General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWeiland ran on Medicare For All. He lost 50-29.
How do you go to the DSCC with that result and say this is what the party needs more of?
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Democrats are going to have to decide whether to embrace or purge the "progressives" in the party.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and let the Rethugs take over, or compromise in ways that they're not happy with.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)to the right as the only way to win more elections.
polichick
(37,152 posts)traditional Democratic policies - it's simply a takeover of the party.
Liberals have to decide what to do next. Many, like me, are no longer affiliated with the party but still vote for Dems as the lesser of evils. This is becoming more and more sickening to do.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)70%. Funny how that works. And frankly the folks who do no ground work then natter about turnout are hypocrites. But I'm sure you walked your precinct. Right?
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)this party has chosen to take, iow 'go to the right of center and win' which has clearly failed, (we won in 2008 because young voters and Independents heard a PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE and responded to it, then heard all the excuses 'blue dogs' whatever, and stayed home in 2010) maybe if instead you were to advocate 'Give the voters something to vote FOR' and of course, MEAN IT, it would be possible to get those non voters out again.
Why do so many people not vote? Why was the turnout so great in 2008? Those are the questions you should be asking yourself, instead of wasting so much time trying to justify failed tactics.
40% of registered voters are now Independents. Dems cannot demand their votes, they have to give them something to vote for. That happened in 2008, at least during the campaigns. And then the promises were not kept and all they heard were excuses.
I'm for Dems running as Dems because Dem policies are so popular.
If you want to keep pushing the old Third Way tactic of 'running to the right' then expect to keep failing.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)who dictate the TeaPubliKlans take over win or lose and more likely in losses. Who the hell is going to vote for these "compromise" candidates?
I assert that you don't even know what the word means or are willfully misusing it for framing purposes. The one you seem to be seeking is capitulate and to do so utterly.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)But their message isn't the message that's going to win over voters in many of the states and districts we need to win next.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)Other people see things and say why? But I dream things that never were and I say, why not?
-- JFK, 1963, paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw
Other people see things, and say why? But I see things, and say, what the fuck, I've got mine.
-- Democrats, 2014
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The two scalps we got were in the House, and were from two Democrats who were visibly and loudly distancing themselves from the President and the national party as much as possible. That's what the party is going to listen to, and it's not hard to see why.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)By 2016 you will see candidates tying themselves ever closer to Obama, and Repubs running as far away from the teabagger contingent as they can. It doesn't mean much.
Landrieu just got smoked in her runoff. I don't think she was running on the President's coattails, or espousing a Liberal philosophy. So what do we take from that?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)what other problems did he have?
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Furthermore, the Dem leadership did very little to help him. They let that race die on the vine. http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-weiland-dscc-south-dakota-senate-race-2014-10
jwirr
(39,215 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,950 posts)Putting the blame on that one issue is ludicrous.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)...there was an effort to support him (he called me in September) when it looked as though the vote might get chopped up by several Independent candidates.
That said, once again, people are completely mis-remembering what the 50-State strategy was. It had nothing to do with candidate support, focused exclusively on State Party building, and ended primarily with the blue dog candidates everyone claims to hate getting elected in Red states in 2006 and 2008.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)this one worked against us.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So he should have won. According to the theory that we'd win if we only ran true progressives.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I know. I spent years there. I still vote there.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Let's take a look: George McGovern (1963-1981), Tom Daschle (1987-2005), Tim Johnson (1997-2015).
I don't know what caused Weiland to lose so badly. It may have been his politics; it may have been his personality; it may have been the presence of former (very moderate) Republican senator Larry Pressler, who took 17% of the vote without even spending a thin dime (though even with that 17%, Weiland would still have lost to Rounds). (Also, the DSCC famously did not throw much help to Weiland: but he was really down the whole time, so I'm not 100% sure I should blame them.) It was a Republican year.
But that doesn't mean the right Democrat can't win in South Dakota. Next time.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)BootinUp
(47,165 posts)Step 2: Easy as pie.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Just keep trying to appeal to republicans and losing, I guess that is what people here want? Sure doesn't seem like it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Na, can't be that.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Boxer is in one of the most liberal states in the country, and Harkin had been there for a thousand years -- the populist liberal who attempted to replace him just got beaten pretty badly too.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... Wisconsin elected Tammy Baldwin who the right smeared as a "Madison liberal lesbian".
That's four liberal wins vs one teabilly win in a "purple" state.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)Time for every single Democratic candidate in this country to carry the Medicare For All banner and hit the media circuit until it's ingrained in the American psyche as much as the "low taxes good" mantra.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)But then again, I'm proud of what we did here and I'm not shopping the country for facts to create some narrative about how bad liberals are.
