend on Kagen and Hall and Shea-Porter and Grayson and Periello and all the other challengers.  Three, even if we win, what are we going to get out of it policy wise?  Four, should we win, we'll have another seat to defend in unfriendly territory.  Five, the Republicans will just redistrict it away next time.

And anticipating a response to some of my points, I think we should always remember that we will not always have the money advantage and should not continue to count on it.  The "spreading the Republicans thin" argument will only work for so long.  Then we're the ones spread thin.

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

[ Parent ]
It's just so backwards
We have MORE money to spend on Hall and Kagen because they have to spend their lesser resources on districts they should win easily.  (And yes, as of right now, we have more money, so we need to take advantage while we can to spread their smaller funds thinner.)

Look at your argument logically.  If you believe it benefits them that we both spend money on an R+15 district that we win, then you must think it benefits *us* to spend money on and LOSE Waxman or Nadler's districts.  Sorry, no.  Fighting the closest battles on their turf means we are winning our R+1 seats relatively easily.

I want to spend the rest of my life defending R+15 seats, not trying to win back D+15 seats.

[ Parent ]
.
1. We should spend our money on far more sustainable districts, districts where we can actually get something out of instead of at best a shitty "Democrat" and, at worst, a expensive moral victory.

2. If we end up spreading ourselves thin in all of these rural districts, we're setting ourselves up for a major beating when we lose the money advantage and have spread ourselves thin.  

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

[ Parent ]
You already don't care or even prefer them to lose
so what major beating?

When we have less resources than the opposition, then we need to act differently.  When we have more resources than the opposition, we need to exploit the advantage, burn up their resources, fight battles on turf we really don't care if we lose, and love that virtually nowhere are we fighting on D+1 districts.

Of course this matters much more in the Senate, but we have been grinding them into the dirt and fighting battles deep into their own territory.  There is no reason to look at that as bad.

[ Parent ]
Good point
If we had 20 fewer Blue Dog seats going into 2010 we would not have the luxury of forcing the GOP to target those juicy republican-leaning districts.  Instead they would be forcing all their attention on our Dems in moderate to dem-leaning seats.  Having a group of Blue Dogs padding the majority is a good thing.
[ Parent ]
They risk dragging down good Democrats with them, that's why I care.
Losing Carol Shea-Porter to try to protect Bobby Bright  is ridiculous.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
100% agreed
If Blue Dogs win, fine, I'll be pleasantly surprised. But I don't think it's worth dedicating a substantial amount of resources to them if we have to lose Shea-Porter, Grayson, Maffei,Owens, Himes, Peters,  and Klein in the process. If we can protect those guys (and a few others that I can't think of right now) and pick up DE-AL, PA-06, IL-10, and maybe PA-15, I'll be a happy man on November 3.

Some Dude, 19, Democrat, NH-02 (residence), MA-08 (college)
[ Parent ]
Additionally.
Had the healthcare bill been passed quietly months ago, any controversy would have died down and we'd be savoring a victory.  Instead, the fucking conservadems showed their asses, stalled, allowed themselves to be used as political human shields by the Republicans, let the teabaggers go crazy, made Obama look weak, allowed the media to change their narrative, turned off the Democratic base, and so on.  



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

[ Parent ]
The Senate slowed the bill down
Not the house.  It sounds like your beef is with people like Lieberman, Lincoln and Ben Nelson rather than house Blue Dogs like Bright and Childers.  Pelosi had the votes to pass HCR in the house for many months.  It was the do-nothing Senate that dithered.
[ Parent ]
They bottled it up in the committee.
And considering the bill nearly died on the House floor, I have doubts Pelosi had the votes for months or it wouldn't have taken so long even after passing through the committee.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
I disagree here too
Remember Mike Ross?  That douchebag singlehandedly slowed HCR in the House.

And my biggest beef is with Harry Reid, who is completely worthless.  Cap-n-trade should have been pushed through reconciliation.  HCR should have too, or should have been delayed to 2011.  But once Obama pushed it, Reid should have signaled he would use reconciliation on all the controversial provisions.

[ Parent ]
We're talking about cheap districts
People like Bright and Griffith are corporate stooges anway.  They'll probably collect a lot from big business/PACS.  The DCCC and democratic donors don't need to contribute much.  One dollar for people like Bright or Griffith is NOT necessarily one dollar less that good democrats have to spend.  That is a big misconception.  Had a republican occupied AL-02 instead of Bright the republican would probably be receiving a good chunk of donations from the same people contributing to Bright.
[ Parent ]
The DCCC will still contribute tens or hundreds of thousands to them.
That many could and should go to a Democrat that doesn't suck.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Then don't contribute to them
Most of the netroots have long since given up faith in the DCCC.  I know who best to donate my money to as I'm sure you do as well.  Congressional committees just suck at determing who best needs their scare resource of money.  They will waste a lot of money regardless of whethr there are more or less Blue Dogs to spend on.
[ Parent ]
That's not the point.
The point is money spent by the DCCC on behalf of Bright or Griffith or Minnick (or hypothetically, whichever conservadem runs in TN-03) is money not available to Shea-Porter or Periello or Kagen or a host of challengers such as the ones in California.  And for what?  A bunch of shitty conservadems who are going to vote against us and are liable to switch parties?

