Chris Bowers has a piece up about the Casey/Santorum controversy. It is largely a response to Jerry’s earlier piece from today.
Comparing and contrasting these two articles is a strange experience. And, in a way, it is small example of the bigger problem that is roiling the blogosphere: the debate over whether or not to support the Democratic Party and vote for candidates that are far from progressive.
But, first, let’s stick with the specific issue at hand: the Casey/Pennacchio/Santorum race.
Chris takes a pretty hard shot at Jerry’s analysis, and he makes a compelling case:
The second thing that strikes me not about this passage, but instead about the entire article, is just how wrong it is about Casey’s chances in this election. To say that Casey will probably lose to Santorum is both preposterous and an indication that someone has never really paid attention to election horse-races before. Casey is over 50% in oevery poll against Santorum, even though he is the lower-name ID challenger and lower-name ID challengers receive the bulk of the undecideds in elections. This is called the incumbent rule, and you can read more about it here, and see my research on it here. Further, Casey has actually been pulling further and further ahead of Santorum over the past year according to the Q-poll trendlines. At this point last year Casey was only up five points on Santorum. Now, he is regularly up double-digits. Still further, Casey has over 3.5M in the bank, and has raised more money this cycle than any other Democratic challenger. Yet still further, on election night in 2004, Casey outperformed Kerry by 415,000 votes in Pennsylvania. It is not as though he is a newcomer to this. Thrown in the fact hat Casey’s unfavorables still have not crossed into double-digits despite 60% name ID, and you are looking not just at a Casey victory, but rather at a 15-20% blowout.
I just can’t respect the election analysis of anyone who would argue that Casey does not have an excellent chance to win this race. All evidence points to this being the best chance Democrats have had to defeat in incumbent Republican Senator in decades.
Chris is right. Casey has an excellent chance to beat Santorum. But, what he ignores is that anyone would have a good chance of beating Santorum. The polls have almost nothing to do with how much money Casey has, how good of a organization Casey has, or how well Casey performs as a candidate. It also ignores other polls that show that the more people learn about Casey, the less they are inclined to support him. Jerry took a different analytical tack than Chris.
Jerry focused not on the current polls, or the coffers of the candidates, but on what future polls are likely to look like as voters become better informed about the candidates. The concern is that Casey’s support will erode substantially and perhaps fatally, once voters realize that he is a wingnut.
Chris, Jerry, and I all are supporting Pennacchio. We all know him personally, and his wonderful campaign manager. We are all working for him. We support him because he best represents our values. But after that, our similarities begin to differ. Chris is confident that Casey will win. I am modestly optimistic that he will win. Jerry is pessimistic. Chris and I will vote for Casey in November. Jerry won’t.
And this gets to the next point. Why are Chris and I going to suck it up and vote for Casey? Chris provides his answer in his article. My answer is almost identical. First of all, I don’t look at elections as about my vote, but about how many other votes I can bring in. One vote is not so important. In 2004, my office registered over 100,000 Pennsylvania voters and moved thousands to the polls on election day. I almost didn’t vote on election day because I didn’t think I would have the time. It didn’t matter to me because in the time it would take me vote I probably could have got 10 voters to the polls. There are many important races in Pennsylvania this November. There is the Governor’s race and there are five competitive Congressional races in the Philly suburbs alone. Helping Casey also helps these other candidates and vice-versa.
Secondly, I think subpoena power is more important than any other single issue. I truly believe that we cannot get this country back on track until we have the ability to investigate the criminal activities of the Bush administration. I care very passionately about a variety of other issues. Health care and the environment probably top my list. But, I don’t write much about them because my focus is on handcuffs. Criminality trumps policy. At least, for me, it does.
And when I analyze the Senate races I have a lot of difficulty seeing how we can get to 51 seats without winning in Pennsylvania.
Lastly, I will relish the opportunity to vote against Santorum. I don’t want to miss the chance.
