I hope that to prove true.
Interparty elections are tough. Inevitably in the course of campaigning the process of differentiating between the sides will rub the other side the wrong way.
That said, anyone who thinks their favored candidate (for anything) hasn’t said or done something cringe-worthy is lying to themselves or uninformed. As Bernie and Hillary were both my preferred candidates (primary then general) I fully concede this.
Cheers!
Sanders wants to have something to say in determining who runs against the Republicans in 2018 and 2020. If the Obama/Clinton coalition decides to disregard Sanders’ choices, so be it. But I doubt there’s a Sanders’ supporter who would go along with that. IMO, more centrist boring candidates like Ossoff in GA will only bring more failure for Democrats, no matter how bad the Republican candidate may be.
Does it really?
She has received considerable backing in her elections from the DCCC, with the exception of her first…even working with the DCCC. She has repeatedly been on their Frontline program aimed at providing financial and organizational support to vulnerable Democrats. She has had the backing of a number of other “mainstream” Democratic groups as well.
Yet, she doesn’t win her district consistently.
I know, it says all your limited world view wants to hear, but it really doesn’t paint an accurate picture of the amount of support national Democrats have continued to give her.
He has had an absolutely horrible track record in picking/backing candidates. Quist in Montana for example, received Sanders’ backing, but lost by even bigger margins than Ossoff. Funny how you don’t use him as your example about more failures.
And you don’t use examples like that, because you are too busy trying to paint a false narrative, Dems are a big bunch of losers and only Sanders is the true winner. But reality doesn’t even come close to supporting that narrative. Democrats have been winning special elections at the state level across the nation. (Yeah…remember all those times you scream and rant at Dems for not caring about state legislatures? ) Sanders hasn’t weighed into any of those races. The only special election he showed up for at the Federal level was Quist’s.
Sanders, and your, goal, is to do what he has always done. Stay out of the actual fights, step to the left and criticize everything for not being pure enough. Of course, meanwhile Sanders has his hands out to take those nasty centrists Democrats money in his re election campaigns for the Senate. But lets not talk about that, it’s too unseemly…and unicorns don’t glue those horns onto their head for free, after all. 
No, its not. The mere fact that Sanders, an Independent, was given a lot of support by the DNC, including things like access to their voter database, which he promptly got nailed for hacking, is a very strong indication that it isn’t a reasonable argument.
But let’s go beyond the 2016 redeux. Here in my Congressional District, we have 1 candidate declared for the Democratic seat. And, after spending months personally working to find recruits, I can say that the probability of another challenger stepping forward are below 1%. But none of our county Democratic groups, or the FDP, can endorse him. Why? Because we don’t take “sides”, and even though its extremely unlikely anyone will fight for the primary against him, it is possible that someone could. Kind of like when your football team is down 42-0 with 5 minutes left…they could win the game, but probably aren’t.
But lets back up even more from this argument. The reality is, she does not win her seat regularly. She has flipped flopped back and forth nearly every election since she first won. And she has had strong support from the DCCC in every one of those races, (with the exception of her first race). So its not that national Democrats haven’t supported her…its that she doesn’t have strong support in her district…the voters don’t support her.
The meta argument being put forth here is that its the fault of national Democrats. But the proof in the pudding indicates, its her inability to reliably get the majority of votes in her district that is the problem. Not every district is some deeply liberal district. And not every district is going to be won by a Sander’s clone. If you want a Democratic majority in the House, and if you want to support a version of the “50 state” strategy, you are going to have to deal with the reality that in some places, a more moderate candidate is what is required.
Remember how Bill Clinton was mired in a major scandal in 1998, and nobody wanted him campaigning with them?
Remember the number of Congressional scandals that rocked the House leading up to the 1994 election? And the number of very high profile retirements that occurred among Democrats?
Laying the blame for losing house and governor races at the feet of the sitting President is beyond silly. A President’s job is not to micromanage and run every campaign in the country for his party. And its simply lazy analysis to imply that it is. House and Senate races turn on local electorates. And while a popular President showing up on the stump can help, particularly with fund raising, it almost never makes or breaks the race. Case in point, we aren’t talking about Senator Strange from Alabama. The republicans barely held on to GA-06, despite winning the district by over 20 points just 8 months earlier, and despite the President very publicly campaigning for the GOP.
The bottom line is, if you want progressive candidates in your district, then go find them, run smart campaigns, and win.
And for the love of Spaghetti, please stop comparing our current political environment to the 1930s. Or even the 1960s. Partisanship with voters is nothing like it was then. People rarely cross lines anymore, and campaigns are about getting out the vote, not about wooing people to cross over. Because we are incredibly more tribal in our voting behavior now.
