and I am quite upset Judd will not be running.

The alternative, Alison Lundergren Grimes, KY's current Sec of State, is far from a progressive, and if she is anything like her father and his family...a bit unsavory as well.

I will be the most surprised person on the planet if Grimes should beat McConnell. If she does, it will be because the Tea Party/Libertarians in the state run a candidate as well...

That's what the Washington Post told Me this morning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/28/why-democrats-are-better-off-without-ashley-judd/?hpid=z3

After all, one of them "hollywood liberals' could never beat the Turtle!

As has been noted many times, when you run a Republican against a republican, guess who wins? But of course the Very Important People like Chris Cillizza know what's best for us!

The state that elected R Paul was never going to elect Ashley Judd.

we elected a fairly liberal governor, Steve Beshear twice... he'a currently serving, and has been an excellent and well respecte governor.

Yes, we could elect a Democratic senator; our problem at the moment is we have few good Democratic candidates. Jack Conway, our current AG, was too green when he ran aginst Paul, and his campaign staff sucked... but his internal polls were showing him ahead of Paul until that stupid, stupid ad they ran against Paul's college days.

It's not going to be easy in Kentucky, but we need a candidate with a kick... few many of those around...

I would have gladly contributed to her campaign even though I'm not from KY. In Oregon at the state level we are so solidly D that I feel we should help other states if there is a good candidate. Senator Warren received contributions from me during the last election cycle.

He won't win his own primary.

...then WHY BOTHER?

A charismatic Populist (FDR Working Class Democrat, like Huey Long)
with Party Support,
running on a platform of "Americans Who Work-for-a-Living Have Been Getting Screwed for 40 years"
can WIN anywhere.

We don't have to become them to Beat Them!

I laugh my ass off at the stupidity of repubs who put people too far off center in an election who then end up losing it kinda like Angle in Nevada or Berg in North Dakota, those two would have worked to destroy Medicare, Social Security, and social safety nets.

Should we just surrender and let the tea party have the seats that the moderates are in?

Surrendering Democratic Values is what destroyed the Working Class,
and pushed us so far to the Conservative Right.
Poll after poll proves that the majority of Americans support "liberal" economic issues.
We NEED to start running as "DEMOCRATS", and not Clinton Conservatives.
Give The People something to vote FOR, and they will turn out.

I think pushing aside a smart, intelligent, charismatic celebrity candidate is a really stupid move on the part of Clinton and the KY "dems"...

We need better candidate recruitment...and we are giving KY voters too little credit in this case...

are truly progressive.....None of this wishy washy shit anymore!!

but it still makes me cringe to hear people like Chris Matthews make the claim that Judd is so far out of the mainstream. Just about half a century ago, she wouldn't have been considered so far to the left on the political spectrum. Back then, we even had a Republican president who had a 90% top tax rate, and about a quarter century ago, they seemed to care about environmental protection.
With people such as Judd being considered too liberal, it shows how far to the right that not only the GOP has drifted, but also the center of the spectrum. They've moved much more drastically to the right than the Democratic Party has to the left.

Honestly, the fact that she hasn't really lived in Kentucky since she was a child was a big issue, because Kentucky is a state that has really localized politics. Judd should run in TN-5, Nashville's congressional district, which is too Democratic to be held by a Blue Dog.

Democrats run progressives in bluer states and moderates in redder ones, that is a smart balance.

This same balance will never lead us to the kind of healthcare and gun control legislation we need now!!

Look what they did in Delaware and Nevada in 2010, they picked the least suitable candidates and lost.

How did that work out for us? Bob Kerrey ran as a fiscal conservative last year in Nebraska and lost in a landslide. And of course we all remember Blanche Lincoln in 2010. I'm not against moderate Dems running against wingnuts, i just don't buy this conventional wisdom that only moderates can win in red states. History has shown otherwise on many occasions.

I would suspect probably not since the 1970's.

He changed those to conform more to the national party's standards when he became a national figure.

But I will say that the man does have a solid record as an environmental advocate, even going back to his earliest days in congress.

He was against federal funds for abortion, but he fully supported (s) abortion on demand.

While I disagreed with that, I can still tell you the Nixon "Southern Strategy" didn't really work. The South didn't vote as a Republican voting block until after Clinton's second term. I give the credit to the Clear Channel types that purchased all the AM radio stations and put that big mouth Rush on every station.

THAT was your "Southern Strategy."

Not Nixon.

