came up earlier today.  This is real blue country in Alexandria City, VA, and Moran was weak on Social Security before he got his ass handed to him on that.  He's kinda shady, too.

I think a good primary against him is appropriate.  He had some challenge last time but out-powered his opposition.  But more preparation this time could make a difference.

I have been involved in social programs relating to public health for my entire adult career of over 30 years.  Although I think the programs I was involved with were badly needed, they never got the social-political support they needed to be significant and effective.  Everytime a politician or lay person would try to make such a social program more comprehensive, there would always be that conservative politician out there crying socialism and this is not the American way.  

The idea of rugged individualism, and you have to do it for yourself, must be deeply ingrained in the American psyche, and overcoming that ingrained sentiment, IMO, is the largest obstacle in the way of progressive ideals.  To put it another way, it is sort of like an institutional bias that has evolved with the country, and will be/is an enormous challenge to overcome!

We need to get that guy out of here.

-C.

Cuellar. Oh wait.

I nominate Jane Harman -- she's a Blue Dog Democrat in Southern California, a True Blue area.  Of course, her district does include some heavily republican enclaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman

I'm not sure I want Emanuel defeated.  He's pissed me off (Duckworth, for instance), but I think we need to wait until November to see if he's the master strategist some think he is.  Perhaps the same thing goes for Schumer.

However, there is a candidate who could beat Emanuel in the primary.  His name is Tom Tunney and he's an openly gay Chicago alderman and business owner.
He is immensely popular and well known far beyond his ward.

Earlier you called Schumer a "center-right beltway type". Sure he is a "beltway" dem; he's in the Senate.

But "center-right"? Are you high? If Chuck Schumer is a centrist then apparently LaRouche now represents the progressive wing of the party.

You seem more interested in just criticizing every single Democrat than you are in winning elections and putting Democrats in office.

No waiting, dude!  Marcy Winograd is challenging Jane Harman now.

(1) It's a solidly Democratic district. (It was competetive before the 2000 census redistricting, but is now GOP-proof.)  

(2) Harman is a long-time Beltway Democrat who moved back to LA to find a district to run from so she could go back to the Beltway.

(3) In the past she's advertised herself as "the best Republican in the Democratic Party."

(4) She's pro-war.

(5) She's ranking member on the House Intelliegence Committee, and from that high-visibility post she has defended the secret NSA wiretap program AND attacked the NYT for leaking the story about it, echoing Bushco lies that the mere mention of the program damages US national security.

(6) Marcy is a progressive Democratic activist.  President of the LA Chapter of Progressive Democrats of America.

(7) This weekend, Winograd BLOCKED Harman's endorsement by party!  It's just the first round, the local delegate caucus.  But Winograd got 35% of the delegate vote, after being in the race under two months.  Now, in order to get the party endorsement, Harman will have to try again at the State Convention, where the grassroots are less heavily represented.  This is a clear indication of (a) substantial disatisfaction with Harman among activists in her district and (b) the seriousness of Winograd's challenge.

(8) Even if you're convinced Winograd couldn't possibly win, what better way to get a start on the primaries for next time than to give her a boost now???

The Dem Coalition is not a linear spectrum from Moderate to Progressive. I don't even think moderate dems are a very cohesive or even identifiable segment of the electorate. Maybe your definitions hold true within the professional, elected or inner-party dem establishment.

According to the Pew Typology report, the Democratic coalition doesn't break down by moderate-liberal, rather our coalition consists of several identifiable clusters. The Republicans are the same way: Pro-Business, Religious & Social Issues, Pro-Government are groupings, not a linear spectrum.

In the Dem survey, the largest sector are the Liberal/Progressives who still hold a torch for traditional Dem issues and values without compromise: National Health Care, Non-interventionist Foreign Policy, Progressive Tax Structure, Pro gay-rights and pro-Reproductive Rights... we can all name the issues.

The other half (33-66% depending on region) of the Dem Coalition includes Labor, Blacks, Hispanics, Rust-belt and Urban middle & lower-middle classes. They share a lot of the Economic-Populist values of the Liberal wing, but may or may not agree with Liberal social issues. On foreign policy these other groups may be more willing to intervene or support a neo-con aggressive stance.

30 years ago, labor democrats could be counted on for an anti-communist line, so perhaps the dem coalition is more together today on foreign policy than in the past.

My point is that the spectrum isn't linear Progressive to Moderate, rather we have certain shared issues and some few differences. Our coalition is held together by agreeing to disagree on certain social issues, but within the democratic party there is no reason for us to seek a moderate line or compromise on traditional Democratic Economic issues , i.e. "Republican-Lite" on taxes or SS or Health Care or Labor. I don't think that many moderate dems really exist on these issues. Moderate Independents or cast-out Moderate Republican, maybe, but not within the democratic supporters.