A lot of people are deeply disillusioned with the Democratic Party. I am deeply disillusioned with the entire country. Boston Joe challenged me to come up some kind of miracle solution to turn the Democratic Party into something that can both win power and be worthy of support. I’ll try my best to write that up this weekend. Don’t expect any miracles, but I have been thinking about this topic for two years. And I think we can launch a successful insurgency against the Old Guard Democratic Party. But it won’t be possible until 2008. In the meantime, we should support progressive candidates in the primaries and work our asses off to take back both houses of Congress.
Other options are: apathy, spite, ineffectiveness.
Some people think that the Democrats need to lose another election so that they learn that their current strategy is a failure. I very vehemently believe that we do not have that luxury. It is an abdication of responsibility not to fight against this government with the only tool available to stop it.
Real question here: assuming Casey gets the Senate seat, and does not get dethroned next election by a “moderate” winger… Do you really think he’ll help on the subpoena power issue? So far, he’s got a perfect score of supporting Bush’s Blunders – he supports Alito, supports the war on Iraq, and so on… What makes you think he’ll oppose the “imperial presidency”?
oops. My response is upthread.
Thanks Booman.
I have to say that it will grieve me to have to sit this race out if Casey wins the primary. I just cannot bring myself to vote for Casey no matter how much I would love to retire Santorum. It isn’t only that his stance on the issues are different than my own (though that is a major part of it), but also because he sought to win the nomination by short-circuiting the primary process and denying progressives an opportunity to vote for one of their own. That to me is tantamount to thumbing your nose at the democratic process. We deserve an open primary, and Casey would deny us that.
I also have to say add that I know more Pennsylvania progressives who say they will not vote for Casey than say they will. I know of not one person who is enthusiastic about Casey. The circles I travel in know a lot more about Casey than the general electorate does, and that is why I feel Casey’s numbers will suffer serious erosion as people become more aware of where he stands on the issues.
If Casey is the Democratic candidate I will refrain from attacking him, and I will not campaign against him or nor campaign for any independent candidate. By the same token I will not vote for him.
I respect you and others who feel differently than I do, but unless Casey engages in some serious outreach and adopts some progressive positions my vote, and I suspect that of many others, will be lost to him.
Dear Jpol,
I am so completely with you on this.
I don’t like Casey and I don’t want to vote for him.
I resent any one in the Democratic Party Administration who decides PRE-PRIMARY who they will back. The Primary is for us, the party members, to decide who we want to run in the general election.
Why should we continually be given options that are no different from the status quo? Why should we be afraid of sending someone new and different to congress? Don’t we hate those darned insiders? Don’t we want to get rid of them?
Lets put all we have into getting name recognition and electability on behalf of the guy we like the BEST, not the one who is so-so.
I don’t like Casey and I don’t want to vote for him.
I don’t like Casey and I don’t want to vote for him.
I don’t like Casey and I don’t want to vote for him.
Thank you
frankly, I have no expectations for Casey once he is seated in his Senate seat. The only thing I want from him is that he casts his vote for a Democratic majority leader.
Subpoena power is automatically conferred to the party in power. It doesn’t matter what Casey wants to do about corruption. I doubt he will be leading the charge, and I don’t care.
Switching over to the house, have you seen Conyers’ basmement hearings? That is what a majority would look like, only with sworn witnesses.
and more than one mic
Well, I don’t live in PA so I don’t get to vote for anyone there.
Nonetheless, your diary made me very, very sad. Just as in 2004, those of us who don’t support any and alls Democrats are chastised. In your case, the last sentence indicates you think we are irresponsible.
I’m tired of being chided for following my conscience. I voted for Kerry and went home and felt as if I wanted to disinfect myself. The only way I got through that was to make myself a vow, that no matter how much intimidation I faced, I would never again vote for someone who so little represented my values.
Unlike many here, I feel no loyalty to the Democratic Party which has and will continue to betray progressives for a long time to come. There are individual Dems I support whole-heartedly because I believe in their integrity, comptetency and values. If I felt the same way about an Independent, Green, or
Republican candidate, I would do the same.
Although you may consider my view irresponsible, I feel that enabling Dems is, in the long run, far more damaging to our country. So, I must respectfully disagree with your point of view.
