"But in general I'd rather have a caucus comprised of 45 solid progressives and 15 moderates or centrists than a caucus just comprised of those 45 solid progressives."

Are you suggesting Stoller disagrees?

The question, to my mind, is this: "Would you rather have a Dem caucus comprised of 50 progressives and 10 moderates, or 55 progressives and no moderates?"

Obviously, being in the majority is the most important single issue. I believe that everyone agrees with that; chairing committees and setting agenda is more important that weighing the precise ratio of progressive to centrist.

But once that test is passed, the question changes. Would you rather have 60 Dems, some of whom won't actually use the power that come from having 60 votes, or 55 votes, and a unified progressive caucus?

That seems (at least to me) a pretty interesting question. Is it better to have more Dems, and absolutely no excuse for not enacting damn good legislation except the timidity or misplaced priorities of certain Democrats, or to have a solid block of Dems pushing hard as they can for the best possible solutions ... and falling short due to Republican obstruction?

Choice One: Progressive Democrats negotiate with centrist Dems, possibly enacting middling-okay legislation while moving the party rightward.

Choice Two: Progressive Democrats negotiate with 'centrist' Republicans, not enacting much of anything while moving the party leftward.

Or are my choices incorrect?

I take several factors into account whether to renounce a democrat and I do not think Warner is bad.

1 Is there a viable alternative in the local area in this or at least the very near future that can be pumped up by similar minded supporters ala Lamont to win the primary? And is this viable alternative going to give you any significantly superior progressive agenda? I do not see one in VA. Lamont was very viable in the General Election until the betrayal of our party leaders. Who is the alternative to Warner?

2. Is the candidate whose ideology you do not share a person who would bash progressives or is he someone who may not vote the same way on all issues, but he doesn't work to harm the progressive movement by strongarming fellow progressives in the party to change their vote?
My problem with Lieberman wasn't that he differed with me on ideology  but that he actively reinforced right wing hate narratives on progressives making the job harder for our kind to spread our agenda. I do not see Warner as a useful tool for the right.

3. Will a short term hit to our political numbers be beneficial in the next election in encouraging a new breed of leaders? I do not see that in VA.

I am going to support Warner .

But there are places where I do wish for a short term shakeup. I do think Landrieu should be jettisoned in Louisiana though. Nut because the Senate numbers being so marginal, she is not that awful enough yet to take a senate majority hit for the sake of spite. But we should be actively looking at getting rid of her at some point. I think the Democratic Party in Louisiana is rotten enough to wish for short term destruction by some of us. People like her and Blanco did nothing in the Jena 6 case. I will not shed a tear if Jindal wins the GOvernership there(not that I will support him).

I don't think Matt wants Mark Warner to lose to a Republican, but what he does evidently want is a Democratic candidate for Virginia's seat in the U.S. Senate who is distinctly to the left of Warner.

I don't live in Virginia right now, but I've spent most of my life as a resident of the Commonwealth, and lately I've been living just across the Potomac in Maryland.  I've lived in northern Virginia, in Newport News, in Bristol in far southwest Virginia, and in Charlottesville.

I don't know who the Dems would potentially run in place of Warner, but I know this: you probably wouldn't have to go that far to his left for the odds of winning to drop off considerably.

Like it or not, wanting to run someone a bit less centrist DOES mean being willing to live with a much bigger risk of losing to a Republican.  (Hell, given Warner's popularity, running anyone besides Warner increases the risk greatly.)  I can't see that Matt's really addressing that risk, which IMHO gives validity to the charge that he'd almost rather see a Pubbie than Mark Warner in the Senate.  Because the hypothetical candidate of Matt's dreams - and mine - will likely lose to Tom Davis in the general election.

Warner and Webb representing Virginia in the Senate is probably about as good as we can do these days.  But having them there, year after year, hopefully term after term, will change how many Virginians think about Democrats.  I may not live long enough to see Virginia become a progressive Democratic state, but I think in the next 10 years, it could become a solidly centrist Dem state.  And that would be huge progress.

I'd like to see that change happen.  But the candidate of Matt's and my dreams is a lot less likely to help move the ball than Warner is.

I wonder what good this is, lobbing stones back and forth, and as you say, putting words in one another's mouth. I think Stoller is intemperate in speech and politically unrealistic. If he thinks the state of Virginia is going to elect a more left leaning Democrat, he should think again.

You are both right. We should try to field and support progressive candidates but when that isn't possible and the options are losing an election or gaining a stronger majority the majority argument wins every time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be idealists but we have to live in a reality based universe.

How many Virginians does it take to change a light bulb?

Three: one to change the bulb, and two to talk about how great the old one was.

