If we become Repub lite, the voter is gonna vote for the REAL Repub, run on who we are,progressive D

[jodymarie aimee]

In Wisconsin we have been in R hell for 10 years now. Super super Republican majorities, we are in chains..some of our candidates tried to appeal to the Rs...becoming more R as in guns, women's rights, climate, etc...guess what? They lost....Someone very wise once said.."If we become Republican lite, the voter is gonna vote for the REAL Republican...run on who we are, progressive DEMS".

That is the way to win elections.

[Kath2]

1. Right on.

I attended the Western Maryland Democratic Unity rally yesterday. The vibe among attendees was VERY progressive. I was impressed with all of the pro-choice and anti-trump bumper stickers I saw in the parking lot. Republican lite is not the way to go.

[honest.abe]

2. Who wants to become Repub lite??

That is a derogatory term many Bernie and Stein supporters used during the 2016 Presidential primary campaign. I would think by now after nearly two years under Republican rule anyone with a brain can see the massive difference between Democrats, virtually any Democrat, and Republicans.

[jodymarie aimee]

3. 10 years here

a long long time.

[honest.abe]

4. Your point?

[jodymarie aimee]

7. In 10 years our DEMs tried different strategies...R lilte...accepting R policies...

and they lost. AND yes, it is a thing. A real thing. Leave Bernie and Stein out of it...refer to somebody like Manchin.

[honest.abe]

8. The term is insulting and inaccurate.

If you want to argue that our candidates need to be more liberal or progressive, that's fine, but no need to resort to insults. That serves no good purpose. Our mission is take back congress, and it that means having a few candidates in some districts who are less progressive than others, then so be it.

[jodymarie aimee]

10. it is accurate here in WI, kiddo

you guys are just waking up to R rule, we are vets...

[honest.abe]

11. Kiddo???

you have no idea.

[MineralMan]

15. Kiddo? Being dismissive like that in a discussion

is a poor way to proceed. Insults do not lead to success with your point.

[Demsrule86]

39. I suppose Russ Feingold lost because he wasn't progressive enough...you are simply wrong.

[DFW]

48. Feingold was the first person that came to mind with me, too

I spent over a half hour with him on the phone in July 2016, and I was practically congratulating him on his return to the Senate and the return of his principled progressive voice to replace Ron Johnson (R-idiculous). I couldn't believe it when I saw the vote tally. It wasn't even close, and anyone who thinks Russ Feingold is "Republican Lite" doesn't know the first thing about him.

[George II]

40. Suuuurrrreeee....

Ten years ago, in 2008, Barack Obama won the Presidency. Four years later Barack Obama won the Presidency. Two years ago many feel that Hillary Clinton won the Presidency but it was stolen by trump working with the Russians.

Yes, we sure are losing!

[JustAnotherGen]

5. Get that message to Gabby Giffords

She turned traitor and endorsed Leonard Lance instead of Tom Malinowski the other day.

Regardless - Tom will win and she is persona non grata in the NJ 7th.

[BannonsLiver]

45. I'm sure she's devastated.

I bet being “persona non grata” in the NJ7th is right up there with the great tragedies of her life.

[JustAnotherGen]

61. I'm sure it is - no sarcasm needed

She shouldn't step foot here - for supporting a REPUBLICAN.

You get that right? A disgusting slithering Repvile. She's not with the Democratic Party and therefore is fair game.

She just supported:

A liar
A collaborator
An unAmerican traitor
He votes with Trump 87% of the time: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/leonard-lance/
He supports ICE tearing children apart from their families
Repeal of Dodd-Frank Protections

In 2016 - he had racist shit up on his page about Peter Jacob (his opponent).

You should google Leonard Lance Town Halls - we ain't nice.

We play mean and dirty here. So she can take her AGAINST a Democratic General election candidate ass to your district.

She's done. No more contributions to her PAC. Nada, Zip, Zilch.

THIS is what purity looks like.

[Hekate]

49. Gabby Giffords? "Turned traitor"?The one who survived assassination & is now a gun control advocate?

That Gabby Giffords, JustAnotherGen? "Turned Traitor"?

I just had to come back and reread what you wrote because the first time I was just too stunned.

Okay, that is just vile.