None of those people lost because they weren't very liberal, none of them. There are liberals who have lost elections as well, it's not only moderate who lose.

MARY LANDRIEU: voted to pass the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

JOE DONNELLY: voted to pass the LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT

BEN NELSON: voted to repeal DADT

Much better to run liberals in conservative States and get Republicans elected instead, right?

legislation we need right now. You sound very comfortable stuck in mud.

To paraphrase William F. Buckley, give me the most liberal candidate WHO CAN GET ELECTED.

I thought she was the only one who could win in Arkansas? Or Senator Jack Conway? Or Senator Bruce Lunsford? Or Senator Harold Ford Jr.? Or Senator Charlie Melancon? I'm not against Blue Dogs who are on our side, but i am against this ridiculous, and long-debunked idea that only moderates can win in red states.

She was seen as too close to Preesident Obama. She lost the 2010 election by almost the exact same margin that President Obama lost Arkansas by in 2008, and lost in almost exactly the same counties. Voters who liked Obama voted for Lincoln. Voters who didn't voted for Boozman.

that evokes a knee-jerk reaction to the term "liberal." It's been very effective but has now begun wearing thin because of stark economic realities. I live in Kentucky too, a very conservative state, outside of Louisville and Lexington. Many people are assuming McConnell will survive the repub primary. I think there is a strong chance that he won't. Whomever the Dem nominee is, they will likely be facing a teapartier. Ashley Judd could beat a tea partier with an effective campaign. There are democrats that could beat a tea partier too. But McConnell would be far harder to un-seat, though it's not impossible. He won by 6% in 2008 against a DINO with severe baggage issues.

Wish he would just retire and collect bottle caps or something. Sticks his flushed beak in things he shouldn't.

Judd would have made for a great contest.

fuck you, bill.

Keep campaigning Bill and thanks for the wonderful DNC speech.

on her and not have his feet held to the fire. It would be different if we didn't have a very qualified candidate, and a woman, who stand ready and willing to run against him.

Really, folks, let's calm down here and look at the reality. I think Judd is great, too, but there is such a thing as the right person in the right place at the right time. That's how we"ll win, not by just a "feel good" thing about Ashley Judd. And I think she agrees with that...

banning all automatic weapons?..Right place at the right time doesn’t work...

in those states won't change a thing.

You make the same mistake the tea-partiers do: they think the majority is on their side, and running more extreme candidates will win. That's a clear mistake. Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, etc. etc. Republicans lost those seats because they ran candidates that were "pure" to the base - but anathema to the electorate.

I know it's not satisfying, but people who seek satisfaction should ignore politics - it's bound to disappoint.

Everything I have heard her speak about is not very far off what the majority of Americans say they support.

So what is the deal with the propaganda campaign to brand her as some kind of "Ultra Liberal"?

wasn't about Judd specifically.

A charismatic Populist Democrat,
with Party backing,
running on a platform of Economic Justice for Working Americans
(a la Huey Long)
can WIN anywhere.

I made the point that both the left and the right think that more extreme candidates are the way to win elections, even in states not friendly to their point of view.

Some here think if we ran Dennis Kucinich-like candidates everywhere, we'd sweep. Freepers think if they ran Rick Santorum-like candidates everywhere they'd win. Both sides are wrong.

....and fight for the traditional Democratic values that built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working Class the World has ever seen,
than to sacrifice these values before the battle starts based on the myth that we have to become Republican to beat them.

A charismatic Populist Democrat,
with Party backing,
running on a platform of Economic Justice for Working Americans
(a la Huey Long)
can WIN anywhere.

Just as Freepers sincerely believe that they only lose elections because their candidates aren't conservative enough.

I encourage that thought on their side - I shake my head in sorrow when I see it on ours.

...pulls shit like this:

White House support for Blanche Lincoln in the Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010

"The Arkansas primary fight illuminates some unpleasant though vital truths about the Democratic establishment "

your position would move us to the left and gain us more seats, I'd wholeheartedly support it.

But I don't think it would. So I don't.

It's a long way down.

How'd your efforts work out? Is Boozman better for the causes you believe in than Lincoln was?

You can run a Kucinich clone in Wyoming 1,000 times, and you'll have 0 wins. You can run a Herman Caine clone in California with the same results. But you're studiously avoiding the points I'm making and just repeating yourself.

