Whose 'Idiots' Are Shrewder, Pt 2: Preventable Losses?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:43:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Kevin Drum writes:

O'Donnell is only one candidate, and every professional politician knows that once you get a freight train barrelling forward you can't control every last twist in the tracks. And it's quite possible that the result of the Tea Party freight train this year will be lots of ultra-conservative victories and one or two preventable losses. Is that a reasonable price to pay? I don't know, but I do know that there are plenty of liberals who'd be willing to make that trade in the opposite direction.

[More...]

(Emphasis supplied.) What liberals is Drum talking about? What races is Drum talking about? I can't think of a race (think Lieberman/Lamont, Halter/Lincoln, Tester/Morrison, Webb/Miller) where "liberals" backed O'Donnell-like candidates. Indeed, the opposite is true. The Netroots backed the better candidates for the GE (Tester and Webb) and saved the party Establishment from itself. The Tea Party has never done that. O'Donnell clearly is the less electable candidate in Delaware. No idea what Drum is talking about there. Frankly, supporting O'Donnell was no brainer stupid. It sets the Tea Party back, as I argued before.

Speaking for me only

< They Are Who We Thought They Were | Obama To Discuss His Middle Class Tax Cuts Proposal this Afternoon >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Whose 'Idiots' Are Shrewder, Pt 2: Preventable Losses? | 61 comments (61 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

No, what liberals do is sit back and vote for (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Buckeye on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:19:17 PM EST

establishment people to win because they believe no one else can. And then bitch bloody royal when legislation, such as health care, gets watered down so establishment figures will support it.

They vote D down the ballot (none / 0) (#12)
by republicratitarian on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:20:51 PM EST

then when they get screwed (like we all do on both sides of the isle), they don't vote.

Our choices are

Damned if we do.
Damned if we don't.

: Charlie Buk agrees... (none / 0) (#58)
by kdog on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:31:22 PM EST

"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting."
I've got time to burn, I'll pull a lever for one of the Brand X names down the bottom list...f*ck it. Until third names start winning big offices and Brands D/R feel genuine fear of getting arsed out, it makes little difference where it matters most. I kinda see it as the only ray of hope.
I'd trade the whole congress for a monkeywrench left-leaning president, surely a couple seats for a monkeywrench senator...get the ball rolling, see what happens.

If the Dems could elect lots of (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by Anne on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:28:37 PM EST

ultra-liberal candidates, but lose a couple centrist/Blue Dog seats in the bargain, would that be okay with me?

I think so, yes; unfortunately, we don't have lots of ultra-liberal candidates - we're lucky to have a few still willing to admit to being somewhat/slightly/maybe-a-little left of center, for heaven's sake. Dems are still running from being called liberal, and haven't managed to do a very good job even of living up to the meaning of "progressive," so I think I will not be holding my breath waiting for the day when I am confronted with the real possibility that a bunch of ultra-liberals will be elected to Congress.

Some days I feel like conservatives are changing the Republican Party from the ground up and the Democratic Party from the top down; I don't see how we end up with anything but conservative governance. Which may explain why so many Democrats at the ground level feel like the carpet the party poo-bahs are using to wipe their feet, and don't feel at all energized or excited about the choices we're getting at the ballot box.

It does not work that way (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:43:13 PM EST

As you properly note.

A loss in Delaware does not get the Tea Party a win anywhere. Frankly, I think it hurts them everywhere.


The Republican Party (none / 0) (#25)
by lilburro on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:04:46 PM EST

and the Democratic Party are not the same. They are not even of the same species, as some on the web (Digby and everyone at Hullabaloo, BTD) have attempted to demonstrate. Unfortunately, other writers that get more attention make apples to apples comparisons all the time (latest example being the American Taliban debate).


My point was that I feel like (5.00 / 4) (#53)
by Anne on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 06:06:57 PM EST

the New Dem leadership, which is right of center - in my opinion - is driving and directing who runs with support and who doesn't, often in opposition to what much of the Dem base would like to see; I believe it would be in the voters' interest to run solidly liberal candidates, but they are only looking out for themselves.

