I am officially confused.

Is there no reasonable alternative between supporting the Blue Dog Democrats vs. the progressive Democrats?

For instance, the race between Blanche Lincoln and her progressive opponent? Or the race between Jane Harmon and Marcy Winograd?

If we decide to go against what the President wants, do the Republicans really win?

I cannot believe this.

There has got to be a better way, there just has to be.

But what is the answer?

Please, serious answers only. I am genuinely confused, and I have been for some time.

I support the progressive candidates. But that's just me...

In a democracy, you are responsible for gaining consensus as well as the consequences of your vote.

Most people don't even try because the job is so overwhelming.

I go with the progessive candidate that he does not want elected.

Does the branding even matter anymore?

But it helps us (sometimes) see what positions that candidate takes.

It might be better to call them progressive vs. traditional or conservative.

... or are hired guns

we just can not justify our effort to install Obama as our President. Grassroots movement made him the President and we need to push him toward the true reason he is there. Obama needs to listen to US. Not other way around.

I don't think he is, some of the time, anyway.

For instance, he's not listening to us when he makes a commercial for Blanche Lincoln.

He is not being progressive when he does something like that.

should be assumed to have the authority to cause a voter to caste a vote against their conscious.

If a person subjugates themselves to the marching orders of their party, that is a personal decision, not an example that should be followed by an entire class.

Democrats are gloriously fractious because they believe in one citizen- one vote democracy rather than authoritarianism.

:kick: & R

In the general election, you have to decide who it is better to have in the seat, someone who will support progressive causes 30% of the time of 0% of the time.

Either a Democrats or a Republican is going to get elected in November. It isn't a decision on a better way. You have to calculate who will support what you want from the government more of the time.

I can't imagine voting for a Republican because, even though there are some who I think are good people who care about those who elect them, they will vote the party line most of the time. What the Republican Party wants for America isn't what I want. There are some Damn shitty democrats out thee, but even most of the shitty democrats will support legislation that is closer to what I think is good for my family, my neighborhood, and my country.

Who will give you what you think is important most of the time.

I would never vote for a Republican, ever.

Lee Fisher won, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for him in the general election.

Before there was a President Obama, you voted. You suddenly didn't loose your ability to choose because the president is a democrat.

If you vote for someone that you know will lose in the general election, then that is your choice. And yes, the republicans win if they win the elections.

I'll be voting for progressives who can win in the GE.

That is the way it is.

then vote for someone who I know will win but will fuck me over first chance they get.

And I will do this when I vote for Marcy Winograd, for Congress.

She will make a great Representative, and I want her to know that.

Maybe we can scare Jane Harmon into being just a bit more progressive...

The last time Marcy ran, Jane moderated some of her positions...she saw we meant business.

if you can convince enough people to make that choice then your candidate wins.

Resistance is futile. Do not worry, be happy. You are hereby instructed to return to your regularly programmed info-tainment.

:rofl:

I swear, that's what it looks like!

The lesser-known progressives have a harder time attracting donation money because of their principles, so the corporate-toadies will always get more party support.

Every dollar raised from corporations, is a dollar not "needed" from the party.

and the ones already in power do NOT want a bunch of fire-breathing progressives sneaking into their little closed-shindig.

The LAST thing they want is MORE people like Bernie Sanders & Sherrod Brown & Al Franken.

They like the submissive, money-grubbers who are easy to sway, and who know how to kowtow.

DC runs on legalized bribery and they all know it. The progressives would like to see that change..

Don't be confused dear CaliforniaPeggy because your instincts are right on. I believe we are in dire need of Progressives right now. This country and the world have got to drastically move to the Left in order to save the world. As much to the Left as Bush took it to the Right. We have to get our priorities straight and it will never happen with business as usual. I'm not against President Obama but I truly believe he's too conservative. I think he will move further to the left with time but only because circumstances force him to. I believe he'll do what he has to do, but until then he seems to want to simply keep the status quo going as if that isn't what's gotten this country in trouble. Business as usual in governing is the reason we're in the trouble we're in. More of the same will continue the trouble and even make it worse.

Things like war have to be sincerely examined and questioned because it hasn't managed to solve a thing and has aggravated everything all the way around. Corporate personhood and autonomy need to be eliminated or the planet will be destroyed. The United States needs to stop thinking of itself as a military Superpower and start thinking of itself as a just one country on a planet of countries and start using its resources to make the world a better place. Being the top dog only means the rest of the dogs have to suffer.

He needs to support whomever has supported him and his legislation - like HCR.

You however are free to support whomever you like, most agree with and think can win the general election.

NOT Bill Halter. Bill Halter is no more progressive/liberal than Bill Clinton or President Obama.

so therefore he is.

His record doesn't matter.

If any of them wins the primary, I will be both surprised and delighted, but the reason I'm doing it is to help demonstrate to the hidebound conservatives running the party that progressives are money makers.

Still, the worst Blue Dog (Ben Nelson) is marginally better than the best Republican. I can't support any Republican in the general, although there is no way any Blue Dog will get a dime from me.

If our guys support the other guys' agenda, how is that marginally better?

Ben Nelson: http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=NEI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=75&y=9

Olympia Snowe (who tries to be the best GOP and fails): http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=MEI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=69&y=12

No, there's not a hell of a lot of difference between them, but consider how far to the loony right Nelson's GOP adversary would be.

Plus, the difference is tiny, but it's still there.

my Blue Dog (Ben) comes up for reelection.

Maybe.

In the meantime, I support candidates (better Democrats) not party (Nebraska Democrats).

and I'd have to do a great deal of soul searching if the only alternatives were two poisonous antichoicers running against each other.

As a practical matter, I'd probably abstain from that particular race.

I can't cross that line any more than I'd have been able to cross the abolitionist line in the 1850s and for the same reason.

Progressives will win when we have substantial enduring grassroots organizations that work effectively on particular issues

Once we have organized communities, we can push some of our friends into politics and can turn out people to pound the pavement and jingle the phones to push particular issues and to support particular candidates

Until we envision activism as a combination machine that runs continuously, that constantly works to define the issues and the message around them, that works in regulatory and legislative spheres, as well as around electoral campaigns, that researches and unmasks the actual architecture of political power (concretely rather than abstractly), that takes issues to ordinary citizens' doorsteps and to the workplace -- until we accomplish this, we are simply going to wail and gnash our teeth a lot

What we can accomplish in elections resembles an end-of-semester test: sure, you can cram for it, but that's just not the same as coming in having done all the required work and more. The big picture game at the electoral level is "shift the center" -- that usually means, "get rid of the worst SOBs." Going after moderate or moderate-conservative Dems in conservative regions is likely to produce rightwing Repub victories, which shifts the center the wrong direction. That's the way it is: that's life. If we want better prospects, we simply have to devote more time and energy and money and people-power to fulltime progressive organizing

It looks bad, if the incumbant wins (and usually they do) then the president will have to deal with that person possibly returning to congress and being difficult against the president. It's easier to come out in support of a democrat who defeats the incumbant after the race is overwith.

Thank you for your insight.

causes centrist candidates to move over toward our positions, even though the leftie candidates don't get elected. Keep supporting the progressives, we hope change will come from our support even though they don't get into office (we have so few hopes--and so many fail anyway. But it's what we have at this point.)

in support of progressive candidates. The president is just wrong, again.