You missed the biggest one, IMO. Democrats are for everyone voting. Or should be. One of the major under reported stories of 2016 has been voter suppression. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania all had some form of voter suppression laws in place, and used them to turn away more than enough voters that would have won the race for Democrats. Same is true in NC and Florida as well.
I highlight should be because increasingly, I see many on the left either ignoring this are actively being against the notion. Bernie lost the primary…and they argue he should still have been the nominee. They push for even broader use of caucuses. They argue, as they are in this particular case, that a candidate, despite having national support, should still hold her seat, even though the voters routinely say she shouldn’t. And of course, who can forget the Bernie supporters arguing that “those southern states” shouldn’t count as much. (while being perfectly fine with equally red states…and much more white states… like Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc. be counted and continue to use caucus systems that disenfranchise voters).
He has always caucused with democrats. His registration as a democrat is an affirmation of his voting habits on both legislation and for leadership. As a Democrat he had every right to run and be given access as any candidate would. It wasn’t out of the goodness of the DNC’s heart.
And… “Hacking” is a bit hyperbolic.
I never said anything to the contrary. If you look, my comment was in regards to ajm’s on party (dis)unity. That comment was in regards to someone being an ass. it was my opinion that ajm oversimplified things in his response and was broad brush (as much as the individual may have had it coming) ajm laid the blame on Bernie, i basically said there is blame to go around some (reasonable people can disagree on the % allocated to Bernie vs DNC)
As this is my district/state I can say it is more complicated than that.
First. There are a lot of elections and primaries, and many people to vote for when you do. There are 400+state reps. NH has less than 1.5 million residents. A town of 7000 will have 2 state reps. We vote for Governor every two years. There is an executive council at state level, state Senate, town elections… Primaries for all these things. Not to mention we are 1st primary and that whole debacle. Basically there is a lot of noise. As such it is impossible to really be informed at all levels, thus the state often goes with the nation based on mood and party in power.
This will cut against whomever either party chooses. Right/Left/moderate, it’s the “D” or “R” that matters most.
Trump won this district while Hassan and CSP won it. It closely reflects the split in the national election.
I do not see any member of Congress lasting too many terms in a row, the district at the moment is 50/50.
Maybe the Meta argument, but it’s not mine. I imagine few from our district would argue this has been the case. We know our friend and neighbors, we see the dichotomy of the district.
She has received considerable backing in her elections from the DCCC, with the exception of her first…
Oh, ‘her first’? I think what you’re trying to hide here davey is once she won the first time, when she proved she could win and didn’t need national Dem support to win, then they were all for supporting her. Classic.
Democrats have been winning special elections at the state level across the nation.
Really? First explain to me how, since 2010 they’ve lost 900+ state seats. I know, it was those damn hippies sitting out 2010 blah blah.
You’re so full of shit davey you simply embarrass yourself. Quist never had a chance, a guitar player from NJ, outspent 10/1 in a state Trump won by 21 points. But if you bothered to read the story about Quist, it was an attemp to put out a populist message, no matter the state it was in. Trump won the wealthy Atlanta district by 2 points and Ossoff had the blessings and $$$ of the ‘D’ Establishment.
Two entirely different races. Osloff and the ‘D’ Party were the big losers.
Its really not.
State reps We are talking about national elections and the support national Democrats give to those elections. NH has two representatives and two Senators. All 4 are Democrats, and all 4 have received support from the national Democratic infrastructure. Including Shea-Porter.
My point there, is that blaming her retirement (not directed so much as you, but others in the conversation) on “corporate Dems” is a baseless claim. She isn’t being forced out, she is retiring for own set of reasons, that have nothing to do with the national party. Indeed, the general undertone I am seeing is national Democrats are upset she is retiring.
Horseshit. She didn’t receive DCCC support her in first race, because she didn’t ask for any. She did however, immediately reverse course and ask for their support in every election since…and has received it.
Try really fucking hard to keep up with the meme you are trying to create, or better yet, just admit that you are completely wrong on this one. Your story is that the national Dems shoved her aside. But that isn’t even remotely true, and if you took a few minutes to do a little google research, you would know that. And probably do. But in your typical deceitful fashion, you instead spin a lie so you can continue your never ending attack on the Democratic party.
I know republicans who spend less time attacking Democrats than you do. And I think that speaks VOLUMES about your true motives.
Go fuck yourself. Preferably with something long, and extremely sharp and rusty.
Yet that is the only national special election that Bernie showed up for at all. So you are basically admitting that your “national strategy” is to lose races so you can claim…“yay unicorns”?
