Have to shut up, but people seem to have judged her as being the same as her Repub person. I guess her 98% Dem record is somehow equal to whatever her opponent will do.

</sarcasm>

L-

Mary Landrieu has been a waste of time as a "Democrat". And this is what happens when Democrats run as "Republican Lite".

It worked like a charm for Obama in Louisiana in 2008!

Oh wait.....

Pro choice

Pro ACA

Pro gun control

I don't know why we've put up with her this long.....

....he/she is a "waste of time as a Democrat".

Sad.

I am not from Louisiana and she is not one of my favorites, but I don't understand the total trashing she has been getting on DU. According to the website Open Congress, she has voted with our party 91% of the time. I sure don't know of any republicans that vote with dems that often, but some say we are better off without her. I guess time will tell.

but would they really prefer a Republican who will also support the pipeline and vote against our party 100% of the time? Sounds to me like they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

but even as the Oil indistry made TWO, TWO major disasters (Hurricane katrina, which would have been much less if the wetlands were not ruined) and Deepwater Hoprizon, her repsonse to big oil was "thank you sir, may i have another, and give my voters one as well?"

and let's not forget the high rate of cancer in oil refineries, which are always located in Black areas. What was that someone said about "black lives matter?" Not In La. not as much as Black Gold.

but how do you measure the party loyalty of, for example, someone who votes with the party 9 times to approve post offices, and votes against the party once on an oil pipeline?

since they seem to think all Senators have to do is vote on post offices and pipelines.

She is pro-choice, supports same-sex marriage, voted for the ACA. What she is done for post offices is of no interest to me; I have higher priorities. Look, I hate the Keystone pipeline and hope it dies, just like other DUers. I am also mature enough to realize that folks representing states heavily dependent on the oil industry are going to vote the way their constituents want them to. Anyone supporting a republican...especially a tea party republican... over a conservative democrat is frankly on the wrong forum. Read the TOS for DU, especially this part: "But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees"

but a lot of us don't feel like fighting to the death for the kind of Democrat who guts our bills behind closed doors.

but a lot of DUers have been very outspoken about wanting her to lose, and were happy when she lost. That is what I simply cannot understand. She may be miles away from what liberals want, but she is NOT a republican.

They're just repeating the talking points, babbling along. It's a concert, and we're the audience, I guess.

She checked all the right "lefty" blocks, save her allegiance to oil--which is the lifeblood of LA, so that's not even surprising.

Yet these people who know nothing about her are painting her as Vitter-like. Even stranger, they are GLEEFUL that she was bested by a tea party lunatic.

I mean, really...what's up with THAT?

Some days I wonder if I have wandered into the wrong forum.

terms of service that tell us that if anyone here is bashing/trashing/undermining a Democratic candidate during general election season, that the admins will "assume they are working for the other side." Given the number of people who joyously shit on ML while people were voting in a general election run-off , it's like they felt free/safe to ignore anything and everything the site owners had to say. "We don't need no steeenking rules" is the theme, lately. I don't care for it at all.

If that segment of the guidance had been enforced here, we'd be light a dozen or more ex - members today.

Oh.... it is.....

Who were the incumbents in those seats?

Cassidy's seat, the Democrat placed first in November, with like 30%, that Democrat was former Governor and convicted felon Edwin Edwards, so yeah....

And the seat of Republican Vance McCallister (the scumbag that slept with his friend's wife), he didn't make the RUNOFF. Again the Democrat, Jaime Mayo, placed first in November, but Republicans split a large majority in the vote. Mayo lost. I hate to say this but the racists up there wouldn't vote for a Black man, the last Democrat to win the district was Rodney Alexander, who practically ran to the right of the Republicans and then switched parties.

Seems we didn't have a chance in any of these 3 races.

I don't much like this Louisiana jungle primary/Dec runoff thing. They should have normal primaries and elections in November, not this ultra low turnout runoff.

They got what they deserve.

