I think you can look at it many ways, either a political opportunist saw his shot, and bought a shot at a senate seat, using his own wealth, the 'netroots' phenomenon, and an electorate that had turned against the war.

OR

the Democratic Party has become a haven for the anti war left, and will brook no dissent in its desire to purge the party of those who don't agree.

OR

(my personal view)

A prefect storm of a primary against a Senator who was too cozy with the other party, and who had lost his ability or willingness to communicate with the people that put him in office. From what I know, if he had made his mea culpa speech a week out, and put some of his TV money into his 'chicken and gin' budget, enough of his consituents would have rallied back to his side, and the black turn out would have been high enough to carry him over the top.

If I were a CT voter, I would have def. voted for Joe (though I declined several offers to work for his prexy campaign)

I'm about as centrist as a person can be and also as against this war as a person can be. I don't know what the deal is with the left, but I bet there are a lot more moderates pissed off about Iraq than anyone is owning up. Moderates take longer to turn thumbs down but when they do it's noticeable.

Dunno. We'll see come November, I guess.

I know you can class yourself pretty damn well with a seersucker and Italian leather shoes, but I imagine that your gutter-mouth prolly would have gotten you punted from Liebermann's camp quite quickly.

Anyway, how could LooGAR ever support half the team behind the "Silver Sewer Award"? Really, now....

I would suggest maintaining a low level of involvement on the national level. Allow state parties to run elections with little lip service to the National Party. I think Keep it local should be the mantra of the Democrats this year. They don't necessarily have to have a national unified platform, they only need to prove that they do have some ideas for new policies dealing with the GOP failures. The Democratic party is essentially dead in Nebraska, so if I was the National Democratic Party, I would basically view Nelson as a Republican with a safe seat and ignore this whole state. I don't really like Nelson that much, but Pete Ricketts is an evil Neo-con who only speaks in GOP talking points. I would hope that even the most moronic Democratic leader would realize when to not mess with a safe thing. The Democratic Party should try to positively impact the close races in Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Montana and avoid states like Nebraska and Florida, where both Nelson's are winning comfortably.

exactly. i've yet to hear somebody articulate to me exactly what the american presence is accomplishing. we can't secure the country. we can't stop the civil war. we're spending billions with nothing to show for it except ever-increasing violence and hatred towards the united states. there's zero possibility of the administration deploying the troops necessary to finish the job (if thats even possible.) if the country is fucked either way, why not have it be fucked on somebody else's dime? sure, that position might be political suicide, but that doesn't make it wrong.

i realize that you stated that you personally see it a different way; i'm just curious why it is you think that this particular argument, that lamont bought the race, is valid, considering that to the best of my knowledge, leiberman outspent him on the primary almost 2 to 1. I've read in several reputable places that lamont spent about 4 mil (mostly his own money) while leiberman spent almost 10 mil. If he bought it, that's mad bang for the buck.

You don't REALLY need to tell me, but thanks for reminding me, pal. Its been a full decade since I took Legislative Process, and lets face it--major brain functions have been destroyed or supressed in the interim.



Only problem with this (as espoused by your boy Newsweek's Jonathan Alter--and not to get off on a rant or anything, but that dude needs to shave his head YESTERDAY.) is that even if the Dems do come up with some solutions, they have no power to implement them. None.

Here's Alter:

Dude doesnt have the strips of bacon on the sides he's holding on to (like say, Tony K.), he has actual sides of beef. Jesus Christ man, just do it.

You can't divorce money from politics. And fundraising ability (especially in-state) is a way to gauge someone's popularity. Lamont didn't need to bother with fundraising, cos he just dipped into his Rockefeller fortune, and had everything he needed to communicate his message.

So, I was saying that he personally, not his supporters, purchased his primary victory.

