Should Buttigieg(D) challenge Donnelly(D) for the US Senate seat an Indiana?

[Tiggeroshii]

Should this progressive, popular mayor from a successful industrial town, challenge the current Senator in Indiana as one of the first moves in a Tea Party of the left movement?

I personally think he should take the opportunity and vie for the 2020 Democratic nomination to challenge dumpster fire or pence

16 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	4 (25%)
	No
	12 (75%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hrmjustin]

1. No. He should run for the Second Congressional District of Indiana.

Better chance of winning.

[Tiggeroshii]

4. I could get on that bus

[hrmjustin]

5. I believe he lives in the district and it will no doubt be targeted by the party.

I hope he goes for it.

[OnDoutside]

14. When is that up for re-election ?

[Hortensis]

17. Every 2 years, right? :)

Sensible response to, imo, a silly question, Hrmjustin. I like the very little I've heard of Buttigieg, but let's see how he performs between now and 2020.

[OnDoutside]

20. I'd prefer a sensible response of

November 2017, 2018 or whenever

[Hortensis]

23. That was not meant to be offensive, just a little

nudge of brain-fart syndrome. You obviously knew the answer. I see how we went wrong, though. My comment below was to the OP. Should have lead with that name.

[hrmjustin]

25. November of 2018.

[OnDoutside]

28. Thank you.

[hrmjustin]

29. My pleasure! My understanding that the current GOP occupant of that seat has ethical issues.

It is a swing district.

[nycbos]

2. No we do not need a left wing Tea Party

He should run for Governor in 2020 or for the Senate in 2022.

Our focus should be 100% fighting Republicans and not on ideological purity.

[truebluegreen]

9. Yes, we do.

Unless we are content with the 25-ish% who currently identify as Democrats.

As for the moderates who have been running the party, to paraphrase Rahm Imanuel, where else are they gonna go?

[BzaDem]

11. I think you have that backwards.

For a truly moderate voter (only leaning slightly more to the left than to the right), the answer to your question is "to the Republican." This is because such a voter is by definition closer to the right than the far left.

On the other hand, for a voter on the far left, your question is much more apt. Such a voter quite literally has nowhere else to go, if they want to achieve left-leaning policy outcomes. They can sit out an election, but they will always come back, because the result of a Republican victory is a result against their own policy interests. The only question is how many times such a voter will shoot themselves in the foot before they get tired of their bleeding feet. (Historically, the answer is "only once" or "very few times." See Nader's vote share collapsing by 90% between 2000 and 2004, for example.)

The answer is NOT to ignore the far left. Rather, it is to focus primary challenges to districts or states with electorates that do not require true moderates to win. For example, the primary challenge against Joe Lieberman made a lot of sense, since true moderate voters are not needed for a Democrat to win in Connecticut. On the other hand, it is typically counter-productive to run a progressive primary challenger in a state like Indiana (where Trump won by 19%), or West Virginia (where Trump won by 42%), since the swing voters in those states will happily swing to the right long before they swing to the far left.

[truebluegreen]

13. No. In our parents' time, maybe. Now? No.

The Overton window has shifted so far to the right that the moderate range in the US is now occupied by the Democrats and the Republicans are off the deep end. The left side of the spectrum is largely unoccupied. Take the example of Bernie Sanders, a self-described "socialist" who is in reality no such thing. He's a Social Democrat, a middle-of-the-road FDR Democrat, of a type that is common in other western democracies. He is not radical at all! and the only way he can be seen as such is if the spectrum of political discourse has been "red-shifted".

This has happened in this country not because the country is more conservative than our counterparts--study after study has shown that when asked about specific policies, the US is center-left. I believe there's one inTime magazine right now--but because of relentless pressure from (imo) 3 sources: 1) a barrage of right-wing propaganda from hate radio and Fox and now Breitbart et al; 2) a wholly-owned corporate media that constantly pushes a pro-business pro-management anti-worker stance (think "what's good for GM is good for the country!&quot ; and 3) a Democratic Party dedicated to working with the opposition and compromising for the common good.

