General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew Dems And Blue Dogs WHINING It Costs Them More To Run For Congress Than It Costs Real Democrats
Writing for Stars and Stripes and the Washington Post Sunday, Anne Kim, an operative for Wall Street's deceptively named Progressive Policy Institute (a pro-corporate/anti-worker New Dem outfit that was founded by the DLC to promote neoliberal ideas like NAFTA and the TPP), decries how much more it costs reactionary Democrats-- New Dems and Blue Dogs-- to run for election than it costs real Democrats. It costs the Democrats who support the Republican/Wall Street agenda double what it costs actual Democrats to run for office. Kim's research finds that the fake Dems "spent roughly twice as much as their liberal counterparts to win or defend their seats." That trend is getting more pronounced and she pointed out that for every dollar that the average Progressive Caucus member directly spent to defend his or her seat in 2014, the average right-wing Democrat spent $1.93. By comparison, right-wing Democrats shelled out $1.54 for every campaign dollar spent by liberals by 2012 and $1.65 in 2010.
Consider the case of Democratic members of the House, where long-standing, self-defined coalitions — New Democrats and Blue Dogs on the one hand and the Progressive Caucus on the other — separate moderates and liberals with reasonable clarity. (Members must apply to join, attend regular meetings and remain in good standing.) In the past three election cycles, self-described moderate lawmakers spent roughly twice as much as their liberal counterparts to win or defend their seats...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-hard-to-be-a-moderate-politician-its-also-more-expensive/2015/05/28/86bab940-04d9-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html
She doesn't get into it, but these figures include the way Wall Street-backed conservaDems gigantically outspend progressives in primaries, often with the help of the Democratic Beltway Establishment which has now entirely abandoned its pretense of being neutral in primaries. Let's look at a few of the most recent examples from the last cycle. Here are 4 notable races that pitted New Dem types who back cutting Social Security benefits against progressives who favor expanding Social Security. In each case, the corporate-backed right-winger seriously outspent the progressive:
• CA-31- Pete Aguilar- $2,246,265, Eloise Reyes- $1,029,617
• IL-13- Ann Callis- $1,936,927, George Gollin- $522,126
• VA-08- Don Beyer- $2,688,020, Patrick Hope- $307,599
The New Dem analysis for why they have to spend more than real Democrats never touches on the fact that the New Dems' conservative policy agenda turns off Democratic primary voters. Instead they claim that "moderate districts are by definition competitive... In 2014, outside groups spent an average of $2.2 million per race in New Democrat and Blue Dog districts, compared with an average of $299,339 in Progressive Caucus districts. All told, outside groups spent $121 million on moderate districts, vs. $20.4 million in liberal ones." [Keep in mind that New Dems and Blue Dogs and their propagandists like Kim, always refer to them as "moderate" rather than as the conservatives that they are.] In January, after Long Island Blue Dog and DCCC chair Steve Israel led the House Democrats to a second consecutive electoral donnybrook, he gave Politico an interview indicating he has every intention of following the same catastrophic strategy that tanked the Democrats in 2010, 2012 and 2014 (the Israel years). Several members of Congress have told me that Israel's pointless, policy-free messaging doesn't appeal to real voters and that that's why so many Democrats just don't bother voting. Israel recruits Republican-lite candidates (in some cases, actual Republicans) and then fills the airwaves with ineffective, garbage messaging and still expects to win. He doesn't win; he loses... and loses and loses. And yet, Pelosi left him in charge-- albeit with another title-- of the DCCC again, where he is already talking about how the Democrats won't win back the House in 2016. He's right. The Democrats will never win back the House as long as Steve Israel is running the show, or even partially running the show.
After three months of griping that their party’s midterm-election message was too complex and often too diluted, lawmakers who gathered here for a three-day Democratic retreat hope they have found the formula for reversing the losses they took in November.
We’re “absolutely unified on three essential messages going forward: It’s middle class, middle class, middle class,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who had just surveyed 90 Democratic members about what they want to see in 2016. “Everybody agreed that it has to be about the middle.”
Israel, the new chairman of the House Democrats’ messaging arm, said another problem in 2014 was that news on Ebola, Ukraine and Islamic militants knocked domestic concerns from voters’ minds.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/democrats-unified-economic-message-114723.html
And the DCCC continues spending virtually all its resources trying to reelect and elect Blue Dogs and New Dems who vote with the GOP and have no connection to the Democratic values-driven grassroots. If you contribute to the DCCC, that's the toilet your money gets flushed down. Instead, consider contributing directly to progressive candidates.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Too many of their chairs are way too tight with the (practically extinct) Blue Dogs. Rahm was about the worst of them.