I wouldn’t take such a hardline position if I didn’t think that we are in a major crisis.
More than anything else, I believe that we need to repudiate the Bush administration. We (meaning the whole country) need to denounce what they have done in the strongest possible terms.
They are criminals.
And when you take a pass on denouncing them, even if it is only by proxy, then you are contributing to the problem. It is not that any particular Dem has done anything to gain your support. Many haven’t, others won’t.
This is about Republicans losing elections in droves, everywhere, because of their connivance in carrying out crimes.
Show me a Dem that is a crook and I’ll tell you to not vote for them, or even to vote against them.
Right now, I don’t see how people can justify overlooking the crime and the lies and the damage.
And Congress can easily expose this once they have the power to compel testimony.
I care about the issues, I support Pennacchio even though most bloggers write him off as hopeless.
But to think that Rick Santorum’s crimes should be overlooked and go unopposed because Casey is similar on policy is to put policy over law enforcement.
And that is just not my priority at this moment in history.
The Dems suck. It’s appalling. It’s a disgrace that we have to vote for Casey in order to oppose Santorum. But that is likely where we are headed.
in large part because supposed “progressives” like Chris feel compelled to cut the legs off alternative candidates while pretending to be shocked, shocked, at the sad necessity. There is no reason to hype the discredited Electablilty meme at this point. Nobody knows who is electable until the campaign starts. Seems to me all Chris and his allies are doing is stating their own opinions clothed in the emperor’s new clothing of poll-driven “electablility” fantasies.
I really agree with you on your larger point about the wrong-headedness of poll-driven strategies. And I do believe that Chris discounted other factors in his analysis, and I said that.
At the same time, Chris’s analysis is compelling. Santorum is in deep deep trouble. Worse trouble than any incumbent Senator in years. He is absolutely right about that.
Now, he needs to focus on the PERSON that is trying to take Rick’s job. And he needs to looks at the policies of the respective candidates. And he needs to add that into his analysis to humanize it.
But Chris supports Pennacchio and is part of a larger insurgency here in Philly to take the party back from the old bosses. He is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is one of the good guys.
Sometimes being wrong is worse than being bad. Look at what you wrote: “At the same time, Chris’s analysis is compelling. Santorum is in deep deep trouble.” The second sentence negates the first. It simply does not follow that, if an incumbent is indeed in deep deep trouble, the strategic imperative is to run somebody against him who is his faded mirror image.
Maybe it will be necessary to support Casey in the end. But folks like Chris do terrible damage when they defend Casey before the primary voters have even had a chance to speak. If Chris is such a good guy why isn’t he using his energy to show why we have to go all out for Pennacchio instead of explaining why it will be OK to settle for Casey? Politics is timing. You sometimes have to accept the inevitable. Poll-driven analysts like Chris are promoting the acceptance without the inevitability. Now is not the time to soften the misery of having to vote for Casey.
Well, do you want Chris to shade what he sees as the truth because the truth is inconvenient at the moment? We expect politicians to do that, but is that the standard we hold bloggers to?
Should I pretend I won’t vote for Casey if he wins the primary so that maybe a couple extra voters will be persuaded to the urgency of voting for Chuck?
Why do either of you have to pretend anything? Nobody’s running in a general election as of now. There will be plenty of time to figure out that stage when it happens. In the meantime, the poll-driven analyses do no good and do great harm by cutting Pennacchio off at the knees. I really don’t get why his supporters feel compelled to do that.
And it isn’t “truth”, for gods sake, it’s just another uninformed opinion. Yeah, I do think it’s possible to refrain from consorting with the enemy until there’s no other choice. I don’t see Chris’s premature ejaculation as any different than Lieberman’s, or indeed Casey’s, repeated preemptions of their supposed allies’ stances.
it’s his analysis. He thinks it is true. So, he is supposed to remain silent on his analysis?
Is that what you are saying?
