I agree with you. The numbers are skewed too much for Lieberman. Those other candidates are suffering and their GOP challengers are laughing. But, hey, as long as Lieberman doesn't return, it doesn't matter if the GOP controls the Senate? Those folks need to "send their message".
There is also no guarantee that these voters are liberal, progressive, or Democratic. Many Latinos are conservaitve on social issues like abortion and gay rights.
As for giving felons the right to vote that will cost the Democrats more support than it would gain. It would scare white suburbanites away from the party and give the GOP ammunication to claim that the Democrats support "criminals' rights".
What is so "progressive" about taking the taxpayer dollars of citizens and giving it to illegal immigrants? I am sorry, but I have issues with the whole "immigrants' rights" movement. I support legal immigration, but I do have issues with illegal immigration. Why should we subsidize and support those who break the law and come here illegally?
Well I was once a supporter of the DLC, but not any more. I supported them back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, and through Clinton's terms. Since then they have become ineffective and have become what they sought to replace: an ineffective "establishment".
I agree with you. I'm not sure if we are talking about the same person, but I also received an email telling me that was kind of rude. I was basically told that I shouldn't comment on IL-6 because "I know nothing about the district".
I fully understand what you are saying. This reminds me of the time when Jane Harman came to DKos a few months ago. It was right before her primary against Marcy Winograd. Winograd's supporters insulted her, treated poorly, and acted unprofessionally. They were very immature in how they voiced their disagreements with her. Same thing when other "less than ideal" Democrats have come to Kos and other "progressive blogs"--a group of posters comes out and insults them.
You are right about how bloggers can impact candidates and their races. In the Harman thread a lone the behavior of some of Winograd's supporters turned off people who would have considered her otherwise. How someone's supporters acts, rightly or wrongly, can reflect upon how others see that candidate.
This reminds me of the Pennachio campaign. Many of their supporters were just rude as Cegelis's supporters. They were often snide and self-righteous. Even though I was never supportive of Pennachio their comments turned me off to him even more.
As for the whole IL-6 matter I didn't necessarily think it was right for the DCCC to meddle the way that they did. However, there was a primary; and Cegelis didn't win. Her supporters evidently can't accept the fact that ordinary Democratic voters in the IL-6 chose Duckworth. And if Cegelis had the "support" that her followers claimed it evidently didn't register in the March primary. For the votes speak louder than anything else. Duckworth won the primary; Cegelis didn't. I didn't like how Cegelis was treated; but, in the end, if she did have the "support" that people here claimed she did, she would have won the primary.
The behavior that you mention is one of the reasons that I am skeptical about the "netroots" and their "influence". For rude and shrill comments like that, especially to elected officials like Jane Harman, don't reflect positively on the "netroots". If anytyhing someone like Harman would probably perceive the thread with the insults that she participated in to be "proof" that the "netroots is filled with extremists".
I cringe when I hear the term "netroots". What I think of are the people who throw out those insults, act in a juvenile fashion, and then expected politicans to take them seriously. I know that this isn't the true impression of the "netroots", but those people give the term a very bad name. And if the "netroots" wants to be taken seriously by the much-maligned "establishment", acting in a juvenile and immature fashion isn't going to do it.
"This is an example of some small part of what's wrong with the Democratic Party, The Democratic Party leadership at the State level and at the District level. We have a candidate. For better or worse, we, as Democrats, need to support her/him in an effort to take back our government. We will need to do the same in 2008."
Of course you make a very good point. Unfortunately there are way too many people here on this and other "progressive" blogs who want to "send messages" than actually win. Look at the hostility toward Melissa Bean here. Her detractors would rather have her lose, perhaps costing the Democrats control of Congress, resulting in the election of someone completely hostile to ALL progressive ideals, because she can't vote like Barbara Boxer. They don't seem to realize that a Barbara Boxer-style Democrat can't win in a district that is overwhelmingly affluent, home to many corporate headquaters, dominated by upper level white collare employees such as CEOs, and that voted for Bush II with 56% of the vote in 2004. That type of district isn't going to elect the type of "Democrat" that many people around here want. Unfortunately some people here refuse to believe that.
It is kind of sad. I call the liberals that you described to be "matryr liberals". For some messed-up reason they would rather lose than win. To them, in their perverse logic, losing is a form of "winning". They take pride in their marginalization and aren't really interested in governance. So they push and embrace lost/futile/vain causes (Chuck Pennachio, for example) and then get angry when either Democratic primary voters reject their choices soundly or when their candidates don't win general elections.
So I agree with you. But unfortunately, among the left, there are some people who want to lose. And this is one thing I will say about the conservative right that I admire: they actually want to win. They don't force impossible litmus tests on blue-state/blue-district Republicans the way many people here push those same strident demands on red-state/red-district Democrats.