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
That's just utter fiction
If Bright did not run, and a Republican won unopposed, there would be less money raised by Democrats overall, and they would be free to spend far more money defeating Shea-Porter.

Why on Earth do you want to make Shea-Porter the battleground instead of the Brights of the world... especially since we have more money now.  It is a total absolute.  If we set fire to $1, and they set fire to $1, we benefit because they run out of money before we do.

And of course the proof is in the pudding for everybody to see.  We lost, what, Boyda last time?  And she didn't even take money as I recall.  While we kicked them back on their Axis in red districts, we had hardly any threats in any D+ districts.  It just defies logic to want to give them free rides while doing battle in our districts.

Grant and the Union Army won because he had more men who could die than the Confederacy did.  We have more money than they do.  The more R+10 places they need to spend money, the better it is for our D+ folks.  

If the money was reversed, you would have a more valid point, but it is not.  We want both sides to burn up money, because when they run out we will still have some.

[ Parent ]
In theory
isn't it the other way - that since there are more Democratic members of Congress, there are more to protect and, therefore, more money to spend on defense? Granted, it's a good "problem" to have a majority. But please explain how the Republicans end up running out of money first, all things being equal. (Of course, all things are not equal, and much money goes to incumbents just because contributors are seeking access to power - legalized corruption, in other words.)

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
It isn't equal
We had more money in 2008.  

Put it this way, IF we have more money in 2010, we want to burn their money equally... and then WE have all the extra money to put where WE want to.

Also, the more incumbents, the more advantage to that side.  This has been the case, so no reason that should stop now.

Incumbents have advantages, so even if both sides spend equally, incumbents get more media exposure, more bullshit press releases published, etc etc.

So their cash is more precious than our cash, both because of incumbency and because of the presumption that we will again have more money... but the latter is just an assumption, though because of incumbency it seems very, very, very likely to be true.

(And then finally is the issue of fighting the battle on their turf... once again, it was a lot worse for the Conderacy to fight battles on its turf than in the North. It sucked up resources defending places they should have "owned" already.)

[ Parent ]
I get it
Thanks for explaining.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
But we don't lose Shea-Porter because we have Bright
How can you not follow that?

They don't have the money to beat Shea-Porter, because they have to spend money defeating Bright first.

[ Parent ]
Uh, yeah.
When we don't have enough money and end up being spread thin we risk it.  

When the political winds end up turning against us after we've been sabotaged and stonewalled by conservadems we risk it.

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

[ Parent ]
Follow
Do you ever look at the campaign contributions to Conservative Democrats in the House? Might want to look at 'em sometimes.

There will always be a few who will donate to any Democrat, but I'd bet Conservative Democrats get a lot of crossover money.

The assumption that money is being "wasted" on Bright is silly considering MOST of the money would not be there in the first place if Bright (or someone like him) was not in that seat.

[ Parent ]
Exactly, money is not finite
The more solid canidates we have, the more money raised from a variety of sources.

Most obviously, if the guy across the street runs for Congress, his neighbor is more likely to make a contribution than if some stranger fifty miles away was running.

TheUnknown285, you just gotta realize we have more money now, and partly why we have more money is because we have more incumbents.  When we have LESS money than them, make your argument, but not now when we are in the position to make them waste millions on seats they could hold for $10 in the future.

[ Parent ]
Bobby Bright
is as tier one as it gets with a candidate for a certain district.  He isnt a good measure of where we can elect a Democrat as he was him being the former mayor of Montgomery in such a Montgomery-centric district and then it being the Deep South with the factor of Bright being Independent and having to choose between Dem and Rep when he decided to run and that being a public decision and all that put into the perspective of the political history of that district all makes it a pretty exceptional case.

And Im trying to think of what the baseline district would be for how Red a district can be for us to still be able to win.  But most of them seem like extraordinary circumstances.  NM-2 Teague had the HUGE Obama surge in NM and his opponent making that statement about cutting throats.  Obama won most of the districts that are in Blue Dog territory or came damn close, like the IN and VA districts.

I guess I should really go through all the R+__ districts we have but Im going to say anything beyond R+5ish is probably an isolated case.

[ Parent ]
I strongly disagree
The best we could possibly get here is a very conservative Blue Dog, which adds little to nothing to the Dem caucus, at a great cost (lots of money needs to be spent to elect and reelect said Blue Dog).  