Ideological purity and politics don't mix. You can't ignore reality and expect to win. Do you really think you can run a candidate who's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, for increased taxes and increased regulation in, say, North Dakota and expect to win? Please explain how that's any different than Freepers claiming that running "true, constitutionalist conservatives" in every district will guarantee a win? I think they're delusional when I read that. How is your position different?

If you would read my previous posts,
you would see that I advocate running
"a charismatic populist (a la Huey Long)"
Kucinich is NOT a "charismatic populist".
However, Robert Redford IS, and someone like him could do well,
IF they have Party Backing.
The problem there is the conservative Democratic Pro-BUsiness Establishment rigging the Democratic Primary.

As far as the Arkansas Primary of 2010,
Halter was polling better than Lincoln against the Republican in the general election.
(If you had read the information up above, you would already know that)

After the White House ridiculed and taunted Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots for their efforts in Arkansas ....
Ed Schultz on Obama support for Lincoln
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

well, lets say not too many UNION activists showed up to help Blanche.
She got creamed.
You can hang that loss directly around the neck of the White House.

This leads many to believe that the White House and the entrenched Democratic Party Big Business Establishment would rather have a Pro-Management Republican sitting in that seat than a Pro-LABOR/ Pro-PublicOption Democrat.

BTW: Lt Governor Bill Halter is NO "Kucinich" ,
so you are stretching well into the dishonest end of the spectrum in your failed attempt to mis-characterize my argument.

The White House, The DCCC, the DSCC, the DNC, or ANY National Democratic Party organization [font size=3]have absolutely NO BUSINESS interfering with local Democratic Primaries![/font]
THAT is HOW The current Democratic Party wound up far to the Conservative RIGHT of the Republican Party of the 70s,
and to the RIGHT of Reagan when it comes to Social Security and the Safety Net.

I am no Fringe Leftist.
I am a mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat
who is willing to fight for the Working Class Values that made our Party Great,
UNIONS
The New Deal
The Fair Deal
The Great Society

I won't sit idly by following the parade while these Traditional Values are flushed away.
Arkansas 2010 is not the first time I have battled with the entrenched Big Business interests of the National Party intefering in local Primaries,
and it won't be the last.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=160&topic_id=14207
I will ALWAYS fight for LABOR and the Working Class.
We did better in Arkansas than we did in Minnesota,
and next time, we will do even better.

Nothing Ventured,
Nothing Gained.
Lead, Follow, or Get Out of Our Way!
It will be a long time before the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR forget how we were treated in Arkansas.

Do you believe that Huey Long can win in Louisiana?

Cheers!


[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

You can bet that the dem. who is selected to run will be campaigning center right, which in essence
sucks. We all know that, we’ve seen it time and time again. Leads nowhere!!!

Obama! But we just don't know, do we, how far right or left our candidate will be?

Landrieu should be replaced with a Vitter clone -- that will advance a progressive agenda much better than someone who supports the Democrats on 80-90% of the votes -- including the biggest one for majority leader.

I don't know about Kentucky (it maybe bluer than LA), but the option isn't a moderate Dem vs. a liberal Dem. -- its a moderate Dem. vs a bat-shit republican.

lets stop with this nonsense that only moderates can win in red states. Kentucky has run moderate Dems in senate races in the last few years and they've all lost. Blanche Lincoln should still be in the Senate today according to all the "experts", as should Bob Kerrey, who ran as a social-security cutting fiscal conservative last year in Nebraska. Every situation is different, but we should dispense with this idea that only moderates can win in red states.

perhaps the furtherst rightwinger that became senator ever (yet for some reason is a hero to the alt-media that loves his nutty racist father Ron Paul and Ron's BFF David Duke) would that state elect Ashley over Mitch?

Besides, in alt-media speak, isn't both parties the same anyhow?
Therefore, isn't Mitch the same as Ashley?
Because if one thinks that both sides are the same, well, indeed Ashley/Mitch might as well be twins.

The more realistic race, IMHO would be going against Rand not Mitch.
Especially if Rand's eye is on the national ticket, it seems it would be far more winnable especially in a Presidential year, with a woman leading the Democratic ticket, and with Hillary Kentucky might be blue in 2016..

And if Rand couldn't be beaten, in what world could Mitch?

Looks like those "moderate" Dems haven't been doing so well lately in Kentucky. Could have tried out a real progressive for once, but the Dem establishment just couldn't have it. Prepare yourselves for another six years of turtle boy.

Ultra liberal or blue dog are our only choices?

Last edited Sat Mar 30, 2013, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)