Why would you do that?

That person claims that Landrieu only votes with the party 60-70 percent of the time. The most conservative estimate, based only on the current Congress, shows her voting with the party over 87 percent of the time. Not the greatest record, but in my world there is a significant difference between 60-70 percent and 87 percent plus.
http://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/senate/democrat

Folks thought you were putting her at less than 60-70%.

From the link you provided:

This is a ranking of how often Democratic Senators vote with a majority of the Senate Democratic caucus. It factors every single vote that has been taken since the beginning of the current 113th session of Congress. All votes are weighted equally in this ranking, so a non-binding resolution honoring a collegiate sports team, for example, is considered equal to a vote on passing health care reform. Since the vast majority of the hundreds of votes factored in are routine in nature, the result is that even highly-independent senators have a seemingly high score on voting with their party.

There are no Democrats left in the south. It's like having one Republican in New England. They are effectively worthless and powerless. Sorry, I won't miss Landrieu. She sold out to Big Oil. She'll have a lobbyist job in two weeks.

you might find a few Democrats left in the south. We don't think we are worthless, but then we may have highly inflated opinions of ourselves.

It's very much like the Northeast, where I live. We have Democratic legislatures and we view the South with amazement. So, big deal. There are no Democrats running anything in the Deep South. Just a fact. Mary Landreiu had to suck up to Big Oil in order to retain her cushy government job. Ooops. It didn't work out so well. I have no sympathy. Mary danced with the devil and she paid the price.

For example, what if the Democrats come within one seat of regaining control of the Senate? You think having a repub in Louisiana would be a nothing burger then?

Please list all of your acceptable candidates who have won statewide races in Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama recently.

Ie, I don't care how well she 'used' to do. What matters is how she's doing lately. And she's losing now.

Go ahead and run her again. Just don't whine about how it's the 'purists' fault when she loses again, like so many on site want to do.

Or is it that you simply don't know anything about Louisiana politics but enjoy offering uninformed opinions?

Down from over 30% six years ago. Steve Kornacki covered the exit poll crosstabs a show or two back.

I haven't seen any numbers from you to show me that your opinions are any more 'informed', or more than just wishful thinking.

Seems like every time someone asks that question they never get an answer. So many want to purge the party of everyone that doesn't meet their high standards for being a liberal, yet they never seem to say who they will find to do a better job. Maybe they just don't care.

the Black guy will no longer be in the whitehouse.

I thought she was one of the people who constantly told voters she didn't vote for or with him?

And indeed, if Obama simply not being in the WH is a problem, surely the numbers improve for any Democrat who runs in the future, not just Landrieu specifically.

the gop tied her to President Obama and (from exit interviews) plenty of folks voted AGAINST President Obama.

Next six years. I am shocked at Democrats who seem to explode in pleasure at the defrat of one of our Democrats, apparently these folks have campaigned for RW TP candidate, I can do not think he will vote in the direction they want.

"good riddance". How are the Democrats better off if they have to deal with a tea party legislator vs. a center left Democrat? If people think Landreau caved to big oil wait until they see what her replacement will do.

Unless they are Republican lite?

Who knew?

Where is Landrieu on the important issues?
War, economics, poverty, ecology, education, immigration, etc?

Politicians that support WEDGE issues do a greater disservice.
When "republican lite" candidates push polarizing issues it HURTS democrats.
Yes gun control is a Democratic concern, but it is a loser on election day...
because the RWNJ get MOBILIZED to keep their guns!
WEDGE VOTES hurt more than help!

Remember when Obama said... They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion?
Did that help Democrats?

There's not much assuming involved. 40 or 50 years from now, anything could happen.

How far right do they need to be??

You don't win elections by nominating people who are farther from the preferences of the majority of voters than your last candidate.

That was kind of Dean's whole point, and why we got Webb, Casey, etc.

Do you think most voters actually vote on issues, or on character?

I'd love it if people were smart enough to always vote on issues, but I think that's totally unrealistic.