Did you knock on any doors? Of course not.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I have all the previous ones, though.
I'm proud of what we did here and I'm not shopping the country for facts to create some narrative about how bad liberals are.
You guys did great, but I'm not worried about keeping Oregon, I'm worried about getting the Dakotas back.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)the right. In that case, however, let's be honest and call
it the DINO party. There, problem solved.
on point
(2,506 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Should be obvious.
Some don't get it.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)because I'm sure the Republicans would vote for the conservative Democrat over the conservative Republican.
alp227
(32,034 posts)Had Pressler NOT run, imagine how many more voters would go for Weiland!
B Calm
(28,762 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)Cha
(297,322 posts)can't reason with stupid.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)" Weiland "wasn't my choice" in South Dakota" and had all but conceded the race last year and Weiland accused the group of intentionally sabotaging his operation to help the Independent in the race. Do you think the party needs more of that?
http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-weiland-dscc-south-dakota-senate-race-2014-10
Now I'm gonna follow old Harry's example and say that Hillary isn't my choice and I'm gonna vote my conscience and I'm gonna support the Independent, Bernie.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/219278-reid-daschle-feud-erupts
I well remember how here in CO we had a wonderful progressive Andrew Romanoff running against a blue dog Dino Michael Bennet . I worked my ass off for Andrew, Obama came here and campaigned for Bennet. Bennet rode to victory on Obama coat tails. Of course the first thing Bennet did was vote against a bill Obama wanted. I laughed my ass off on that one
liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)of his loss. I live here in South Dakota, and can tell you what happened.
First, this is, after all, South Dakota, where republicans almost always win just for having an R next to their name. A republican could kill and eat a baby on live tv and still be elected because he's, well, a republican. Seriously. They have such a tight grip on this state, including the legislature, that I'm not sure anything will ever change that, not even being named one of the top most corrupt states in the country. People bitch and moan about it, but they'll find a way to blame the completely powerless Dems, who are barely alive as a party in this state, and keep pulling the lever for repubs no matter what.
Second, we had the factor of former Senator Larry Pressler being an independent candidate and sucking a lot of potential Weiland voters into his orbit. Rounds, the republican former governor, was so bad and corrupt and deeply into the EB-5 scandal that was a major part of the race (and is a big deal in this state) that several of the state's major newspapers took the unprecedented step of endorsing Pressler instead of Rounds, which had almost never happened before. Rounds actually did pretty badly for a republican in this state, he and his people and analysts and pundits had been expecting the usual republican blowout in these types of races, but he barely cleared fifty percent. And that's only because the RNC and worried PACS began pouring millions of dollars into his campaign a few weeks before the election. Had Pressler not been in the race, Weiland would have done far better. He still may not have actually won, but the percentages would have been far closer.
Third, you have the idiocy of the state Democratic party leadership, which, in the past four years, has lost two of the three federal offices (we only have one congressional rep for the whole state, which is bullshit if you ask me and many others, but that's a whole other can of worms for another thread) that we had and will continue to lose what precious little we do have in the legislature (we have no statewide offices) if they don't pull their heads out of their asses. Instead of proposing a real vision of what WE would do and how, which is what people would respond to, they spend ALL of their time on how bad and corrupt the republicans are. Well, yes, that's true, but you've got to also give people a reason to vote FOR you and not just be AGAINST everything all the time. Plus (and here's the big thing) they have GOT to get realistic and recognize that this is NOT a progressive-oriented state.
One of the reasons we've lost especially badly over the past four years is their refusal to recognize that. They rebuffed Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for running again and then running for the senate seat (and she's the only Dem who could have had a chance, frankly) because she wasn't "progressive or liberal" enough. Except that this state will NOT NOT NOT vote for the kind of liberal progressive they're insisting on. It just won't. It's like expecting Alabama to vote in Martin Luther King, Jr., as governor. Ain't gonna happen. They really need to pull their heads out of their asses on that one.
And, fourth and finally, Weiland had NO name recognition here, in a state where that is very important.
So there are all kinds of other factors that went into his loss other than just his campaigning on Medicare for all. And this state is even more hypocritical than usual when it comes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, because economically we, as a state, rely very heavily on those especially in rural areas where they're the main source of medical payment and income sustenance. Yet they keep voting in idiots (and all three of our reps are now teanutter idiots, sadly) who enjoy their own lavish benefits while doing their best to take such benefits away from their state and away from the very people who pay those benefits. And yet idiots keep voting for them.