I don’t tell him what he’s supposed to do. I merely say he’s shooting his own alleged friend. Maybe the problem is that you can’t set yourself up as an “analyst” and an advocate at the same time. One half will always betray the other. Again, you don’t enlighten us re what would be so hard about not assuming Casey will be the candidate before it happens. Either he will be, and we’ll all have months to agonize over what to do about it, or he won’t be, and all this hot air will have been wasted on silly nothing.
Agreed that for Chris, who is currently a Democratic committeeperson here in Philly, to back Chuck is nice. It’s refreshing even. So many who believe in Chuck’s ideas and abhor Casey’s won’t even say that much.
I will say this. The focus of those who want to beat Santorum and plan to vote for Casey needs to be to get Casey to get his head out of the sand.
This “invisible” campaign of his is turning off both the progressives who are either disinclined to vote for him or are leaning that way. It is also turning off many of his ardent supporters who feel that this strategy is a recipe for disaster.
Casey refuses to debate. He has so-called conference calls where he takes no questions. He avoids the media. He makes no effort to convince people like me to reserve judgment (I wrote him a very measured and civil e-mail explaining why I was leaning toward not voting for him. I received no response. You don’t win over people like me by ignoring us). Worse, he makes public statements supporting the Patriot Act and Samuel Alito. He almost seems to be thumbing his nose at voters he will desparately need if he is to beat Santorum. There are a lot of Nader voters who probably would have voted for Gore if he had sought out their votes. I think Gore belatedly realizes that (and I voted for Gore, not Nader).
Casey is making a big mistake if he thinks he can ignore progressives and still get their votes. He’ll get some of them, but just enough may stay away to deliver the election to Santorum.
Casey doesn’t have an excellent chance to beat Casey. We’ve gone around this circle many times, so I am not going to go there again. But come November, if Casey is the candidate, we will see that Casey either loses of barely squeeks by.
Chris is right that if you look at the polls and you look at election history, Casey is poised to win in a landslide. You and Jerry are right that Chris is ignoring the most important variable: the candidate.
And he gives almost no value to the third most important variable (after money): the candidates position on the issues.
I am in the middle. Santorum should lose. He probably will lose. But because of Casey’s lousy political skills and positions on the issues it is not a sure thing that Santorum will lose.
At least the current “leadership” doesn’t. If they did we wouldn’t have had the Gore and Kerry campaigns or a quarter-century of losing to an ideology that only a minority of Americans support. If it did, we’d never have to hear the “electability” word again. There is no logic to it, but I’m coming to seriously doubt that Democrats care about winning. The ones who call the shots care about keeping their perks and status and power. Better to keep the status quo than accept the kind of shakeup that would be necessary before the Dem party could regain majority status. Losing again will teach them nothing new.
In cases like the PA race, I don’t see any choice except to fight like hell for Pennacchio in the primary and then vote for the the Dem in the general. I assume Pennacchio has no interest in running as an independent, which would complicate the decision greatly.
What poll-driven analysts like Chris don’t seem to get or want to deal with is the disabling pathology that grows from having to once again vote for a jerk like Casey to fend off an even worse one. They can’t quantify energy and motivation, so they just pretend it doesn’t matter. But in the end it’s all that matters. Casey’s victory will do nothing but stave off a few more Bushie abominations while it rips the heart out of Dems with the energy and will to fight for real change.
I think much of the incompetence of the party and its managers comes from its dependence on poll-driven analysis. Polls only measure the now. Political skill foresees and navigates potential shifts in mass perception and attitudes. Political skill is creative, not reductionist. The Dem Party either has no one with such skills, or chooses to shut them down.
If Casey can win, so can Pennacchio or some other real Dem. If the Party chooses, Pennacchio or some other real Dem will have as much money as Casey. There is no rational reason whatever to settle for Casey. Chris’s analysis blathers on about irrelevant trivia while ignoring the elephant question: why is the Dem party’s only strategy for beating a half-dead incumbent to pit Santorum-lite against him? There is something going on that makes no sense. The Rest of Us can only assume that winning is far from the Dem leadership’s priorities. When enough of us come to that conclusion, all is lost, forever, for the Dem Party.