[stonecutter357]

59. Disgusting comment !

[JustAnotherGen]

62. Hey - She's the one against a Democratic Candidate in the GE

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/990


This is what the Traitor to the Democratic Party supports:

“These aren’t typical times, so we can’t afford typical politicians like Leonard lance,” the ad’s narrator says. “Lance gave himself a 40% pay hike took advantage of a loophole, taking a state pension while taking his nearly $200,000 congressional paycheck. Lance took a state-funded Cadillac health plan while voting 60 times to gut affordable healthcare for you.”

This is what a good Liberal, Progressive, Democratic gives their support to:

So - if you don't like it - give money to her PAC. Go right ahead and turn against the NJ 7th who are doing our absolute best to give YOU another Democratic in the House.

[Kath2]

6. Wisconsin needs change...

[Trumpocalypse]

9. Candidates need to fit their district

A candidate who can win in San Francisco or NYC might not be able to win in a conservative rural district. We shouldn’t be afraid to embrace diversity of thought or try impose ideological purity.

[George II]

42. Tammy Duckworth tried to explain that a few weeks ago and got BASHED by a Democrat.

And shortly after that Democrat's three highest profile endorsed candidates lost in the Midwest to less than pure Democrats in their primaries.

Conor Lamb is a perfect example of what you're talking about. Many Democrats aren't happy with him, but even if he votes 80% with Democrats that's 80% better than a republican who would have voted 0% with Democrats.

[Trumpocalypse]

46. It is a shame

that many will focus on the 20% rather than the 80%.

[Cha]

57. Precisely, Trumpocalypse!

[brewens]

12. My last Democratic party Congressman ran right and lost. Walt Minnick D-ID was a one

term wonder. But it was no wonder. He even voted against the ACA and bragged about it in his commercials. As you would expect, he probably didn't get even one conservative vote for that.

[vi5]

13. I don't particularly care for the term "Repub lite"....

...as obviously there is still a major chasm between Republicans and Democrats. But that is largely because they've shift WAY radical right and the Democrats have just shifted fairly far right over the past 20 years.

The way I personally choose to couch this issue is that we've got to stop accepting Republican framing of issues. Once we do that we are telling people that we accept that Republicans are basically right. Just off the top of my head the areas that we've done this on over the past 20-25 years:

Public education "We all agree that the system is failing and something must be done!!!!". The reason certain states are failing is because Republican policies have been implemented. The reason other states are successful is that they have solid, liberal approaches (strong teachers unions, etc.).

Taxes: "We all agree that raising taxes is bad!!" No we don't. Taxes pay the bills for things we all like and use. How about instead of arguing and fighting over who wants to raise taxes least (or worse yet in states like NY with a Democratic governor, trumpeting how little taxes corporations have to pay) how about explain what those taxes should and can go for to help people?

Unions: I don't even think I need to explain this one. There are countless charts and studies out there that show the decline of unions have hurt the American worker. This is one area where Dems are more than happy to take the money these groups have but too slow to actually support what they stand for and what they do.

Abortion: "We can all agree that abortion is icky and that fewer of them is better!!!" No. Abortion is a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. End of discussion. We don't need politicians of any stripe to present a moral judgment on that. It's legal and how many of them are performed has nothing to do with anyone other than a doctor and a patient.

Military Spending: Other than a few brave folks, and some gratuitous overtures from others when was the last time anyone in our party took on the bloated military spending full stop, without equivocation?

There are others, but these are just the ones off the top of my head that we have shifted much farther right as a party than we should have and on which the Republican framing has been assumed to be the right starting point. This doesn't even get into the way that we've enabled corporate greed in countless other ways.

[Efilroft Sul]

17. So much win in this post. Thanks vi5.

[TheBlackAdder]

14. The Third Way was formed as a Libertarian front, diluting the Democratic brand to shift it right.

.

One of the Koch's initial pursuits was to sell Democrats on the concept of pragmatism. While pragmatism is a noble concept, it only works when all are pragmatic. When one party is extremist, the extremists win almost every time, because pragmatists start at the half-way point, and in any negotiation, that's one hell of a lot of real estate to give up when entering negotiations.

.