Louisiana is always in a rush to the bottom! They can't stand it when Mississippi beats them to the bottom.

Now the people in Mississippi can say "thank God for Louisiana"

lately. Landrieu? Whoever ran against Jindal in 2011? SMH. and EDWIN EDWARDS qualified for a runoff are you kidding me?

I wonder if the teabagger's voters stayed home.

Let's run an actual Democrat and see what happens.

Get some perspective...

L-

is the same problem we had with Blanche Lincoln and Max Baucus.

When the TRULY important issues came up, they served as flies in the ointment. It doesn't matter if 98% of the time a Senator votes with Dems to rename a Post Office, or some issue that is mostly administrative. It matters when 2% of the time, on the really important things they dig in their heels until a bill gets watered down into meaninglessness.

You are foregoing 98% consistency with 0% consistency...

It's much akin to eating the nose of one's own face in spite.

L-

Those big votes serm to often be a problem because of Senators like Baucus, Pryor, Heitcamp, Landrieu, etc. Now am I happy she lost? No. But I think conservative Dems inhibit progress. Republicans voting less our way is just part of the picture.

Traitors on the big things make it harder to pass anything that is truly "left". I'd rather fight with Republicans than have to cajole and babysit Democrats into doing the right thing because they want to be high handed and get lobbyist money.

Every damn vote we have made that was important to most Democratic voters was stymied by fake Dems or watered down. It pretty much makes it clear that even if Dems had a mandate, there are those in Congress that would prefer to blame it on Republicans because none of them have the courage to say "I'll pass on lobbyist dollars and vote like a Democrat." They vote "Holy shit, who can I blame this on even If I vote yes and it is popular?"

have I felt so little regret for the defeat of a DINO

for the same reasons. She may have voted along with Dems most of the time when it didn't matter, but when it did matter, both hung on until the important bills were watered down to the point of being useless.

Given the Citizen's United decision and the ability of the Republicans to funnel money into IPE's, there was no doubt she was going to be outspent. November was really where she lost the race given she couldn't get to the 50% mark. It's too bad that Louisiana has that type of voting system. Oregon just said no to that type of system in November.

about Landrieu losing in itself. Southern Dems need to point out their differences with Repukes instead of trying to appease Republicans. Repukes will always choose the Repuke in the race.

Here are some stats -

BLACK POPULATION

AL = 26.6%
AR = 15.6%
FL = 16.7%
GA = 31.4%
KY = 8.2%
LA = 32.4%
MD = 30.1%
MO = 11.7%
MS = 37.4%
NC = 22.0%
SC = 27.9%
TN = 17.0%
TX = 12.4%
VA = 19.7%
WV = 3.6%



Some of the most oppressive GOP states are the ones with the highest population of blacks.

And if you look at the black populations in many of these states, most (although not all) would be Democrats. It is obvious which group needs to be engaged by the Democratic party in these states where you still have a generational hatred for the party due to the past and "boll weevil" Democrats, many of whom are now Republicans. This is the untapped potential. I.e., the Democrats ARE there (the large black populations), but the party (apparently due to regional/cultural issues that may take a long time to resolve) MUST make some effort to engage them. The ones doing the oppression know this and this is their biggest fear - that the black population finally wakes up out of 150+ years of post-slavery post-traumatic stress disorder, to take the reigns of their destiny (it happened before during Reconstruction, which lead to Jim Crow state laws). The federal Civil Rights era was the 2nd Reconstruction, which has now lead to "Jim Crow II" (often popularized as "James Crow, Esq) and a new set of laws to marginalize the power of the black population.

Landrieu was the last Senator except for Warner if you consider VA the South..

And the hint at what the Democratic party in all of those states need to do in order to try to reverse this?



If you have little or no black turnout, where blacks overall comprise > 25% of the electorate in a number of these states including LA (and I expect the vast majority would be Democrats), then Democrats are sure to lose, particularly if the white Democratic electorate is more conservative and a focus on appeasing them, leads to completely turning off the black voting population, which then helps to further boost the GOP there.