The re-making of the Republican party, by its own brand of conservatives, is being driven from the ground up (well, with some pretty powerful support in the background), in opposition to its own party leadership.

Frankly, other than some differences at the margins, I don't see the parties - in terms of leadership - being all that different in terms of what we're getting legislatively; I think the differences are there out here in regular-people land, but the Democratic Party doesn't want to hear about it: they're still operating on any-D-is better, and all that's given us in terms of reasons to vote D is "the other guy is worse."

I don't find voting for Republicans to be at all satisfying, so that's not an option.

Last election, I decided that if the Dems couldn't give me someone I felt represented my interests and needs, I just wouldn't vote; I just refuse to be party to enabling them to keep giving us the candidates they want - they might not have standards, but I do.


: I agree more or less (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by lilburro on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:24:53 AM EST

with your first two paragraphs. That's my point - Dems and Republicans are not the same, internally, the parties work differently. People here (and Drum) are comparing an influential right flank organization that has worked hard to endorse candidates this election cycle with... people chatting on the internet. Because the actual Netroots hasn't organized any particularly suicidal mission. Unions haven't really gunned for anybody to the point that we lost a possible seat. There's no "there" there in the comparison. Making the comparison is just a way for Drum to say "now calm down liberals"...even though they should really be encouraging the opposite.

: Me and thee! (none / 0) (#57)
by the capstan on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:18:16 PM EST

No liberal, no D vote--

And (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:10:38 PM EST

Others claim that McCain and Obama are the same.... lol


And they are also wrong (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by lilburro on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:22:20 PM EST

so obviously everyone must come to the right position... mine >:D


Obviously Greenwald didn't get the (none / 0) (#42)
by oculus on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:17:47 PM EST

message. Such a powerful column today.


Powerful? (none / 0) (#44)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:23:24 PM EST

Seems status quo to me. But maybe I only check in to GG when he is ranting...


Check the update. Non-combat (none / 0) (#46)
by oculus on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:33:16 PM EST

troops in combat in Iraq.


: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:40:02 PM EST

I saw that elsewhere, still, seems much like business as usual over there.
And, believe it or not, the US claims to not have fired a shot... of course the damn Iraqi's are reporting a slightly different version, that the US and Iraqis set off a mess of bombs to start the parade.. helicopter backup etc...
and of course, they did not get their man, but killed a teenager and other civilians.

Margin is blown (none / 0) (#1)
by waldenpond on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 01:49:57 PM EST

oops.

Comment looks really crazy now, huh? (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:25:56 PM EST

But--I saw what you saw!


yes, it was the quotation marks in the (none / 0) (#60)
by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:56:07 PM EST

post title, just took me a half hour to figure out what was wrong. It skewed the site in IE but not firefox or safari. Does anyone still use IE?


: Me! (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:36:54 PM EST

you have a terrible habit (none / 0) (#2)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:14:09 PM EST

of putting words in people's mouths. Kevin is not saying liberals are like the Tea Party in terms of how cleverly they've chosen they're candidates. He said there are plenty of liberals who would accept one or two preventable losses for lots of ultra-liberal victories. He didn't say they've had to adopt that strategy. You're right, the Netroots have done a great job of choosing progressives who could actually win. But there's nothing wrong with what Kevin said. Plus, I don't really think it makes sense to compare the Tea Party and the Netroots (your comparison, not Kevin's). The Netroots are not all liberal ideologues. They've chosen people who made sense for their state or district, not because they passed some litmus test of ideological purity. You really need to start responding to the points people make, rather than the points you'd like them to be making so as to more conveniently set up your little spikes.

Which liberals are those? (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:16:19 PM EST

Kevin has a bad hait of not identifying who he is taliing about.

I've had diffrences with him about his nasty penchant for this "some people" analysis. What people?