I understand the desire for immediate change, but the advancing of progressives can be seen so clearly in Virginia.  Mark Warner gets elected governor after a terrible reign by Jim Gilmore, does well and ratifies the democratic brand in the state, and then elects Tim Kaine, who begets Jim Webb.  With Kaine and Webb you saw politicians of less political skill but more progressive.  It was incremental gains, proving that the Democratic brand could be trusted that allowed for more progressive politicians to be elected. And you have Mark Warner to thank for that.

There's also something to be said about the political skills of Shaheen and Warner, who maintain sky high approval ratings and are beloved in their state.  The right policy positions without people and political skills means not having that person in office.  And those people and political skills are how you get elected.

Finally, for every time the potential betrayal argument is made, there's also an opportunity where people could vote the right way.  Then they can go back and sell that to their states helping make the progressive position accepted and thus advancing the progressive position to more Americans.  Why not ponder that opportunity?

Does Stoller think Mark Warner is a bad person?

I honestly don't know.

I know it doesn't matter in this conversation but I'm curious--though I shan't go to open left. Always liked Bowers but not that much.

Matt, you've shortchanged the other side of the equation. There's not a reason in the world to leave the filibuster threshhold at 60. Assuming Democrats keep control of the Senate in 08, they should, at least, lower it to 55, maybe replace it altogether with allowing a week of debate on critical issues.

SenateRepubs have rendered the filibuster inoperative when they're in control, particularly on court nominations. The Democrats should now build on this golden opportunity for their advantage.

I don't know who is coming up with the official progressive stamp of approval, but if they don't think that Jeanne Shaheen is progressive, they don't know about her record as governor.  People are using the terms "progressive", "grass roots" and "net roots" without doing the research they should be doing. Just because someone on a blog site says, oh, so and so is not the progressive candidate, this other person is, doesn't make it so.

We need a strong democracy, regardless of either political party.  We need legislators who listen to their constituents and act for the betterment of all.  The operating word throughout this rant is "ACT".

We've all suffered at the hands of a political party that walks in lockstep (goose-step?) within a particular "ideological" frame.  We need variety in our politicians to remind us that diversity is a good thing, to remind us that diversity prods us to consider sides of an issue that we might otherwise dimiss out of hand (and thereby suffer unseen consequences), and to remind us that diversity sensitizes us all to the needs of others about whom we know little.

Finally, we need legislators who act - who work to change bad into not-so-bad, and not-so-bad into good.  We need legislators who act with integrity and courage, and don't hide behind slippery rhetoric so that they can claim all sides of an arguement as it suits them.

nascardem, prophet and Dave Sund  bring to light the fact the we progressives do NOT have an identity.  WHAT have we agreed upon that is "progressive?"

CONServatives say "small govt., guns, flag and anti-gay".  They have many other buzz words, such as "free market", "free trade" and "privitization".

I suggest WE would do well to discuss WHAT IS PROGRESSIVE?

I offer "fair market and fair trade, with emphasis on the common or public good."  Further, "Strong public sector", highlighting the need for tax monies tobe wisely spend on the our common and public goals, such as good education, safety, health care and an energy policy.

Lastly, this conversation cannot devolve into positions, such as anti-NAFTA, pro gay marriage, pro solar energy, etc.

I am asking that we think critically about our vision of THE ROLE OF GOVT, as a philosophy, such as "stregthening the commons. common and public good".  Or, "The public good versus private greed", a "PG converstaion". :)

Where exactly is the disagreement?  Both us would prefer to have larger Democratic majorities, both of us want big progressive caucuses.  Both of us would prefer to have Warner win in Virginia than the Republican, and that's true basically anywhere.

All I'm saying is that I have policy disagreements with Warner, that he should be pushed left, and that I think his race will be tougher than a 20 point blowout.  You're writing posts strenuously arguing for a strategy to get to 60 votes in the Senate, and pretending as if that's not my goal as well.  I mean, there are people in your comments bashing me as if I am saying that Warner shouldn't be the candidate and should lose, and you aren't bothering to correct even one of them.

Come on.

The bloggers who would be quick to toss aside Democratic Senators and Members of Congress in red states who may not meet 100% of their litmus tests strike me as naive and unrealistic.  A "rejected" Sen. Landrieu would be replaced by an extreme right Republican who would be reelected for the next 24 - 30 years. We are very fortunate to be contemplating building a larger  Democratic Senate majority, only because we have Democrats hailing from red states like Louisiana, Nebraska, Arkansas, the Dakotas, who may not vote as we prefer on 100% of the issues, but who vote for a "D" for Majority Leader.  Even John Edwards could not be reelected to U.S. Senate from NC today.  He ran much more to the right when he won there years ago.