So you put out two people - one who is 'right' on issues' and one who is 'wrong' on issues, but the 'right' one is seen as flailing around and desperate to stay in power by jumping onto issues that are 'wrong', and the other who is 'wrong' on the issues, but is at least steadfast on their principles, and seems confident and projects competence, even if they are no such thing.

Guess what 'preferences' lots of voters vote on? It's not the 'issues', it's the optics.

in the country? i.e. win statewide races in Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama?

Last edited Sun Dec 7, 2014, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Arguably the three reddest states in the south, who are your choices for those states?

I would suggest Ray Maybus, John Grisham, or bribing Thad Cochran until he switches back. Alternately, we go all-in with Thompson, assuming there's somebody ready to take over MS-2.

right leaning Corporate Dem can win in Louisiana for the next 20 years or so also? Maybe if we tried a Liberal Dem who actually fought for the issues that ordinary working class people care about in the Southern states as much as they do anywhere else, we might know for sure whether or not representing the people's interests over Corporate interests could win. But we've been told that only a 'right leaning Dem' can win in those states. Now it appears that isn't true.

How about we conduct an experiment since we have no idea whether something is going to work or not until we try it?

What?!

How about someone in Louisiana stand up and fights
FOR their friends and family, FOR the Gulf, AGAINST polluters,
FOR clean energy ,FOR better education, AGAINST corruption!

SRSLY!? There is no one in that state that will stand up
and fight for what's right! No Elizabeth Warren of the south?!

"WE" don't need to find a candidate!
The CANDIDATES need to find us!

America is waiting...

So, yeah, we'll probably need to find someone who is somewhat to the right of her.

Because you actually assume voters vote based on their 'left-right' orientation, as opposed to their perceptions of the candidates.

Remember old George 'Who would you rather have a beer with' Bush, and Al 'I invented the internet' Gore?

Candidate optics plays more of a role in American electoral politics than your 'leftness' or 'rightness' on some imaginary political spectrum.

Arguably he's on the right end of the far-left fringe of the party that DU represents, in the sense that he sometimes actually turns his brain on.

But that's not the same thing at all.

I have yet to see him get left of center in any comment I can recall. I'm assuming 'center' is the right end of the party.

and ineffective as an opposition party to the republicans.

The push by DLC/Third Way to move the party to the right has been a great success, and the Party and the country have now become so conservative that what is in reality a center right ideology is now labeled as "far left fringe".

“If a voter has a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, he’ll vote for the Republican every time.”
--Harry S. Truman, former U.S. President

After Clinton's triangulating we won 5 out of 6 (counting 2000).

The oh-so-scary "Third Way" people wound up in charge because running liberal national candidates got our asses handed to us so many times that people couldn't take it anymore. (Our only win from 1968 to 1992 was deregulation-happy southerner Jimmy Carter, on the heels of a huge GOP Presidential scandal).

McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis were the formative campaigns of the people who now make up the high-level staff of the party, and the lesson they took from those campaigns isn't that hard to see.

Presidential elections. After Roosevelt's New Deal, we won 4 in a row, and6 out of 8, and would have won 8 of 10, or more, if RFK had not been murdered.

The Democrats:

:-Have won the popular vote in five of the last 6 presidential elections.
:-Won the popular vote for Congress two years ago, although they lost it this time.
:-Have controlled the senate for a good deal of the last 10 years.

And they've used that to pass a fair amount of legislation (bailout, Obamacare, Leadbetter etc) and prevent a good many unaffordable tax cuts etc.

If you think that, there's a whole world of the Democratic party you clearly have no idea about. I'm towards the right end of DU, but I was too far left for a lot of the party in city politics in Washington DC, for God's sake, which is why I ended up leaving the ANC I was working on.

I am, yes. If you're completely different offline, you keep it well hidden on here.

Find a far left Democrat every one would like to have a beer with.

Actually that is how you can prove it to us. Run a "real progressive" for Senate in Louisiana. If they win, you'll have proved the point.