Our main weakness is that the more disadvantaged dems are so disillusioned that they don't bother to vote. Moving to the middle won't solve that; delivering on the Dem promise might. Maybe the immigration issue will rock the hispanic communities and we'd double their vote!

Matt's call to arms is something we all need to take seriously. But 2007? That's something we need to face but there is still 2006. Rahm Emanuel has succeeded in driving most progressive and grassroots Democrats out of races challenging vulnerable Republican incumbents. Many of us did the best we could for Christine Cegelis although, regrettably, there was no overall netroots action on this one the way there was on Ciro Rodriguez. It is NOT too late to take Emanuel on and kick his Beltway power-monger ass in CA-11 (Pomboville) by getting behind the clear grassroots progressive, Jerry McNerney who is being forced to battle a parachuted-in DCCC shill instead of concentrating all his energy and resources on one of the most odious Republicans on Capitol Hill. Pombo goes beyond rubber-stamp. He's very much a part of the leadership coming up with the harebrained schemes the wingnuts are rubber-stamping! There's a very similar race in FL-13, where the grassroots progressive, Jan Schneider, is defending herself against a full frontal assault from the most corrupted and dangerous elements of the Inside the Beltway power-mongers, Emanuel and Hoyer.

People like Emanuel and Schumer (who I went to high school with) are not Republicans-- though it would be nice if they could remind us of how they're not now and again-- but, like Republican politicians they only respect two things: money and power. They need to be taken on and beaten.

This is an excellent post.  Chris is entirely correct that the Democratic Party is a coalition between progressives and some very non-progressive elements (likewise the Republican Party is a coalition between religious fundamentalists, corporatists, western populists, and small town middle class Midwestern types).  Progressives had rarely had the upper hand, I would say only in 1932-38 and in 1964, and the Democratic Party used to include the most reactionary element in the country in the form of the Dixie establishment.

In terms of internal party battles, I would suggest that progressive adopt the concept of the "Lieberman Line".  In other words, the problem is not so much a right-trending voting record, as a willingness to go on television and repeat the Republican talking points.  That does much more damage to the party than the loss of a seat or making the tent smaller.  On the matter of Jane Harman, from what I've seen she has crossed the Lieberman Line and is fair game.

Another target is obviously corrupt politicians within the party, such as Mr. Jefferson from New Orleans.

The third group of targets should be the remaining boll weevils.  Generally these are politicians from areas in southern states with heavy Democratic registration, but which vote Republican in presidential elections, and the politicians themselves vote with the Republican caucus more likely than not.  Henry Cuellar would be an example.  These guys are very likely to switch parties at an opportune moment, so there is little to be lost in giving them a primary challenge.

The fourth priority are representatives from very blue states and districts with much higher than average support for progressive politicians, who don't have a voting record that matches their district or are otherwise duds.  Arguably this fits Emmanual and Schumer, but their bases are heavily Democratic but not liberal parts of Chicago and NYC.

One group I would not challenge are the Blue Dogs, who function almost as a minor political party allied with the Democrats.  There is usually no way a progressive or a DLC style Democrat can win in their areas, and they aren't in contention to take over leadership or direction of the party.  The battle really here is between various groups of progressives and DLC-associated politicians.

Incidentally, I think Tasini's primary challenge of Hillary Clinton could finally break the link between HRC and hard-core Marxist-hippiest Vietnam war protesting leftists in people's minds.  That will be helpful for both her and the progressive left.

I think there's real added value in the whole Lieberman thing to persuade those in the middle like Schumer to pay more attention and care to those of us who vote for them, and to adjust their actions accordingly (which is where i see Schumer--he's movable as opposed to many) He's one of my Senators and beats Hillary by miles (altho that's not saying that much).

Take the horrendous bankruptcy thing---what would Schumer do with a seat on the Finance committee to fix it? It's absolutely and vitally necessary to pin him and others down on specifically what they'll do if we give them a majority. And Schumer's ambitions are modest, compared to many--he knows he'll never be on a presidential ticket nor does he want to be. So let him and everyone show us what will be fixed, reversed and otherwise done right instead of horribly and tragically wrong, as it is now.

"From 1932 until 1968, progressives had the upper hand in this coalition, which was at the time a governing coalition."

What? During most of that time Congressional Democratic Chairmen had much more control of the levers of government than they have had since. And largely speaking those Democrats were Dixiecrat Racists. Between 1964 and 1968 these guys made the choice to move from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party with a pit stop with George Wallace along the way.

If you define "Progressive" as urban whites fighting to the death to prevent Northeastern Republicans using southern blacks to bust unions then you might have a point. But the real Progressive movement started when with LBJ we decided that justice for all workers, black and white, was more important than dividing workers against workers along racial lines.