How can the “electability” meme’s record of miserable failure have disappeared so quickly down the memory holes of folks like Chris?
I got done reading your diary and then moved on to the one posted by jimstaro entitled “Live Not By Lies.” Interesting juxtapostion.
I guess it boils down to what one’s personal truth is. You are a man of integrity and you believe that voting for Casey, although distasteful, would be the best choice for the reasons you state.
I, as a person of integrity, disagree because I have no confidence that the short term goals you aspire to would be achieved and I believe that even if they were, the long term cost would be too great.
Good luck and hats off to you for your work with Pennachio’s campaign. I am praying for a miracle.
How to make the Democratic Party a winner that is also worthy of support?
Easy, join, become active, work your ass off without thanks or compensation for years on end, and then you win. Thanks to the efforts of people like BooMan, Chris and dozens (only dozens) of others like them real change is already starting in the City of Philadelphia- this last year fully half of the Judges elected to the bench in Philadelphia were not the Party’s anointed ones.
This didn’t arise from crude oppositionalism either, Boo, Chris and the people like them are charming and can be effective without alienating people they disagree with. As a result I’m pretty confident that PA will see the first election of a progressive Democratic Senator in 2010. But not if we pout and pulling the It’s my ball and I’m going home with it if I don’t get my way maneuver. It didn’t work for the German Left in the Twenties and Thirties and it won’t work today either.
I’ve grown to have a personal relationship with my party since I slowly stopped being an apathetic slob from 2000 through 2004. I used to believe that any D is better than any R. I think that’s a far cry from reality. I take decisions to shove candidates like Casey down the throats of a non-bass ackwards state offensive. Offensive to the state and offensive to me personally. And on an aside, Signe Wilkinson’s editorial cartoon today is right on.
There are plenty of people fed up with the party with nowhere to go, but I refuse to simply vote D. I can’t bring myself to do that anymore. I don’t want my party to continue slipping and sliding to the Right and my vote and my voice are all I got. I refuse to give up my vote and I’m not going to shut up. I’m more in line with jpol when he commented:
It seems like the Dems in charge don’t care what I have to say and what people like me have to say, sliding to the Right everyday trying to gain a percent or two here and there while writing off the people on the Left assuming they will vote accordingly because they’re registered with a D.
Shoving down our throats this hunk of gristle when we have a chance to knock off a very vulnerable Senator was such a wuss move. They could’ve hit a tee-ball homerun, energize the base and all by backing a candidate like Hoeffel or Pennacchio, but they’re going for a suicide squeeze – not even playing it safe, but making it too easy to fail.
I’m one spiteful motherfucker, I have no qualms with that. I’m quite pissed off at my party and it sucks big hairy goat balls.
Anybody who thinks the last couple of decades worth of losses is due to poll numbers and money is either stupid or willfully blind.
Casey will lose, and he will lose badly. Here’s why:
Casey will be slaughtered, mark my words, and I will sit here in WI and watch his disembowelment with unconcealed glee. Enough is enough … and if the backroom corporatist hacks can’t let go of their pampered connected princes, then they’ll have to lose a few more times before they can be forced out of power. Chris is looking at things through Schrum-colored glasses, and a Shrummy world is a shit brown world.
I think you’re right…I wrote something similar to this in the last week(on some diary-not sure which one) concerning the ’06 elections. My main theory was that the dems were/are counting on people voting for anyone(even rethugs fed up with all the shit their party is doing) but a rethug because the public is getting fed up with the direction the country is going in.
I didn’t want to be so pessimistic as I started out thinking-almost gleefully and with great optimism- that the dems were going to make significant gains in this mid-election but what I’ve seen unfolding around the country and the disarray of the dems, no unity and abandoning basically the democratic idealistic platform and their willful ignoring of their base voters-as exampled by running Casey instead of a real democrat-shows that they have no real passion or principals to run on…just chickenshit rethug lite..and that isn’t going to get it.