Me (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:34:13 PM EST

I'm a liberal, and I'm about disgusted enough with the "centrists" in our party that I think I'd accept one or two preventable losses for a lot of ultra-liberal victories. So there's one. Does that make me an idiot? I don't think so. I think it makes me fed up. Frankly, I can see where someone like DeMint is coming from when he says he'd rather have more true conservatives than an actual Republican majority. It's depressing having a huge majority and getting nothing done because the President lets himself be dictated to by the likes of Ben Nelson and Max Baucus. I understand the frustration when a blogger pulls the "some people say" business, but I still think you're trying a bit too hard with some of your swipes at people like Kevin and Ezra (and probably Josh Marshall). I'm not saying I agree with these guys all the time, but it's over-the-top to say they're living in fantasy worlds, etc. They're on the same team. You can have a conversation with them without straw man attacks.


Me too (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Demi Moaned on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:50:22 PM EST

I've long argued that 'purity' is underrated.

What do we have now? People see an overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress under a Democratic President and attribute all the shortcomings and failures to liberalism. Liberalism is actually in pretty short supply among Democrats nowadays.


Well yes, it does (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:33:11 PM EST

But let me ask you this, are you surprised that Kevin wrote a post about you?


I'm sorry... (none / 0) (#18)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:39:31 PM EST

are you saying, "yes, it does make me an idiot"?


Yes I did (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:41:21 PM EST

At least in terms of that decision.

I guess what I really mean is that such a decision would be idiotic imo. The reason is simple - you do your cause no favors by such behavior. It is harmful to your cause.

Rather Naderish really.


I agree that it's probably harmful (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:51:15 PM EST

to the cause, which is why when the moment came to personally pull the lever, I probably would choose to be more pragmatic. But after being so disappointed for the last two years, I can empathize with the kind of angst and frustration that would drive a fellow liberal to do otherwise. And frankly, I think there are a lot of readers of your blog who would fall into that category. I saw it in the posts I read after Obama beat Hillary. This kind of, "I'd rather leave the playground completely than play with those kids" mentality. So yeah, if by now I can feel it, even if I agree with you that it's not practical, then I go back to my original point that I agree with Kevin that there are probably a lot of liberals out there who would be quite happy with just such a situation.


Step back a bit (none / 0) (#31)
by christinep on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:32:11 PM EST

Perhaps, boo...bear, a deep breath & a nice hike would help. Perspective.
Let me offer one aspect of perspective: Two years in politics--in movements, in change, in progress--often feels different than it is or will become. There is something to be said for several months being a lifetime in politics (e.g. witness the O'Donnell & related candidates as a unique "gift" in the world of electoral politics.) But, more importantly, two years is really rather short...a blink of an eye when one considers the art and movement of governing a nation. The stuff that should be the stuff of legend, IMO, is each recounting and reality of a dedicated individual who gave decades, their life in pursuit of bettering their county. It isn't the bold guerilla-type political act that realizes genuine change (heck, that kind of wave-a-magic-wand command gets undone as easily as it was done in the first place.) Perseverance.


tell that to Big Tent Democrat (none / 0) (#34)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:59:02 PM EST

who's apparently seen it all. Conservatism has crested, folks. It can't get any more right wing. Things can only get better from here on out.


It can't (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:07:02 PM EST

And it has been like this since at least 1994. You seem to think it is different than it was. It isn't.


: on what evidence (none / 0) (#40)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:13:09 PM EST

do you base the claim that the republican party is exactly as conservative now (no more, no less) as it was in 1994?

Well (none / 0) (#9)
by lilburro on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:57:55 PM EST

if the Netroots have chosen great candidates, then they should not be compared to the Tea Party. My take from this post is that Kevin is saying liberals would find the Tea Party's strategy acceptable. BTD seems to be saying there's no empirical evidence to support that because the Netroots picks winners. When the Netroots do engage in "revenge primarying" it's been in places like Louisiana where we were unlikely to win the Senate seat anyway. Liberals are not actually politically suicidal in the way that the Tea Party is. I mean, they just gave up a Senate seat basically.


when did liberals and Netroots become synonymous? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:07:14 PM EST

and where in Kevin's post does he mention the Netroots? How about we all start reading what people say, instead of reading into it.