[appalachiablue]

65. The Libertarian scourge in many forms is pervasive now, courtesy K's.

[seaglass]

16. Are you saying Russ Feingold is Repub lite? n/t

[jodymarie aimee]

20. Russ us as progressive as they come

He once gave me a standing ovation at a funder. He is a God to us in WI.

[seaglass]

22. Yes, I am a fan. He lost and I do not think it was because he was appealing to Repubs. n/t

[jodymarie aimee]

23. yes, I did not understand that comment

at all....I certainly was NOT referring to Russ.

[JI7]

27. but he lost. you are claiming people lose for reasons which are not true

[sheshe2]

43. Who exactly are you refering to as Republican lite in the Democratic Party?

Name them.

[mythology]

18. Given that the two parties are more polarized than ever, including elected officials

that's a fairly moot point.

But also you are objectively wrong about the success of more moderate candidates.

It seems that when parties nominate an extreme candidate — in a district where a more moderate candidate might have had a chance to win the primary — the extreme candidate does worse in the general election.

Extreme candidates fire up voters, but not always in the way the candidates would like.

A party that nominates an extreme candidate when it could have nominated a more moderate one may lose as much as seven points of vote share in the general election, according to Andrew Hall, a political scientist at Stanford University, and Daniel Thompson, a doctoral student there. Seven points would have been enough to swing dozens of House races in 2016 alone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/upshot/unable-to-excite-the-base-moderate-candidates-still-tend-to-outdo-extreme-ones.html

Republicans say the same thing about nominating Sharon Angle and Todd Akin etc.

[Oneironaut]

19. The thing is, we have to run people who can win.

You can’t run an ultra-progressive Democrat in an extremely conservative area. They would never win. Sometimes, we will just never win anyways. Democrats running on more Conservative platforms usually do so out of necessity.

The voting public is a massive constraint on who can run and who can’t. Priority 1 should be winning, even if it means allowing more conservative Democrats to run.

[moose65]

30. Amen to that!

I kinda understand what some of you are saying about fitting your state or district, but sometimes trying to run from Democrats will cause you to LOSE more Democratic votes than you will ever make up in trying to appeal to Republicans. If I lived in Kentucky and I had heard her when she was trying to not say whether she had voted for Obama, that would have made me mad - it wouldn’t have convinced me to support her!

Republicans are going to paint Dem candidates as the most left-wing, commie liberals anyway, no matter how conservative one tries to be. Kay Hagan made the same mistake in NC. She tried to distance herself from Obama and in the process she lost more votes than she gained. As Alan Grayson always said, “You can’t beat a Republican by trying to BE one!”

Democrats need to forget about winning over Republicans. We need to concentrate on getting our own voters to the polls, and winning the votes of unaffiliated voters and people who don’t vote. We need to stick to our convictions and not be wishy-washy. Voters love candidates who stand up for what they believe. We might even win over a few Republicans in that process!

[aikoaiko]

32. Yes, she lost, but gun toting Democrats was a winning strategy for Democrats in rural areas...

...from around 2000 - 2014.

Then came Sandy Hook and Obama's failed attempt to pass gun control and the message didn't work anymore.

We win back Congress by winning districts.

I'm not saying that we have to be NRA Democrats and anti-minorities, but there will be variation in our congresscritters.

[JI7]

50. ALG lost because it's a fucking right wing state . if she had moved left even a bit she would have

lost even more.

she did better than Obama who ran to to left of her .

[Dem2]

24. Depends on the district

It comes down to having a good candidate who can motivate people to vote. I don't believe in universal formulas, which I don't believe has worked in the past either.

[ck4829]

25. K&R

[beachbum bob]

26. Democrats will never be republican lite...that's a term to breed dissent.

Republicans gained power because democrats sat on their asses. In Wisconsin especially. As far as I am concern, democrats who won't be bothered are the ones mostly responsible. The left extreme has proved that election after election going back to 2000 and Nader.

[JI7]

28. Why did Russ Feingold Lose Twice to a shitty Republican ?

[Funtatlaguy]

33. Some believe (see Greg Palast) that those with access to

Computer source codes can manipulate tallies in certain precincts to subtly change the results without causing too much alarm.