The republican machine even if they don’t like their candidate anymore or think he’s in trouble still put forth great effort and unity to get behind them unlike the dem party right now. The democratic party(with only a few bright spots here and there-like Hacket who was forced out, Feingold whose not supported by other dems re the Patriotic Act and so on)seems almost hellbent on becoming republican lite. How else to explain so many pro-life dems, war hawks in the dem party, agreeing marriage is between a man/woman only and the list goes on.
Like I said I’d be extremely pleased to be proven wrong and somehow a few true dems get elected who will make a difference in the vote counts but I’m not holding my breath.
While I understand the argument that a Dem majority with subpoena power is a laudable and important goal, I don’t necessarily accept that a vote for Casey, in these circumstances, is necessarily preferable. It still seems to me that there’s a legitimate question as to whether voting for a wingnut like Casey might wind up doingmore harm long term than good in the short term.
With this in mind, I have to wonder if the prominent Dems who’ve orchestrated the Casey run have alrteady written their “spin” to explain why, if/when Casey fails to beat Santorum, that it’s someone else’s fault. I pose this question mindful that the Democratic Party illuminati have been pretty much universally wrong and “winless” since the early ’90s when it was actually not even them but rather Clinton’s charisma that provided those early victories.
I think there’s a very good case still to be made that voting on principle in the Dem party, even if doing so might reduce the chances of winning seats in 2006 might be preferable to winning through ideop=logical capitulation for the simple reason that it might be better for the Repubs to be seen to own the diusaster they’ve inflicted upon the nation and the world more completely, so that the public wil finally be motivated to vote for an entire new approach to government, one that repudiates not only the Repub meme in toto, but also jettisons the Dem equivocators that have been enabling them for these last 5 years.
As a longtime recovering alcoholic, I respect the concept of one having to hit bottom before being able to start turning things around. IMHO, the Democratic Party has not hit bottom yet, and the public at large have not yet come face to face with their own denial in a way that breaks the grip of the rightwing propaganda machine on their psyches.
Of course this is all opininon on my part, but as urgent, as critical as things are right now, I don’t see this particular compromise strategy visa vis wingnut Casey bearing positive results.
I’ve generally stopped posting here and at Kos — but sometimes I can’t help myself.
As Booman can guess, I disagree with his analysis but I will let it go (for the most part).
What I want to say is this: it is amazing how similar the Democratic Party is to the Whigs. The Whigs eventually went away for a lot of reasons. But it can not be denied that a major factor in their demise was their willingness to throw away their base and attempt to “move to the center” to use modern parlance.
Casey is a typical example of trying to win a seat by formula: famous name, conservative candidate, etc. Sometimes the strategy works, but more often it alienates the base of voters. Some one behind closed doors decides what is best for Pennsylvania, and those who care the most, are most dedicated to the party are ignored.
To me, the strategy of running war veterans and conservative Democrats is like the Whigs nominating old generals. It didn’t work because it completely ignored the real issues voters were obsessed with.
The Democratic Party is ignoring the real issues. They will not address, as a party, the issue of war, taxes, women’s rights, health care because they know how the Republicans will use this against them. (I also believe a large percentage of Democrats really do agree with the neo-cons on issues such as consumer rights, taxes and war.)
But ignoring the issue of slavery did not help the Whigs win the White House, nor did it save the country from civil war. Neither will pretending that the only issue is George Bush. It isn’t. Bush will go away in 2008 and another Republican will run on war, taxes and “moral values”. Have the Democrats learned how to win on these issues? Have they even tried?
Booman and Markos are great at advocating voting for Democrats while holding your nose. What they are not so great at is convincing people why voting against your interests is actually the same as voting for your interests. People hear the argument, but go away wondering what they are being sold.
what they are being sold. For increasing numbers of Americans, it is a big box of “I want you dead, but first send me money, and vote for me.”
Markos and I may both be wrong but we don’t have the same analysis.
He would argue that the best way to protect women’s rights, for example, is to win the seat in Pennsylvania and that we should vote for Casey in both the primary and the general because Casey is the strongest candidate the Dems have. In his view, if Casey provides a majority it will more than make up for his individual votes.