When did "liberals" (none / 0) (#11)
by lilburro on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:12:20 PM EST

ever back any politically suicidal candidate in the past 4 years? Pretending that the Netroots and liberals have no relationship to one another is not realistic either.


The major Democratic blogs (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by MO Blue on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:27:03 PM EST

are not liberal blogs. Case in point, Kos has on numerous occasions stated quite strongly that DKos is a Democratic blog and not a liberal blog. BTD is a self identified centralist. The fact that the netroots and liberals interact on Democratic blogs, does not make the blogs or the netroots liberal.


I agree (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:29:13 PM EST

But who do you think Drum was referring to?


It is possible that he is referring (5.00 / 5) (#32)
by MO Blue on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:51:25 PM EST

to actual liberal voters. As a liberal, I would love to see a real liberal candidate in each and every primary, win or lose. So I would definitely be very open to the trade off.

If he is talking about the main Democratic blogs, then he doesn't know what he is talking about because the majority are "a Democrat win at any cost" proponents and would not be open to that trade off at all.


Actual liberal voters (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:06:03 PM EST

presumably vote in Democratic primaries and yet . . . those sorry Dem candidates keep winning.

I'll give you an example. In 2006 Jonathan Tasini ran against Hillary Clinton. There is NO DOUBT that Tasini's positions were more liberal than Clinton's.

She beat him 80-20.And the thing is Tasini COULD have won a general election in New York, though Hillary was the better bet. Can you explain that result as a "liberal voter?"


I think the explanation is (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by MO Blue on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:37:40 PM EST

that liberals only represent 20% of the population, rarely have the support of the Democratic establishment or the funds to compete. link

The deal with the teaparty is that they are very well funded, have the support of very influential Republican figures and get a lot of media attention.

BTW, did I mention that liberals are not real good at organizing etc. and have too often bought into the "better of two evil" argument.


Tasani Ran on Anti-War (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:44:59 PM EST

Hillary ran on pro war. When it comes to the middle east, many "NY liberals" are very conservative.


They make much more than 20% (none / 0) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:44:58 PM EST

of a New York Democratic primary.

Your explanation is lacking. You call it a lack of organization. I call it taking a different view of the matter than you do.


: My explanation was more complex (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by MO Blue on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 06:12:20 PM EST

than just lack of organization. It also covered lack of political establishment support, media coverage and funding. Clinton spent $36 million on that senate race and IIRC Tasini had about $100,000. And yes, there are different views on the matter. Squeaky just put up another one that could have impacted the election.

: FTR (none / 0) (#51)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:48:18 PM EST

In the 2006 New York general election, 28% of voters identified as liberal (20% as conservative.)
It seems likely that over 50% in the Dem primary were liberal.

he was definitely referring to you guys (none / 0) (#33)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:56:02 PM EST

because he clearly thinks you're all a bunch of useless dirty hippies who cover yourselves in peanut butter and bark at the moon. it's all us vs. them. you know, i was a big obama supporter and now I find myself rolling my eyes sometimes when I feel like Kevin or Josh or whoever seems to be reaching a bit too much to defend him. But there's so much BS being peddled here too. So many people on this site were crying into their keyboards when Hillary lost, but what would she have done so differently?