And yes, I consider VA as "south" as well as MD (or anything else "below the Mason-Dixon Line", which is why I stuck the map up there).

The Lee Atwater "Southern Strategy" is just about complete. However even as far back as Franklin Roosevelt, there was a recognition of the issues with Democrats in the South and FDR's first VP was from Texas. After several generations, those Democrats have moved to the GOP, and a large chunk of what is left of the core of the Democratic Party in the South, is the black and hispanic electorate.

But my point was different than what your post addressed. Your point is good though and could be a good lesson for the party.

I was basically expanding on your post.

I think your point would make a good separate thread.

Florida does have Nelson.

She would have lost even bigger. It's LA, the state that once elected David Duke. You sound like the Republicans who complained that the guy who ran against DeBlasio wasn't conservative enough. If they ran a tea bagger in NYC, they would have lost by 70 points.

....if you're referring to the way she campaigned (and she DIDN'T run from Obama!), my father used to tell me that a politician's most important job is to get elected.

Cassidy trounces incumbent with Republicans set to control 54 Senate seats in the next Congress

Landrieu, the three-term incumbent who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, found herself cut off and left for dead by national Democrats after party strategists decided she had no realistic path to victory in Saturday’s Bayou State runoff.

She lost much of her clout when Democrats lost their majority, and her failure to pass legislation to move forward with the Keystone XL pipeline in the lame duck session last month made her look politically impotent.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/bill-cassidy-mary-landrieu-2014-louisiana-senate-elections-results-113367.html

Howard dean even ripped her a new asshole to her face over this. While I would obviously prefer more democrats in the senate, I'm not sorry to see her go.

If Democrats ran as Democrats they might be pleasantly surprised. Landreau pimped the pipeline when she should have been bragging about the U.S. energy production since Obama took office and the fact gasoline is under $2 a gallon in some places.

Democrats who turned tail and ran from and denied loyalty to their Party LEADER, she received the sum total of her cowardice, like most democratic party candidates did on Nov. 4, 2014. Adding much more pain to OUR already battered and bleeding Party. We are in deep doo doo.... if we won't staunch the hemorrhaging, we will bleed to DEATH!!!!!

So much for protests making a difference

it ain't pretty but it does reflect last election results, nationwide. This country is in sorrowful, wicked times and heading for worse times. Period.

A winning combination for the right-wing racists to exploit. This election cycle has taken us back 50 years.

defeated...
Landrieu.. Louisiana
Pryor...Arkansas
Udall... Colorado

lost...
Nunn..Georgia
Lunderson-Grimes...Kentucky

held...
Udall...NewMexico

did leave out anybody?
(sorry for any spelling errors)

His dad was Alaska's only congressman for a while.

Also Carter if you want to expand to Governors.

You're right though -- dynasties didn't do too well this time.

Senator Landrieu won her first election as US Senator against Woody Jenkins, an AWFUL candidate who contested the election for months. . . .

Perhaps Ms. Landrieu would have lost anyway, but she is a perfect example of a democrat (small "d&quot who tried to "out-Republican" all the nut jobs. . . . I clearly recall Ms. Landrieu stating that "Louisiana is the perfect example of how big oil and the environmen can co-exist successfully. . . ." Really, Ms. Landrieu? Really? New Orleans for one, wouldn't have had the severe flooding post-Katrina had so much of the low lying areas not been denuded by the oil companies dredging canals into the wetlands thus exposing them to salt water and killing them.

Given Ms. Landrieu's awful opponent, I would have voted for her had I been a resident there. Nonetheless, it's very hard to get excited about ANY candidate when it boils down to whether one candidate is simply less offensive and less obnoxious than the other. NOBODY wants to hold his/her nose when they vote even though the alternative would clearly indicate voting for the lesser of 2 evils is actually a wise choice.