If Democratic candidates ran on progressive ideas on a consistent basis...

[MADem]

132. Not sure what the point was linking to your own post, but whatever.

Do you think Bernie Sanders would win in Louisiana? How about North Dakota?

Do you think Elizabeth Warren would have won Georgia, or Arkansas?

If you do believe this, I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.

You are not the litmus test for every Democratic voter. You apparently think that everyone has your views and priorities, and they just do not. Regional differences in lifestyle, attitude, viewpoint, approach to authority, religious beliefs, etc.--these things are REAL and they have to be considered when running a candidate for office.

You don't "compete" by running YOUR version of a "dream liberal" in states that are moderate or conservative. You don't force the voters to take what YOU want, or else. You give them what THEY want, and then you gently lead them down a better path, often by example in more liberal enclaves. A rising tide lifts all boats. Example--Colorado and the pot legalization. States that said "NEVER!!!!!!" to legalization are now saying "Shit--how many millions did they make in the last couple of quarters? THAT much? DAY-um!!! Maybe we need to get on this gravy train, too...." Some people need to be brought along, to get USED to an idea. A politician up on the stump thundering at them isn't going to resonate--they want a paycheck, a house, a car, and a college fund for their kids. THAT's what they're worried about.

And saying "Oh well, we'll lose and lose and lose...but eventually they'll listen to us!" is absurd. No one gives a shit about "liberalism" if they don't have a JOB and/or they live in a shitty community. If you want people to vote for your candidate, they need to believe that the candidate has their best interests at heart--that they won't be poorer as a consequence of their vote, that they'll be warm in winter, that their children will be well educated, that their streets will be safe and they'll have small entertainments and amenities in their neighborhood that make life worthwhile.

I have to laugh at people who don't get this shit, and wave Elizabeth Warren around like she's some uber-liberal icon. In actual fact, Warren is conservative on a lot of fronts, but she GETS IT. For example, the Army said they didn't want a battlefield piece of equipement anymore and they wanted it cut from their budget. Warren used her clout to prevent the Army from deleting the item from inventory, not because the Army really needed it (they didn't) but because it would have COST MA JOBS if the item had been cut. In short, she PORK BARRELLED. She put her constituents and their JOBS first, ahead of the national budgetary process. She's not effective because she's LIBERAL, she's effective because she worries about working stiffs. Even working stiffs who are making crap the Army does not want or need.

Now, let's have a look at Mary Landrieu, and some of the "LOVE" that the geniuses here at DU gave her (not). Most of them said "Fuck her, she's in bed with the --waaaaaaaaaah--OIL industry!!! HATE her! OIL BAD!!!" Those activists here and elsewhere, instead of talking up her positives (equality, ACA, equal pay, animal welfare, etc.) depressed turnout with this kind of talk, and we end up with a nutter taking her place who makes her pragmatic support for the industry that 'fuels' her state look like disdain. But hey--that nut won't take away their JOBS, will he? Their jobs are SAFE.

You say the only way to win is to compete. I say the only way to compete is to win. If we don't have the bully pulpit, we have shit. And for the next six years in KY and LA, we have shit.