This has turned out to be a bad tactic since the more we compromise with Republicans, the further right they go, dragging the "middle" with them, to such extremes that they are teetering on the brink of full-blown fascism. We can't follow. In fact at this point we have to pull very hard the other way.

Martin Luther King believed that the greatest impediments to progress were moderates--the advocates of baby steps, if you will, who want slow progress that won't upset anybody too much. I think we are in a similar position. DFT won in the Rust Belt by running to Hillary's left on trade and going after fat cats/Wall St., etc. We all knew he was a liar, but they hoped he wasn't and they voted for him. Bernie was also popular in those areas. We can't give in to the idea of moderation being the way to confront a bunch of monsters. We have to face them down, attack their policies at the top of our lungs and pull the discourse window--and our country-- back to the left. We have a golden opportunity: with Trump out in front and full control of government the Republicans have pulled off their masks and displayed their malevolence for all to see. We have to oppose that.

We have to follow the people in the streets, who are progressives and liberals and socialists and ANGRY (but not full of hate). Many of them are new to politics, unaffiliated or disaffected. Many of them are Democrats but at least as many are not. If we try to corral them into our moderate, sensible, and sober party we will lose them. This s not the time for that. This is an existential threat--to the party, to the nation and even to the world. We have to turn this around, Bigly, and Right Now.

[DanTex]

21. The American electorate is more conservative than the European one.

There's really no getting around this. The biggest differences are, first, a lot more religious fundamentalism in the US, and second, a lot more individualism in the US versus collectivism in Europe. Here's one very telling poll:


You're right about issue polls suggesting we are center-left, but issue polls can be misleading, a lot of times it depends on the wording of the question. And in other instances, people will support a policy until they are told it will require a tax increase.

[BzaDem]

30. Your characterization of labels doesn't change a simple reality.

There are actually voters who only lean slightly to the right or the left, and would be more than happy to vote for a Republican over a Democrat they perceive to be too far to the left. In some states (such as Indiana or West Virginia), winning such voters is required to win an election. In other states (such as Connecticut), winning such voters is not required. Fielding primary challenges to conservative Democrats in the latter states/districts makes sense. Fielding primary challenges in the former states makes zero sense, if one's goal is to actually enact progressive policy.

[truebluegreen]

31. Just for grins

Go to this website, www.politicalcompass.org. Take the test (10 minutes) and see where you stand. Then look at 2016 candidates, maybe at European parties, whatever.

Then come back and talk to me about labels and "slightly" left or right, or what moderate means. Then maybe we can have a conversation.

[BzaDem]

32. I think you are missing my point.

When I am talking about moderate voters, I am not talking about moderate in any kind of objective sense. I am talking about moderate in a subjective sense, from the perspective of the voter in question. You can shout to such a voter all you want about how the Democratic party is not that leftist, make comparisons with other countries, etc. But they don't care. They do not want to vote for a candidate that THEY see as too far to the left, regardless of your opinion of their conclusion.

Often their view isnt even coherent. But if they see an incumbent or establishment candidate challenged from their left, that is all the information they need to draw their conclusion and vote for the Republican. (This also works in the other direction, when the right challenges its own. See Republican challenges and subsequent losses in Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada. Or later Republican victories in Colorado and Nevada, where the subsequent establishment candidate won after the primarily electorate learning about what happens when the establishment candidate doesn't win in a swing state.)

If this is attempted on the Democratic side with swing states or right leaning states, our own primary electorate will learn the same lesson (and avoid making the same mistake the next time around). But that would be too late to save several Senate seats, which would likely put out of reach our ability to confirm Supreme Court justices. Wouldn't it be better if we just skipped the learning phase, when the lesson is obvious?

[Hortensis]

19. Maybe reread the question, Bzadem. Mainstream Democrats,

most of whom are liberals, are hardly going to go "to the Republican."

The kool-aid Truebluegreen's been drinking is that if a minority radical faction takes over the party, where would everyone else go? "Nowhere because there's nowhere else to go."