We keep hearing how she votes '95% of the time with Dems', which surely ought to make her a 'real progressive', but somehow it didn't win her a seat again. But you're right that I wouldn'f want to have a beer with her.

Based on vote percentages though, apparently every single Dem in Congress is a 'real progressive', or so we're to believe.

Nobody. The argument is that someone more progressive than she would've won vs. the fact that LA is so red that real progressives will never win there in the next 20 years.

Who knew?

They still get to vote. And has been pointed out to me, Louisiana has 'open primaries', so the fact that someone is or is not a Democrat doesn't even matter as far as primaries go.

Shouldn't we be trying to win more votes, rather than making excuses for losing and sneering down upon people who 'aren't Democrats'?

that included candidates, well to the Left of Lambrieu, shouldn't we acknowledge the unpleasant; but clear, reality of LA?

Who is sneering down on them? They aren't progressive enough for you; you're the one sneering down on them.

The ones sneering down are the ones who call them names because they refuse to vote for Democrats.

That's of value too. Look what's happened. Throwing that out doesn't give any real progressives that are there from blue states any help.

Or even vote against cloture as she did on more than one occasion.

But go ahead and be a mindless follower.

Not 15-20% of the time.

If it's mindless following, then why be part of any party? Or what is so cool and independent about refusing to see the voters of LA as they are at the current time?

that we want at all, not just a percentage of time.

Most of the support for dems came from New Orleans, and after Katrina, a whole lot of dems got shipped out...with no money to return and no home to return to..

It was no accident that they were sent so far away.. That act cut a big chunk of democratic voter support

Its easy to blame Katrina on the Democrats woes in Louisiana and come up with a conspiracy theory as well.
But the facts get in the way.

The population of New Orleans peaked in 1960 at around 627,000. By 2000, five years before Katrina, the population of New Orleans was down to 484,000. And most of the drop off was not minority voters who lean Democratic. It was white flight. Katrina caused a sharp decline in the population which has only partially been reversed. But the population of New Orleans by 2010 was over 343,000 and last year was estimated to have grown to 378,000 plus. So, from pre-Katrina until today, the drop off in the population of New Orleans is only around 60,000. And a considerable number of those people didn't leave Louisiana completely.

On the other hand, Democrats have struggled in Louisiana for the past two decades. Since John Breaux (not exactly the most progressive Democrat) was easily winning elections in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the only Democrats to get 50 percent of the vote in Louisiana in a statewide contest were Kathleen Blanco (elected governor in 2003) and Mary Landrieu -- elected Senator three times (1996, 2002, 2008). Her best showing was in 2008 which was after Katrina (but also was a presidential election year). Over the past two decades, only Bill Clinton, in 1992, took 50 percent or more of the vote in the state. Clinton lost the state by over 135,000 votes in 1996 and in 2000 (pre-Katrina), Bush defeated Gore by over 280,000. In 2008, when the Katrina-impact was still significant, Obama was topped by McCain by 366,000 votes. By 2012, with the Katrina effect receding, Obama still fell 343,000 votes short of Romney.

Maybe its enough to sum it up as follows: in his state election campaigns, David Duke managed to get 40-43 percent of the vote.

I think people underestimate the backlash against the president in southern states. Mary Landrieu was going to lose no matter what she did. It's sad. I wasn't wild about her, but we lost an important seat and it will take changing demographics and/or an outstanding charismatic Dem to win it back.

I can't believe that she isn't getting the necessary support from Dems. She is the best Dem that can be elected in Louisiana.

despite her "moderate" credentials?

Her brother Mitch Landrieu, current mayor of New Orleans and former Lt. Governor. Won't have the baggage of sis, and is more liberal in his views. Not Sanders, Warren, Grayson, or Brown, but not another version of Claire McCaskill or Joe Manchin.

A DINO can't win, so let's run a RWNJ!

I've got an idea: run someone the Democratic base wants to vote for. The population of Louisiana is 32% African American, why not a black candidate? Or how about a likable, less entrenched candidate with some energy?