[still_one]

36. Exactly. In fact EVERY Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states in 2016 lost to

the incumbent, establishment, republican, and those Democratic candidates were progressive by any standard.

This is the same bullshit that Nader pulled in 2000, how there was no difference between republicans and Democrats, and I would hope people realize what a fraud the green party is with this false equivalency bullshit

[Lunabell]

29. This!

[Funtatlaguy]

31. This year is pretty simple for us Dems - ask sane people this one question?

Do you think that Trump needs an opposition party in charge of Congress to guard against some of what he wants to do?

It’s not mean or accusatory and doesn’t even say he is always wrong.

[still_one]

34. This is false equivalency myth that seems to pop up every so often, and its bullshit. In 2016 every

Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states, INCLUDING WISCONSIN, lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, and those Democrats were progressive by any standard. Russ Feingold was one of them that lost.

This is the crap that some self-identified progressives try to push.

The difference between the republicans and Democrats are very clear, and this distortion that tries to paint some Democrats as "republican lite" is the typical bullshit that was pulled in 2000 and 2016, where not only some self-identified progressives refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting, but also went out of their way to undercut and encourage others to do the same.

They contributed to our losing two SC appointments, the rolling back of Civil Rights, women's rights, environmental rights, worker's rights, etc.

Noam Chomsky articulated quite well:

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

West Virgina is not California, and that is what Howard Dean's strategy was all about, and that some seem to have a difficult time understanding that is unbelievable

The example used is Wisconsin, except Wisconsin continued to re-elect these republicans multiple times, and NOT because the Democratic challenger was "republican lite"

[JHan]

37. +++ watch your facts get ignored.

[brer cat]

47. Exactly! nt

[betsuni]

55. +1

[Cha]

56. Yes, and there's always

some who bite.

Right.. Russ Feingold is not "republicon lite" and he lost in 2016.. Unfortunately!

Thank You for explaining it for the umpteenth millionth time, still_one.

[NurseJackie]

35. We're not doing that.

If we become Repub lite,

We're not doing that. Democrats are not "Republican-lite"... GMAFB!

[Demsrule86]

38. Run candidates that fit their district or state. The 50 state solution is how we win majorities...

and there will always be a big tent...when we don't have one, we don't win majorities. We are going after seats in states and districts won by Trump.

[Hekate]

41. Who's "we"? Democrats are not "Republican Lite," they are Democrats. That's just a slur. nt

[Hekate]

51. Crickets

See, I didn't wait for only 2 minutes before posting that -- I waited all day. But I can be patient -- any time you are ready to explain how we can have a Big Tent party and throw everybody out who happens not to agree with you, well have at it.

[BannonsLiver]

44. Reads like something you'd see at JPR

And one poster even managed to shit all over Gabby Giffords in the process.

[Hekate]

53. It's pretty vile to call a woman who barely survived assassination a "traitor."

Plus the "Lite" canard.

[betsuni]

54. +1

[betsuni]

52. But if a majority of the voters are Republican, they'd never vote for a Democrat anyway.

I don't get it. Are you saying that if a Democrat ran on a very progressive platform in a place where the majority of voters are Republicans, that they would vote for that Democrat?

Talking point we will hear from now: Because there is a Manchin, Democrats are the same as Republicans.

[Hortensis]

58. Jodymarie, could it be that your understanding of

where most Democrats are on the political spectrum is wrong? It's very common for those outside the broad mainstream, right or left, to misunderstand that. In fact, it's practically a defining characteristic. They want to see themselves as defining liberalism or conservatism, and thus have to see others as not representative.

You might read about this. Findings of political scientists studying these things do not agree with your conception. In fact, what they report is both parties continuing to move farther apart, with a gap between where there used to be some overlap. Republicans moved far more right, and earlier, of course, but the mainstream of the Democratic Party has been moving farther left from center for some time also.

[Kaleva]

60. When did Russ Feingold become Republican Lite?

Your argument is that the reason Feingold has lost twice now is that he is just a Lite version of (R) Ron Johnson.

[NCTraveler]

63. Good luck in your area. It's in the eye of the beholder.

I've seen idiots call Clinton republican light.

[NCTraveler]

64. Feingold agrees.

Should have stopped reading at post 10.