Anyone who looks at the Democratic Party circa 1954 and sees it dominated by "Progressives" and the Republicans dominated by "Reactionaries" needs to contemplate which party put Edmund Brooke into the Senate and Nelson Rockefeller in the forefront of the Republican Party (and yes I understand that Nelson lost his mind at Attica - his desire to be President simply overwhelmed his fundatmentally moderate instincts).

Truman, Kennedy and Johnson were constantly cutting deals with the Party of the Confederacy. They really had no choice. Strom Thurmond leaving the Party is 1948 was just the beginning of a really good thing, one that ultimately cost us control of Congress in 1994. Long painful transition but if you are a truly hateful racist chances are that you are not wearing a Democratic.com lapel badge today.

Yes the FDR New Deal had progessivism built in. But it required a bunch of ugly compromises with urban Democratic machines built on patronage and Southern Democratic grandees who organized their power around racism. Well it has not been easy, and I may not see the ultimate benefits, but we have a good chance of aligning the Democratic Party on the Right Side of what Fukuyama called "The End of History".

The problem with Chuck Schumer is not his voting record which is left of center on most issues, it is his inability to stay out of any issue or matter.  He is a media hog and can never sit on the sidelines.  This quality will no doubt help Democrats in the Senate because he is very smart politically and will be an asset to many candidates running this fall.  You just want to make sure you are not in between him and a camera or reporter - he'll literally run you over.

Cross referencing to Chris's post, we need to win elections which sometimes means making tough decisions and fighting back.  Schumer knows how to win elections.  He took out Al D'Amato, who was one of the most ruthless politicians I have ever seen.  Chuck was able to do that because he has many of the same qualities.

After so many years in the minority, I want to win and I have no doubt Schumer can help us do that.  I am a lot more interested in controlling one branch of government and serving as check against Bush than pursuing ideological purges.

Schumer is also an important asset for his fundraising ability. He really is doing a damn fine job right now.

Steny Hoyer.

Schumer's wakeup call will be the defeat of Lieberman in the CT primary.  

Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher are apparently our senators-in-waiting here in Cali.  (Although who knows how long they're gonna have to wait... maybe I'm repeating worthless gossip.)  They're both members of the Blue Dog Coalition.  They're worth thinking about.

I really don't know the Congress well enough to play this game.  

Didn't we lose the primary in Gephardt's district to an unnecessary centrist?

And we really should hit Cuellar again.  Early and hard.

Are there any rotten Ds in New Jersey we can beat?

I totally agree with your analysis of how the Democratic party is a coalition of centrists and progressives (or moderates and liberal), with a few conservatives thrown in for good measure, and on how prograssives need to find a way to reassert themselves within the larger party structure. I.e. a progressive counterpart to the DLC (the PLC?).

Quick question, when you wrote the following, did you mean 2006 or 2008, since 2007 will not be a major election year:

"That means primary challenges in 2007 for Democrats in the House"

Or did you mean that we need to start recruiting and building campaign organizations around such progressive challengers as early in 2007?

steny hoyer, rahm emmanmuel, jane harman. all three have actively worked to pass some of the most odious parts of bush's agenda when we should have been holding party line votes. all three are in leadership positions. while i don't have much hope of even scaring them in '06, we ought to be noting who voted for things like bankruptcy, war, tax cuts for the rich, free trade corporate giveaways, social security privatization, and other rediculous bills, and then target them in the '08 primaries.

thinking about lobbying for the DCCC and DSCC chair positions, or at least learning how they get chosen, might also be a good idea. getting dean in the DNC took some pressure off of the grassroots, but we need reformers with their hands on more of those levers of DC power.

All 3 are atriocious (STUNNINGLY awful) on social issues that are important to progressives, and all come from districts that could elect better progressive Democrats.

I think the attacks on Rahm and Harman are are going overboard though. You might not like that they are "establishment" or the war thing or whatever, but in terms of their support for basic progressive causes like the right to choose, the environment, gay rights, they are vastly superior to people like Cuellar and Lipinski.

How can you say "since 1980, progressives have had basically no influence in the party."?   In 1984 Mondale, a tried and true Liberal, was the nominee.  In 1988 and 2004 progressives rallied around two Massachusetts liberals who tried really hard to tell the public (that did not believe them) they were moderates (they weren't).  In 2000 Al Gore ran away from Bill Clinton's (and his own up to that point) very successful centrist record and ran as populist (remember the People v. The Powerful?) and lost. Since 1980 the party got it right twice, in 1992 they nominated two Southern DLC Democrats and then were smart enough to run them again in 1996.  Otherwise the lefties have been in control and the Democratic Party been out of touch and out of the White House.