Bzadem makes some good points, Truebluegreen, but the short answer would be:

Around the rock in the river.

You need to understand that the once greater centralization of power in political parties is no longer. Most power is exercised and most money spent outside the DNC and RNC as it is, and if the DNC were taken over by a faction that didn't represent the majority coalition, almost all of the thousands of Democratic power bases would just ignore it. And so would the voters.

The pummeling and kicking to the side of the RNC many times over now illustrates this very well.

Something else you need to know, Truebluegreen, is that liberal and conservative are basic genetically wired personality orientations. Political affiliation comes later with environmental influences. However, generally speaking, approximately half of all Americans are liberals, half generally speaking conservative, all with some goulash of political positions from across the spectrum, with the average being our political orientation.

And research shows people are remarkably consistent in their political ideology and affiliation--witness what happened on the right. All "values" were adjusted as needed to be able to vote for their mentally disordered, corrupt, serial swindler, finger-rapist candidate.

In imagining a takeover against the wishes of the various "identity" groups who make up a huge Democratic Party majority, you need to understand that, both because of that consistency of personality and also because liberals are far more solid in our principles politically than conservatives, none of us are really "going" anywhere ideologically either.

[irisblue]

3. nope. rip Todd Youngs face off in 2023.

Buttiegieg is a gay man in f-ing homophobic Indiana. South Bend is a bright spot in a red red area(I lived there for many years, I saw and lived that homophobia). Take the time, build a strong durable base, then go after the republican wanker.

[AJT]

6. He should run for a house seat in 2018.

[Blue_true]

33. I agree, then the republican held Senate seat in 2022. nt

[Chipper Chat]

7. Governor for sure.

But he likes South Bend.

[OnDoutside]

15. The fact he went for DNC chair means that he is looking beyond South Bend.

[D_Master81]

8. will be interesting to see

Mayor Pete has a future somewhere, and i'd like to see him take on Walorski in 2018, but with the way the 2nd district got redrawn its more of an uphill climb than it used to be. Back 10 years ago, the more Liberal Laporte county was part of the district. once the lines were redrawn and that area was taken out and replaced with the more conservative areas to the east, its become a red leaning district. Hence why Walorski wins pretty comfortably now and couldnt beat Donnelly in a wave election in 2010.

[mvd]

10. I voted yes

Unless there's a Repuke in a nearby district he could knock off first.

[Scruffy1]

12. Once you use the Tea Party analogy you lost me.

The Tea Party was mainly bullshit astro turfing with a few paid activists and pumped by the media. Did you ever see one door knocking? and why would someone be against someone else running. It's what democracy is.

[NCTraveler]

16. BoB'ers are the Tea Party of the left.

Burrigieg isn't even close to one of them.

[NurseJackie]

22. Yes. Exactly. Thank you!

[crazycatlady]

18. No he should challenge a Republican

[bullwinkle428]

24. No. Donnelly and Manchin are qualitatively different types of Blue Dogs. Donnelly

reflects the generally more conservative nature of a state like Indiana, and I completely understand that we need people like him to the tent as large as possible. That creep Manchin, on the other hand, seems to get his rocks off by trolling the Democratic party.

Buttegieg probably has a number of pathways to increase his profile within the party and nationally, but this wouldn't be a good one.

[vi5]

26. That is a big difference that we need to have more of a discussion on....

...That is a difference that too many of the people screaming "BIG TENT" above and at the expense of all else are not digging deep enough into.

If someone is and wants to vote conservatively because their state and constituencies dictate it, fine. But when it becomes more of a way to get out in front of a camera and just troll the Democratic party and give cover to bad Republican ideas as being "bipartisan" then that is a whole other shitty animal.

[bettyellen]

27. "Tea party of the left" LOL, Nope and nope.

[ISUGRADIA]

34. Yes!

Let's have purity primary quests in all Dems representing red states.

The Republicans may get a filibuster proof 60 seat majority, but gol darn it we will have ideological purity!