Do you want more liberal, "real Democrat" candidates, or do you want a 50 state strategy?

[Recursion]

This is the bit that really floors me, seeing so many people saying simultaneously, "We need Dean back" and "we should stop running moderate and conservative candidates" when that was how we won in 2006 by running candidates like Webb and Tester.

The Blue Dog caucus only lost two of its members this cycle (Barrow and Rahall) and picked up two more likely members (Gwen "I am not Obama or Pelosi" Graham and Brad "I was a Republican until last week" Ashford). The usual Blue Dog suspects like Lipinski and Cuellar did very well (two other blue dog races are in recount hell right now, though). Sinema is kind of sui generis (and in a brand new district we don't have good numbers on), but she also pulled a surprising victory out.

Remember people like Ike Skelton? Gene Taylor? Those were people who could hold conservative districts for years, and as much as it may fill you with bile, they're the kind of candidates we're going to have to find again to take those districts back.

[msongs]

1. both. they are not mutually exclusive concepts nt

[Recursion]

2. Certainly, we could find more liberal candidates in liberal districts, if we wanted to

And I agree with the mirror image of the Buckley Principle: support the farthest left candidate who can win in the general.

But we had exactly two pick-ups Tuesday, Graham and Ashford: conservative Democrats in conservative districts.

[WestCoastLib]

3. If those are my only 2 choices I choose more liberal candidates.

And I will plan my living arrangements accordingly.

It's of course not the case that those are mutually exclusive, though.

[Recursion]

4. We picked up two seats Tuesday: conservative Democrats in conservative districts

I'm absolutely all for running the most liberal candidate who can win in their district. But FL-2 and NE-2 are the only ground we gained here, so we should probably look at Graham and Ashford for how to take back some of the districts we've lost in the past decade or so.

[WestCoastLib]

5. Then we didn't pick up anything

We've seen the policies that conservative democrats support. We've seen them side with the republicans and against Obama. Conservative democrats are only slightly less of a problem than republicans.

[Recursion]

6. Gah!

Yes, yes, yes we did.

Conservatives who caucus with us are infinitely better than conservatives who don't caucus with us.

[hobbit709]

16. And how many seats did we lose? I believe there was a net loss there.

[UglyGreed]

7. More liberal

since we no representation.

[Recursion]

9. I need a verb there (nt)

[UglyGreed]

10. It's late

and I'm have trouble sleeping do to my head and back problems, maybe later

[UglyGreed]

11. Here's a

song instead

[JI7]

8. Howard Dean is Third Way Also which is why he backed those conservative dems and now backing

third way hillary clinton.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. I do not see any evidence that the more socially conservative parts of America are closed to an

economic populist message. I realize there are many parts of the country where you cannot sell strict gun control laws. Of course there are many parts of the country where conservative religious attitudes are the vast majority. But I don't know any part of the country where a message of economic justice and fairness is not possible and very sellable.

[wyldwolf]

13. I want a 50 State Strategy that runs people for dog catcher

No, seriously. A 50 State Strategy should stay out of national and state wide elections. It should have no influence on decision making, funds allocations or battle ground strategy. It should only help with the ground game in elections and help build a farm team - a deep bench for the Democratic party.

It's true that fact-checking often backfires and only re-enforces myths and falsehoods. The left's persistence in this belief that the 50 State Strategy performed miracles in less than 24 months is one such example. Here are the facts:

1. The 50 State Strategy had little of no affect on the Democratic party's 2006 Senate and House victories. This persistant myth on the left that Howard Dean studied all 50 states and handpicked the best candidates to run and win, masterfully allocated resources, and marshalled our troops to the polls is a fantasy. There was simply no enough time between the strategies's implementation and the thick of the 2006 campaign to pull of a feat like that and this is ZERO evidence to support it.

2006 was won in battleground states and red states where 30+ victors promptly joined the New Democrat and Blue Dog coalitions. 2006 was won out of Bush fatigue. 2006 kept the 'mid-term losses in a President's second term' tradition alive.

2. The 50 State Strategy MAY have worked in 2008. Maybe. Really no evidence for that, either.

[geek tragedy]

17. yeah, people are assuming a marketing slogan "50 state strategy!" was an actual

results-driving master strategy.

This is also part of the progressive myopia that pretends that 2006 and 2008 were about the public demanding the Green party's agenda rather than a backlash towards and a repudiation of Bush.

Just like the way to expand the party's base is to keep on appealing to the narrowest segment of the party's base as is possible.

[Recursion]

20. ^ That (nt)

[mmonk]

14. Your error is thinking Democrats

are different geographically. The so called Dixie-crats left the party along time ago.

[FBaggins]

15. The error would be assuming that all Democrats are the same

If we only accept candidates who meet our own tight definition of what constitutes a Democrat... don't be surprised when only voters who also fit that description are willing to vote for them.

[Vinca]

18. Why can't we have both?

[Bluenorthwest]

19. What floors me is the people who keep insisting that only 'moderate or conservative' candidates can

win in districts in which they keep failing to win and in which many of them lost this very week. Clearly there are elements at play beyond these terms of art. If such districts could be won simply by being 'moderate' then we'd have won them already. Clearly it is more than just the rhetoric.
The largest caucus in the House is the Progressive Caucus. My Rep is a member. He won by over 20 points, indicating a nice taste of Republican votes for him.
And that's the other thing. If you need to elect Conservatives and yet see yourself as not a Republican, do what you must but do NOT expect other parts of the country to join you in your conservatism. Do not expect to impose that sort of basically Republican agenda on the rest of us for the sake of some Red State Culture. 29 US States don't even count me as an equal, those cultures and that politics will fail here and will be soundly rejected. We'd start running our folks as Greens if you insist on making this Party into 'Reagan Democrats Only'.
I hated Reagan. I hated those Democrats who voted for him. Still do. They were monsters.
So feel free to run right wing candidates, just realize you might see the whole West Coast form a new Party. Here, it is not 1956.

[Recursion]

22. Our only pick-ups were Graham and Ashford

That's where the party is going to look...

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Well if you expect to push your right wing candidates on us you have another thing coming

We will not be conservative to please you. Elect who you can. What is your district, absent as you are from it? My Rep won by more than 20%. Progressive Caucus Member. We will not be electing your favored sort of nearly Republican Democrats.
If you can elect someone of your sort where you live, that's great, that's what's supposed to happen. If you can't, you should consider trying something new. But do not for a moment think that others are going to regress into atavistic conservatism to please you and South Carolina.

[Recursion]

24. Jesus, man, I'm just pointing out the two districts we gained ground

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Orsino]

21. It's not an OR question. n/t