And while I agree the mere fact of a majority will somewhat constrain what kind of judges Bush can appoint, I do not believe it is clear that electing Casey is worth the shallow advantage gained from a majority.
But when it comes to subpoena power then I do think it is worth it.
Additionally, I think there are only two reasons Casey is a more attractive candidate then Pennacchio. He has name recognition and he has $$$.
That is not enough of a reason for me to go against my values in a primary.
Plus, voting for Chuck is a way to lodge my protest about how Rendell, Schumer, and Reid stacked the deck.
You’re right that the Dems are pursuing a very bad strategy. But the GOP is pursuing a disastrous strategy…for the world.
I have no faith that they would exercise the subpoena power. The Dems in the House are STILL sticking to that bullshit deal on ethics investigations, for example.
The plain fact of the matter is that a sizable chunk of the institutionalized Dem party is EVERY bit as dirty as the Republicans when it comes to the war, the mess in the Gulf … all of it. Too close to big media. Too close to big energy. Too close to big usurers. They are part and parcel of the problem, and subpoenas will snag some of them too. They won’t use it … they make some noise, shake hands behind heavy paneled doors, then go out for steak dinners w/ their buddies on the other side of the aisle.
that is such cynical bullshit. John Conyers in charge of the judiciary committee is not going to put off non-stop frog-marching to have a steak dinner.
Why are you peddling this defeatism?
Well, because whenever Conyers or Feingold try to get anything done, try to mount any kind of real fight, the majority of the party scatter like frightened roaches looking up at a raid can.
I look at the world as it is, not as I wish it to be, and that party is hopelessly corrupt and/or spineless. There are a few bright lights, but they are FAR outnumbered by the hacks.
Bullshit polling doesn’t negate over three decades of feckless appeasement and water carrying for the big corporations. You’re dreaming if you think this party, a party that is actively recruiting anti-woman, anti-gay ex-Republican CIA agents and anybody who EVER wore a uniform in order to be more and more Republican are going to fight for anything more than maintaining their current seats.
we go over the same ground time after time after time.
It seems to me like you are unable to differentiate the rotten hole of a party that is under constanct strategic attack, that has no power at all, and that has no voice in the media, with a party that is in power and can get media attention for its message.
You constantly harp on the party that is without realizing that there is a party that will be.
I’m tired of the historical examples, but all of the things you are saying about the Dems could have been said about the Republicans in the 80’s. They simply could not find a strategy to win the house. For fifty years they couldn’t figure it out. And when they finally swept into power, the Freshman completely changed the culture of Washington, the way Congress functioned, the rules, the chairman, everything.
Okay, it was for the worse. But there is no reason that it couldn’t be for the better.
And the same thing happened in 1974. And in that case, the house didn’t even switch hands. And they still threw the chairmen out, changed the rules amd enacted valuable reforms.
If you want to change the stinking corpse of a party help it win in a landslide. God knows the GOP and the country deserve if even if Rahm and Schumer do not.
I remember the Dems when they WERE in charge. They sucked. A lot of the same people, or proteges of the same people.
You forget that the Republicans you’re talking about were real outsiders. We’re tapping people like Casey, sons of OLD, ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRATS.
I mean, whatever. I’ll sit here and watch them prove me right. You and the kos/bowers hacks will probably get the candidates you want, many people will stay home from voting, and the Dems will either lose badly or get saddled with the aftermath of Bush’s mess if they win.
It’s a dead party that stands for nothing. They will sell you out. Biden and Reid ARE what that party is: bought-and-paid-for fixers in the pockets of crooks and robber barons.
You constantly harp on the party that is without realizing that there is a party that will be.
This is why I am opposed to Casey in both the general and the primary. We’ve every reason to believe that a Casey win would greatly encourage both the strategists who developed what they describe in such a self aggrandizing and idiotically modular manner (ie ‘taking social issues off the table’ and concentrating on ‘economic issues’) and ‘leadership’ like Chuck Schumer. In that case the nomination of religious right candidates would become an accepted method of trying to win elections. Indeed, I believe this would be an inevitable result of a Casey win.