I donate money to individual national candidates these days or to state and local elections.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)When the base has to be more motivated to come out and vote for them. A huge majority of those voted out in the 2010 midterms were the corporate Democrats that Rahmbo and his DCCC pushed to get elected earlier. If they were more in line with traditional Democratic values, I think we'd get more motivation for traditional Democrats to come out and vote for them, and perhaps help overall strength in the elections in the midterms as well.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Rahm picks were just soo bad. He tended to glom onto republican-lite candidates. There were so many here even on this board that would defend him. We continually had better progressive candidates that had a shot but Rahm would just absolutely shower DCCC money on corporate candidates. It was extremely frustrating and all we ended up with were a smattering more blue dogs that gave republicans cover for their fillibusters during President Obama's first two years.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the Democratic Party has always contained the spectrum of political orientation, from conservative to liberal to progressive ... all with different priorities and ALL of them DEMOCRATS.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)and a moderate Republican? How has that changed in the last few decades specifically?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but the obvious difference is Party Identification ... your vote for O. Snow (a "moderate republican"
gets lumped in with the Cruzs, gohmerts and kings of the republican party; your vote for a Blue dog Democrat gets lumped in which the Bernies and Frankens and Graysons of the Democratic Party.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Though she played cat and mouse with her vote far too much, she was pushed out by the new guard of her party because they wanted to play Tea Party. A lot of the time, saying a Blue Dog votes with Dems most of the time leaves the party open to being held hostage to the likes of Lincoln, Landrieu, Lieberman on the important stuff. And Blue Dogs are also most prone to losing their seats which sometimes means the party has to spend enormous resources and neglect other areas. I do think the extremism in the Republican party has pushed more Republicans to the other side, to the detriment of our own party as much as theirs. And strangely enough, they still set the agenda even when they are a minority in Congress and not in the White House. Curious.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)each party is captive to the extremes of their respective party, but only to the extent the extreme approaches the political center of their respective base. For example, the teaparty holds sway in the gop because that is where the majority of its base is; whereas, the conservative Democrats hold sway with the Democratic Party because that is closer to the political center of the Democratic Party.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Except polling shows this claim is wrong. Remember all the articles about the electorate being more liberal than DC thinks? Or all the "crazy liberal" referenda that pass, and the conservative referenda that fail even in Republican wave elections?
Not to mention if your claim was correct, you'd have to come up with a reason why 2010, 2014, 2004, 2002 and 2000 looked nothing like 2012, 2008 and 2006, even though the campaigns for the last three were far more left-of-center than conservative Democrats. (Campaigns. Not policies enacted)
Conservative Democrats hold sway because they got into leadership in the 1990s and have not retired. They really don't like being challenged, and do an excellent job of sandbagging candidates to their left. Even if it means the seat goes to a Republican.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I think it naïve to lay the blame at the feet of the leadership ... Democrats do not have a problem showing there independentness (i.e., bucking the leadership) but only a few have the courage to vote against where they perceive the people that put them in office. That is why, we see a direct relationship between the composition of the voter district and the representatives vote ... the safer (bluer) the seat, the more liberal the representatives' votes.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)1) Centrists are not traditional the Democrats from before the days of Reagan because there was plenty of room for them in the Republican Party. Because the R party has become so extreme, social liberals have switched over and changed the Democratic Party dramatically.
2) When polled on the issues, a majority of Democrats fall into the liberal spectrum, not centrist, by a wide margin.
3) The midterms where centrist Democrats get whooped and liberal Dems fare much better. Liberals ARE the base because they can define the party as different than Republicans. Centrists can't do that and so people have no idea where they stand.
4) Barack Obama ran as a big time liberal and won *twice*. People didn't flock to him becuase he presented himself as a liberal. His campaign managers knew what the people wanted and so created that campaign.
5) Hillary, O'Malley, and Sanders are all running as liberal populists. The most left sounding field I have seen in a long time. She is trying to sound much more liberal than 2008. I assume there is some kind of internal polling in the party that tells them that populism is the way to go (sparked by Elizabeth Warren).
I think there are many people who might poll as more centrists because they have bought the bullshit about deficits and tax cuts. But for just about every other centrist policy, I can't think of one that is too popular.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But, after having thought about it more, I'll edit it once again to say, ...
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)you don't have to advertise as much.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)She will not enjoy the sort of mass voluntary grassroots GOTV support that Obama received from progressives, labor and minorities. She will instead rely on a lot of media buys and spend huge amounts on spectacles, professional campaign staff, and hopes to get leverage from corporate news coverage.
It will be huge, and if handled clumsily, turn out to be a huge turn-off.
Mr. Robot
(39 posts)I would not be surprised to find another 150,000 or more have already signed up in all 50 states and aboard to support Bernie.
That costs FAR less in terms of dollars. FAR less. There are better ways to get people to learn about Bernie.
Bernie continues to earn free publicity and did an admirable job yesterday with Couric and Meyers.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Mr. Robot
(39 posts)It would cost FAR less if progressives were allowed to run to be given a choice, instead of spending dollars bashing them
The fact the DLC/Third Wayers are costing them dollars should give them a big honking clue as to stop insulting the progressives.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)... to get elected?
I not familiar enough with all these districts.