Think HAMP (5.00 / 4) (#55)
by hookfan on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 06:12:38 PM EST

for one. And we mayhaps would have an honest push for a workable public option, rather than a pretend push, when it really had been dealt away in a back room deal, and I wonder if we would really had have restrictions on women's reproductive healthcare. But that's speculation, and really makes little difference. We are where we are.
But that's the problem--where we are, and how we got here. For the last 25 years or so, the general drift has been rightward-- ever rightward. and being "pragmatic" has been the name of the Democratic game. Where did I miss the Democratically controlled congress under Bush going to the mat for increased banking regulation? where did I miss the Democratically controlled congress going to the mat to protect citizens from the fallout from the patriot act? Where did I miss the democratically controlled congress preventing the abuses that were ongoing in the housing industry? Where did I miss the Democratically controlled congress fighting for their subpoena power to reign in the executive abuses under Bush?
What has the Democratically controlled congress done under Obama to reverse the trend? Have they increased transparency in government? Have they reigned in executive power? Have they stopped the transfer of wealth to the rich? Have they focused on the economic needs of the many? Heck, are we better off now than four years ago, when the Democrats took control of congress under Bush? Do we have less corporate control of the government with Democrats in charge?
Limiting challenging corporatist Democrats to primaries has changed this trend how? It doesn't seem effective. Democrats continuing to vote for corporatist Democrats because they are not as "crazy" as Corporatist Republicans doesn't stop the trend. You just support one type of theatre and pretense from one party over another and call it progress.


Hmmm (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:03:42 PM EST

Now this is a strange comment. And rather revealing.


mmmmm (none / 0) (#39)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:10:10 PM EST

revealing what, in your opinion, we don't know, because you excel at being vague.


You should defend me then (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:13:24 PM EST

Stop reading things into what I write.

Some people are really something.

All right - let me put it straight - you came with an ax to grind. And you are grinding.

Enjoy.


you got me (none / 0) (#43)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:19:06 PM EST

i consider myself gotten


: Good (none / 0) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 05:31:40 PM EST

Now shoo.

But what does that distinction (none / 0) (#30)
by lilburro on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:30:56 PM EST

actually amount to? Point to one politically suicidal candidate put up under the "D" banner in the last 4 to 6 years. And truly suicidal, IOW, we would've won the seat otherwise.


: The fact that the Democrats put (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by MO Blue on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 04:59:56 PM EST

moderate or conservative candidates under the "D" banner only means that they are willing to sacrifice their stated platform for a win. Could this practice be self defeating and actually help fuel the apathy of Democratic voters? Personally I think the Dems in D.C have been pretty suicidal in their actions to date.

when did kevin say (none / 0) (#13)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:26:25 PM EST

that liberals have backed any politically suicidal candidates in the past 4 years? and saying liberals and the netroots are not synonymous is not the same thing as saying liberals and the netroots have no relationship to one another. again, you really need to try and respond to what people actually say. There are liberals in the netroots, as well as people of other ideological bents. but these back-and-forths would be a lot more constructive if you didn't make so many logical leaps.


Where is the politically suicidal (none / 0) (#16)
by lilburro on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:34:35 PM EST

Liberal Party? Where are the liberals who are actually thinking about "making that trade"? Is Kevin just responding to grousing on the Internet?


"Some people" say (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:39:18 PM EST

you make logical leaps.


give me an example (none / 0) (#19)
by booboobear on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:40:16 PM EST

of a logical leap I am making.


That comment was addressed to lilburro (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:42:05 PM EST

You made a leap, but it was not a question of logic.


: The evil liberal bogeyman (none / 0) (#24)
by lilburro on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 03:51:33 PM EST

must listen to his Beltway masters.

Could he be referring to the 0-34 record (none / 0) (#5)
by BTAL on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 02:24:35 PM EST

of the Ds who were going to be challenged for their No vote on HCR?

Dem health bill foes escape payback

The Tea Party (none / 0) (#52)
by cawaltz on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 06:01:52 PM EST

had the GOP party leadership negotiating with them. Have the progressives managed to field a meeting with their leadership yet? I mean something other than a "hand us money so we can get elected" meeting?

I wouldn't laugh if I were you because practical and pragmatic may very well lose in places. When times are difficult people will often be willing to go with "extreme" in hopes of attaining a solution.

: Perhaps GOP leadership (none / 0) (#56)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:21:48 PM EST

negotiates with Tea Party because registered Republicans are heavily comprised of right-wing of the party and
Republican primaries are one man, one registered Repub vote