So, I guess my question to everyone willing or eager to vote for Casey is ‘At what point in the Democratic party’s march to the right are you prepared to refuse to vote for someone whose political priorities and values you not only do not share but regard as genuinely destructive to the lives of your fellow citizens?” Because if Casey wins the Dems will promote more of these guys. I’m of the opinion that it’s better to sacrifice this race than to encourage more ‘Democratic’ religious right candidates.
“All evidence points to this being the best chance Democrats have had to defeat in incumbent Republican Senator in decades.”
…and win absolutely nothing, because Casey is a carbon copy of Santorum. Woohoo! Go Dem establishment!
It is an abdication of responsibility not to fight against this government with the only tool available to stop it.
Conservatives are not an effective tool for fighting conservatives. If Lieberm– I mean, if Casey is elected, what guarantee do we have that he will pursue a progressive agenda? None whatsoever. We have, in fact, a guarantee from Casey that he will pursue a regressive, conservative agenda. He hasn’t been shy about his views.
We have, in fact, not one guarantee from one single “moderate” or conservative Dem candidate that they will support progressive issues if elected. Not one. We can continue to swallow this absurd fantasy that conservatives with a “D” beside their names will magically turn into liberals, or we can spit it out and deal with the real world. For starters, that means that when a guy gets up and enumerates all of the conservative, regressive positions he holds we just might want to take him at his word. Is that so unreasonable?
Subpoena power? Does anyone think that this crypto-Republican is going to vote with the Dems on this? Sure, and Joe Lieberman will be leading the charge, too. Puh-lease.
The most bizarre thing about this collective delusion is that the politicians aren’t even promising us squat. It’s operatives and grassroots volunteers who are spinning this improbable tale. We’re promising ourselves that these wolves will stop dining on sheep, and we intend to hold the wolves to our promise. This is insane. I mean literally, clinically insane. How did we get to the point that we are willing to applaud when some guy in a pricey suit steps up to the microphone and says, “Hi, I’m John DINO, and if elected, I’m going to screw you into the ground.” And yet the crowd goes wild anyway.
The whole Republican-lite strategy was bad enough. But this isn’t Republican-lite; this is full-bore Republican. C’mon, folks, even his hold-your-nose-and-vote-anyway supporters are the first to admit that it’s hard to tell the difference between Casey’s positions and Rick Santorum. Think about that for a minute. And if he wins, what then? As long as he can raise money, the national party will move heaven and earth for the guy. It’s a big tent, after all, as long as the donations keep rolling in.
The world is not ending, folks, and the Republic is not going to go belly up if the Republicans retain their majority in November. Everyone here is smart enough to see through Republican 9/11 scaremongering; there is no reason for hysterical desperation in the face of the Dem establishment’s GOP scaremongering.
And even if they were busy rounding up dissidents and firing up the ovens, electing more of the same is not going to help one bit.
I cannot wrap my mind around the presumption that my loyalty to some candidates can be transferred to others absent any attempts to get me to trust those others because it might beneficial to some party members outside the electoral district, indeed, out of state.
About a third of the registered electorate is formally unaffiliated with either major party, why should they automatically accept the party’s judgment of who is electable?
Another third are Republican, any attempt to cater to their votes by Democrats is likely to be perceived by partisans and non-partisans alike of as hypocrisy.
The attempts by the Central Committees of the major parties to suppress issues percolating up from the electorate is futile and infuriating to those voters who have stakes in their minority issues, and feel justified in voting against any candidate disagreeing with the voter on any issue,
Now the Republicans have succeeded in alienating more than 50% of the electorate from voting, chiefly in what we’re referring to these days as Red states (the current definition of which still can drop an occasional survivor of the Cold War giggling to the floor).
The principle fault I find with the Inside the Beltway Democratic Prevailing Opinions is its blithe oblivion to the fact that where turnout is down, Democrats lose.
One of the better ways I know of alienating voters from voting is to knock their candidates out of the race before the primary.