Emannuel and Duckworth "hate" ordinary Democrats? Again I don't like how they meddled in that race, bur "ordinary Democrats" chose Duckworth over Cegelis in the priamry. Those "ordinary Democrats" voted for her in the primary.
Yep. Sometimes I wonder why people like you even bother supporting Democrats or even pretend to be Democrats. For honestly it seems like you hate the Democratic Party more than the Republicans. That you would even give up control of Congress to get rid of Bean clearly speaks of your priorities.
I guess that labor wants someone 100% hostile to their issues elected because Bean has to actually stay electable enough to win in office. I guess that people like you actually want hostile legislators to purge the "impure" out. I guess you would rather have someone push the labor agenda farther back.
I honestly don't see the logic of liberals like youl. You would all rather lose than win. You would rather accomplish nothing than something. That you would even give up control of Congress just so that Bean doesn't return speaks of flawed priorities.
I am going to bed now too. I guess that I know where you stand: You hate the Democrats more than the Republicans. And so honestly, how do you ever hope to acheive anything?
If you do come back to this thread tommorrow, I'd like to know that. I'd like to know how you would get a far left Democrat elected in a such a hostile district like IL-8, where Bush II won 56% of the vote?
Sigh. The end result that people will you get is Robert McSweeney (R) (is that his name)--someone completely hostile to every "progressive" cause out there. And yes you will be able to be self-righteous at this and other "progressive" boards about how you "sent a message"--a message that most people in the real world won't listen to, care about, or hear. And you will get someone hostile to eveverything you care about. But then again, as long as you caused the "impure Bean" to lose, why does it matter that McSweeney will support everything you oppose?
This whole "walking away" mentality is what helped Richard Nixon win in 1968. Of course Hubert Humphrey wasn't "perfect enough". It is what helped Bush to squeak by in 2000 because the fringe left had to run to Nader. And of course the end result was more of the same: every policy that people like you claim to oppose is enacted. And the policies you all supposedly oppose become law.
Hoyer, the DSCC, and the DCCC won't honestly care about the "message" that you will all send. What they will probably think, if Bean and Duckworth fall is, that they simply were running in districts that, even though they may be more friendly to the Democrats than they used to be, were historically heavily Republican. They won't think of running someone like Christine Cegelis or Chuck Pennachio. If that's what you want them to do, they aren't going to do that. In fact they'll probably do more of the opposite.
And frankly, if Cegelis couldn't win the primary against a late starter like Duckworth, in spite of her name recognition, then maybe she wasn't the "dream candidate" that many of you made her out to be. Again I don't agree with how she was treated; but if her support was as "strong" as you all claimed, she would have won.
But I guess that liberals like you will always find a reason to "walk away". No candidate is ever good enough for you. I never get the mentality of people like you: punish people who support most of your goals because they aren't there 100% of time so that you can get someone there instead who is supportive only 0-20% of the time so that you can send a "message". It is so illogical.
Then again, for some fucked up reason, the far left likes to "walk away". Somehow losing = winning. The far right actually likes to win. I just wish that sometimes the left actually cared about winning to the extent that the right did.
Typical far left attitude. You are a martyr liberal. Of course most Republicans want their candidate to win, even those who are more "moderate". But no, Democrats like you love to lose. That's one thing that I really don't understand about the left and what I admire in the right. The right actually wants to win. The left wants to push impossible litmus tests and its candidates who are less than "pure" to lose. For some fucked up reason Democrats like you like losing.
The reality is that Bean is probably the only type of Democrat who could actaully win in IL-8. Again this is a heavily affluent, suburban district centered in suburban/exurban Chicago. It is home to CEOs, corporate headquarters, and very affluent voters.
They aren't going to elect someone bettter suited for a Chicago, lakeshore liberal based district. Bush polled 56% of the vote there. The district is probably very hostile to labor.
But of course, when it comes to "Democrats" like you, the type who have this martyrdom complex, you don't realize that this is a heavily GOP district. Bush II carried this district with 56% of the vote. This district is hardly sympathetic to the politics you support.
But of course you expect Bean to ignore the majority of her constituents to appease people like you 100% of the time on every issue, who are an extreme minority in her district. She can't do that--and hope to win.
Then again, of course, people like you have to "punish her" because she actually has to (somewhat) represent the majority of her constituents.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many Democrats think like you. Does the right ever act like this? No, because they actually want to win. That's why the likes of Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Chris Shays, Arnold Schwarznegger, Bill Weld, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Nancy Johnson, Ed Simmons, and other Republicans in heavily blue parts of the country, by and large, get the support of the far right. Does the far left think like that? No, of course not. They have to attack their own and cause them to lose to "send their message".