So let me back up.
I am pretty damn sure you just explained a great deal of that yourself. A large part of it is due to “bros” like you who can’t be bothered to vote, and instead spend as much time as possible trying to demoralize as many other people from voting Democrat.
Pretty sure Trump didn’t run for that House seat. But Price did and Price won by 23 points. But, where exactly was the “Bernie” candidate in that race? Who was Bernie supporting in the jungle primary? Who was he campaigning for, raising money for and endorsing? No one. Which is pretty typical of him and you…whine and complain, but don’t dare bother to do any of the heavy lifting.
You are just so full of shit davey. Also, please stop lying. You’re not very good at it.
Horseshit. She didn’t receive DCCC support her in first race, because she didn’t ask for any.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put its weight behind state legislator Jim Craig. Shea-Porter won the September 12, 2006, primary with 54% of the vote. Craig finished second with 34% of the vote.[12]
Thank you! I wanted to respond to some of these insane trollish comments but didn’t have the time or energy. It didn’t matter because you did a much better job than I would have. 1,000 likes to all your comments (in spirit anyway).
davey’s great at saying nothing and he can’t defend his posts. But stay with him if it makes you comfortable.
It’s an excellent point - although I’d quibble with one aspect, I doubt CSP faces legit criticism from her left.
Of course maybe she does and I’m not aware of it - but if so that’s flat-out trolling.
The NH 1st district has only ever had a rep serve more that 3 terms twice. And CSP isn’t the only rep to trade back forth like this. So support for the individual rep is not the only factor.
You miss my point. Your Rep in US Congress is one of 20+ offices you are voting for. So name recognition and retention gets tough. It is the exact reason NH keeps electing Sununu’s and such. People remember the name.
These factors and the history of the district show it is more complicated than simply candidate.
Tell you the truth, I’d never heard of this woman until this thread. But in general a number of House members have quit because of what I described, money grubbing nearly non stop and unwarranted criticism
Important detail.
"The meta argument being put forth here is that its the fault of national Democrats. But the proof in the pudding indicates, its her inability to reliably get the majority of votes in her district that is the problem. "
You seem to be suggesting those are mutually exclusive.
Oh absolutely - the pressure to raise money for the next cycle can be all-consuming. And for a member such as her there’s no such thing as weekends off. She also has a rep for treating staff well - a big plus in my book.
ETA - she’s super-progressive- perhaps too much so for some - but also a team player in the House Dem caucus. Which I wonder if maybe played into her thinking about retiring, banking on this being a good cycle for Ds - hopefully anyway, with the Pee-Resident’s approvals continuing to plummet - and wanting to get someone good in there who can hold onto the seat.
A peculiar thing about campaign financing that few people are aware of (and very few are willing to believe) is that the amount spent on an election by either candidate (or their supporters) has almost no impact on the election results. I know that sounds far fetched, but here’s some evidence:
Multiple individual examples of either a candidate or their supporter outspending their opponent by huge margins then losing include: Meg Whitman’s failed attempt to be California’s governor, Linda McMahon’s twice failed attempts to be a Senator, Chevron’s $3 million attempt to buy the city council of Richmond California and the Koch brother’s failed attempt to buy local elections in Iowa.
According to the website opensecrets.org, only 17 of the 190 Congressional candidates who self financed at least 50% of their campaign (i.e. try to buy a seat in Congress) between 2002 and 2012 actually won (fewer than 10%).
A study done by the Sunlight foundation in 2013 showed that Pac donations had almost no impact on the 2012 election results whatsoever.
Most importantly, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner observed in their book Freakonomics that the candidate who raises more money usually wins even if they don’t spend that money. They concluded this after they examined the money raised and spent in nearly 1,000 congressional campaigns since 1972 where the same two candidates faced one another in more than one election. The amount spent by each candidate impacted the results by less than 1% either way even if the amounts spent by either candidate changed by factors of two to one or more between the different elections cycles.
Their explanation of the apparent paradox (money raised by a candidate appears more important than the money spent by that candidate) was that popular candidates are able to raise money because they’re popular. Being popular is also how a candidate gets elected, so the amount of money a candidate raises is just a sign of their overall popularity, not the reason they get elected.
The main problem with campaign finance in this country is that it allows the candidates themselves to be bought, but not the elections. This is why I wouldn’t mind seeing the Democrats back off on the fundraising. All of this aggressive fundraising makes Democratic candidate appear to be just as corrupt as their Republican opponents while, at the same time, doing very little to help them get elected (if you accept the evidence I presented above).