And the thousands of small donations made to Lamont through net-roots efforts compared to the large special interest contributions for Lieberman including the Israel lobby and good Democrats like Bill Kristol?? Does not compute with what you propose. As is so often with your posts, your position yourself as "the professional politico" who understands how the foolishness of the liberal democrats is ruining their chance to win elections. The strategy you always posit is for democrats to be more like republicans.

Let's (we amateurs and others) monitor this as November gets closer. Would Angelides beat Scwarzenegger by being more like Arnold? Will Lamont beat Joe a second time if he becomes more like Joe?

Also, I am so over people who licked Delay's sac getting finicky about Pelosi.

Without Lamont's personal money, he never GETS the "1000s" of netroots contributions. Whoops. Argument over.

I don't always think that Democrats should be more like Republicans, I DO always think that they should fight on turf that they can win, frame the debate, and play to win.

What you posit, is that they run on health, education, welfare, acid, amnesty, abortion and gay rights. All proven losers. Who is right? I don't know that Angelides has a chance in hell, but to win he needs to stake out a voice of his own on issues that move voters. If those are gay rights and abortion, so be it.

And the fact that Jon Tester has raised huge amounts from netroots is also due to his personal money. I think he made $60,000 last year! Ah those decadent middle class democrats!

The reductionist argument against "the liberal agenda" that throws up "gay rights" is tired, and probably a little hateful. Willie Horton shit.

How abou economic justice? How about jobs? How about health? How about a planet choking from addictions to fossil fuels?

Nah, it's all about Adam and Eve not Steve.

Personal politics notwithsatnding, harry, The Netroots are like Emily's List, they do provide a much needed fundraising mechanism for the candidates they support. They also, oftentimes, put their candidates in a box, or make them highlight issues that are not winners.

All of the things that you bring up are interesting to me and you, but ARE THEY ISSUES THAT MOVE VOTERS?!?

Do you think that your boy Tester (nice haircut) is going to come out for abortion rights, gay rights, and healthcare?

No, I bet he is going to say, I'm not Conrad Burns, and I'm not corrupt.

See the difference there?

I'm sorry that you view things through the gimlet eye of a true beliver, hell, I even applaud and admire you a little. But I look at things down the cold steel pipe of the barrel of a gun. WIN and you are IN, LOSE and go home and suck on your toes.

We continue to have these conversations, and a resolution, getting to where we think similarly, probably is emblematic of what needs to be done to defeat republicans.

In that spirit of comradeship: you contradict yourself. 1) Netroots restricts candidates. Makes them take narrowly proscribed (liberal and unelectable) positions. 2) "Your boy" Tester isn't going to take those losing positions. 3) Netroots is totally behind Tester.

??

(And as an aside, Netroots and Daily Kos and the whole blogosphere arrogance will not win elections, and are in many respects way tedious to me.)

I can see the contradiction, and you are correct. They CAN make candidates take extreme positions, or seemingly extreme positions. They are not running campaigns, or lending staffers to campaigns yet. When that happens, look out. That was what I was saying vis-a-vis Emily's List.

I promise you that Burns will make an issue out of Tester's support from the Netroots.

I think Markos is half genius, half dolt. And like most movement leaders, he will be co-opted.

See? Solidarity. We agree.

Today's Shout-Outs:

Fuck Ken Mehlman. Fuck JC Watts.

and while we're still talking politics, plan b finally got approved for over the counter. it's about fucking time. man i like it when i have good news that has to do with politics.

I thought I would resurrect this thread... where there were strongly expressed opinions about what would or wouldn't appeal to voters, and also predictions about the inevitable Democrats' self-destruction before the elections....

Interesting... the Dems hold both houses, and on today's Meet the Press Sen. elect Webb, in a reasoned , articulate analysis, talked about the re-distribution of wealth in a way I haven't heard in many decades... and Sen.-elect Tester (sitting in his middle-class kitchen with wooden counters and humble flower arangements) agreed in prinicple, at least in Montanian terms.

I think the next two years will be interesting.... it may well end up in President Rudy... but I am pulling for an Obama-Webb ticket now.