Much better would be a self funding Alan Grayson style progressive who could take apart the wingnut agenda and push the progressive one.

If Barry Goldwater had not had the guts to get crushed, Reagan would have never been elected, and wingnuts would never be as powerful as they are today.

By continuing to elect conservative Dems in these regions it forecloses the possibility of ever moving the country leftwards.

[ Parent ]
There is the rub
You think spending $1 to get a progressive agenda humiliatingly crushed 72% to 28% is the way to progressive change.

I'd rather spend a $1 having a blue dog humiliate a wingnut running on a wingnut agenda in R+10+ districts.

You think having our agenda humilitaed and overwhelmingly rejected will somehow by magic be helpful.

I think having their agenda directly rejected in a district that heaviliy favors them, now, is a very positive development both in terms of driving their faces into the sand, but also because they have to spend their money and fight the battle on their turf.

Of course, we'd rather have a fine progressive in these districts, but that isn't a choice.  When the choices are:

- having a wingnut be humiliated
- having a progressive be humiliated

I happen to want to humiliate the wingnuts, and in the most crushing way possible too.

[ Parent ]
I don't wholly disagree with you, but ...
... what if the Democrats in these areas want a conservative Democrat both as their candidate and member of Congress?  What if they don't want the country moved leftwards in the way you and I do?  And I'm really uncomfortable trying to easily sort out "good" and "bad" Democrats based on any specific criteria (although the gentleman from northern Alabama has tested that more than anyone!).  

In my opinion, this shows that in a two-party system, being a Democrat and being a progressive are not necessarily the same thing -- and as the GOP has purity-tested moderate after moderate out of their party, we're going to have a broad base.  Does that make the politics and policy of all of this difficult to balance between supporting the party and supporting a leftist agenda?  Damn right it does.

[ Parent ]
Then you find a relatively conservative
loyal party activist and have him and her fake positions on the issues.  I can tolerate some give on the issues, but what I don't want are cancers, obstructionists, and those who are not team players.  The last applies to those on the extreme left as it does to right-wing Dems.  I have repeatedly called for primarying Dennis Kucinich.

[ Parent ]
CA-3
Bill Slaton also dropped out of the Democratic race against Dan Lungren today.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09
True, but that's more of a good thing
And arguably more of a recognition of Ami Bera's strength in a primary than Dan Lungren's strength in the general.
[ Parent ]
True
Also went back and checked, and for some reason I thought Slaton had a lot more CoH than he actually did. Whoops.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09
[ Parent ]
The way this thread devolved is not cool.
And I don't think I need to explain why. Needless to say, there will be consequences, but I am too busy to attend to them at this moment.

The one thing that disappoints me the most is the feeling I'm getting lately that one of us admins needs to be constantly roaming the comments section like some junior high school hall monitor. SSP has a reputation as a place for civil, horserace-based discussion. Most users of this site are fully capable of respecting and sustaining that spirit of discussion on a day-to-day basis. But we've been getting way too many uncivil, off-topic derails lately by users who have trouble checking themselves. It's not something we're going to tolerate.

It's not just this thread
This business of whether we should purge the Blue Dogs comes up in every thread, regardless of how germaine to the actual diary.  Huge numbers of these comments come up and drown out the relevant, good comments that we typically see here, which makes the site less interesting to me as a frequent lurker/sometimes contributer.  It's like a broken record...

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11
[ Parent ]
Is there a FAQ or Wiki that we could point to
and read w/r/t the mission of the site?
[ Parent ]
Not a disturbing trend
A couple of Republicans, in TX-17 and GA-8, have refused to take the plunge in the last couple of days.  So, you can say it's a trend among Republicans too.  What would be a distrubing trend is if incumbents started retiring.
Yeah
Taegan Goddard picked up on the tone of this diary in an entry on Political Wire about Democrats having "cold feet," which is unfortunate.  None of these dropouts is alarming, including Flowers.  She needed big money to be competitive here and she never got it.  

Todd Book was significantly outraised by Krikorian.  Dave Roberts was outraised by Busby.  Slaton was outraised by Bera.  Most of these dropouts are happening out of deference to superior Democratic primary competition, which is good for Dems.

This is the time of year for candidates to make the tough choices and, as Paleo notes, it's happening on both sides of the aisle.

The only jarring bad news for Dems on the electoral front recently was the Dennis Moore retirement.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
Agree
And now Politico has picked up the meme:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Plus, Dems have little chance of winning the three seats referred to.

[ Parent ]
Oh great
Tim Dunn, Robert Daskas, Paul Hackett. There were others. The only thing that matters is incumbents retiring. SSP scored an own goal here.
[ Parent ]
TN-03: Flowers Drops Out | 98 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:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

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