Why is it always the Blue Dog or nothing? I don't think you have to be a raging liberal, but you do have to get liberals to vote for you because they are the damn BASE.

He pointed out that Landrieu already consistently pulled 94-98% of the AA vote in her last few election cycles. 'Running away' from the President didn't cost her squat in terms of AA votes.

When she was winning, she pulled something like 32% of white votes. When losing, 18%.

So if you just want to play identity politics, you still need to win the white vote in La. I think you need to not try for identity politics, but find out how to speak to white Louisiana voters as well, to show them how Democrats are and will help them rise out of poverty.

So the same argument that people have always made is that conservatives are usually the ones to vote in midterms, while independents and young people stay home. In this case, I do believe the last two presidential elections have been about identity, because that is all people know and that has gotten people out to the polls. The interesting thing is that Obama lost Louisiana while Landrieu has been able to win. So okay, maybe it is white people.

But I do agree with your upthread comment. She is not a particularly likable candidate. She seems like a career politician who will do anything, flailing about, just to keep her cushy job. She looked desperate and confirmed the narrative that she was losing with all her last ditch efforts.

I think the case in Massachusetts is relevant here. Coakley lost to Brown because of personality and a poor campaign. Elizabeth Warren came along and beat him.

2010: Coakley 47% Brown 52%
2012: Warren 54% Brown 46%

(I fully realize this is a traditionally blue state, but I think the example works because it is showing a very quick flip in the same pool of voters.)

So what changed? Did the same people that voted for Brown flip to Warren? Or did different people vote, and more Democrats came out for Warren? Answering those questions would go a long way in understanding the issue.

Everyone will say that actual Democrats can no longer win in the South. What is it that they liked about Landrieu enough for her to win in the past? Apparently she is for all the things that we think are deal breakers for Southerners: abortion, gun control, etc. So what are the principles that Southerners would never vote for if they're so right leaning? Besides being an atheist or a Satanist, I don't know, honestly. But we bandy about that only a conservative can win in the South, and I do think it's because of identity. I think Republicans walk around like good old boys and talk like preachers and so people vote for them. The Southern states are broke and their local leaders are a bunch of Koch cronies, but people vote for them. Why?

I would be interested in hearing your take on it as I respect your opinion.

known to run someone to Coakley's right against him next time. Because, obviously, when a Dem loses any election to a Republican, the reason must be that voters wanted someone more rightist. Instead the idiots ran Elizabeth Warren.

Kind of right out of the Webb playbook, really.

I'm all for running candidates as far left as we can find in MA, IL, CA, WA, etc.

here yesterday and today to other elections, the one and only lesson to have taken away from Brown's victory would have been that our next challenger to Brown should have been to Coakley's right, not to her left. However, IMO, running a Pub Lite against Brown would have sent him straight back to the Senate.

BTW, Massachusetts is not necessarily a great state to run liberals in. Just ask Governor Romney and Governor Elect Baker.

As I have been trying to say, elections are not as simplistic and generic as some here are trying to make them out to be.

There is no logic in thinking it is possible, especially with open primaries, to expect someone to the left of her to get the nomination and then beat the Republican. In Louisiana. The party knows the voters there, so they picked Landrieu. If I lived there, I'd vote for her. The illogical of having Republicans instead amazes me.

They wanna conserve their 1% wealth.

At all costs.

i am in Washington State. Fake Democrat 1% Mercer Island REthug loving Conservative Rodney Thom go fuck yourself the damage you caused and ran away from after you got yours....the roadkill you conservafuck you left is more homeless and working poor.

Conservatives wanna conserve their status all around.

rich white boys.

Conservatives.

Go fuck yourselves and spare the world any more of you, you are killing us to this second.

Ugh...you got yours we get it.

Ugh.

with top 2 candidates.

so why didn't those who claim someone more liberal could win run or support a candidate who was more liberal ?

the Primary was not limited to just one democrat. there were multiple democrats on the Lousiana Ballot along with multiple republicans.

there is a lot of talk about what we need from people who aren't even familiar with how the elections are run . reminds me of people who claimed claimed diebold was used in the Iowa Caucuses.

An incumbent starts off with a massive advantage in both primaries and the general. Landrieu managed to keep her advantage in the primary but looks to be managing to blow it in the general.

I didn't realize 'primaries' were multi-party in Louisiana. Here in Ohio, Democrats get 100% of the total in Democratic primaries, Republicans get 100% of of the total in Republican primaries, etc.

Too much advise from people from other states. If someone from that state tries to tell us something, they get ignored.

The whole "they will vote for a real progressive" should be tested in red states. Then at least they could prove it works.

The problems is the red state voters and there is no way around that fact. That is hard to face so we get these people saying if only the Democrats who actually run and who work on their campaigns would do a better job. All from people who likely don't do that job.

So, I am just going to paste here my reply from another Landrieu thread, with some edits and a new link:

The "too left to win" meme is a very convenient one for the 10% and their devotees to sell and sell hard and consistently, but that doesn't make it true.

Look around. The reality is, the further right the Party has gone, the more ground it has lost. If the Party really put forward its most electible candidates in 2010 and 2012 and each of them campaigned as well as they could, and the Republicans swept Congress and the states the way they did anyway, what the hell?

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

...

"But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again."

...

"And I am here to say to you that when a man in politics, if he is a leader. has the right ideas, the people are willing to listen to what he has to say. It is a matter of salesmanship.

she wasn't the only democrat in the race the first time around in which the republicans combined got like 55 percent while democrats combined got about 45

My Reply 31 gave my answer, which you apparently did not think worth your time.

liberal democrat than landrieu they didn't do so.

with her in november.

there were mulitple democratic and multiple republican candidates running . people could have voted for one of the more liberal democrats but they didn't.

so I can't respond to that specifically.

However, in general, I find that, if I do look at an election up close, I can find reasons for a loss. If I thought you were interested in authentic discussion with me, I might put in the effort, but that is not what your prior posts to me lead me to think you seek when you post to me. Sorry if I am mistaken, but that is my view.

That being the case, I will just refer you to another post I made on another Landrieu thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025922835#post13

who did not get many votes.

because you've prove it is not really true. Red state voters are not sitting around waiting for a more progressive Democrat, content to let the Republicans have the seat until that Savior materializes. If that was what it would take, then they could have voted for a more liberal Democrat.

The answer is probably that they have to have this rock star inspiring personality and sell the progressive message with that, as if it's so easy to find that sort of person.

It's not "talking points" if it's an obvious weakness of your argument that multiple people are pointing out: more liberal candidates do run (Senegal or Ables in LA, for instance) and get absolutely creamed.

and I missed AR.

Please try to get over yourself.

The fact that you disagree with me does not mean my argument is obviously weak. It means only that you disagree with me. I could match you meme for meme on why elections get lost. You would still be convinced that the answer to every election loss is that the candidate was too far left for the room. Much as my prior post to you said.

more liberal candidates do run (Senegal or Ables in LA, for instance) and get absolutely creamed.

Exactly two Democrats beat Republican incumbents, and they were conservatives who ran against the national party and Obama: Graham in FL and Ashford in NE.

DU may refuse to accept this, but the party noticed.

2014 was historic, but then so was 2010.

You can't just take an election out of the air and decide the candidate lost because he or she was too far left or too far right. Well, you can, if that is your agenda, but it's a worthless tack. If you really want to know why someone lost, you have to take each election and study it.

For years, I heard that Carter lost because Kennedy challenged him. Therefore, no sitting President who is running for relection should ever be challenged. That's another example of a meme created to fit an agenda. In reality, Carter lost for at least 20 good reasons that had nothing to do with Kennedy's challenge. (And I say that liking both of them.)

The result of that meme: less democracy--and few bother to look at and learn from the real reasons Carter lost to Reagan.