Purge, smurge

[ProSense]

Third Way is a ridiculous organization, but trying to use it as a broadbrush label is bullshit.

Mark Udall is a member of Third Way. He lost. Should we cheer?

I wanted Mark Udall to win. So did Elizabeth Warren.

Kay Hagan is a member of Third Way. She lost. Had she won, she'd have been better than the Republican, but she really pissed me off.

The losses are what they are. I felt much worse when Feingold lost than any of the above two. Udall, IMO, is the bigger loss of the two.

Did wanting Udall to win make me a Third Way shill?

You likely wanted him to win too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024614936

[riqster]

1. Good point. We can and should debate policies for the future, but

...any Dem would have been better than a Reep in any given office.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I want losers to lose. And to get out of the way for winners.

If you lost, you failed at your job. I want people who are competent enough to succeed at their jobs. And when you're a candidate, you have one job, and one job only - to motivate more people to vote for you than vote for the other person or people.

Don't cry about people who aren't good at doing their jobs. Get people who can do the job. People who have the fire to go out and convince people they need to be in office. People who, once in office, can be seen to be doing what they promised people they would, so that they get re-elected.

If what you're selling isn't what the people are buying, then you don't make the sale, and you need to get out of the way so somebody else can sell them what they want.

[ProSense]

3. Yeah, they got out of the way of winners: Republicans.

I have to admit Grimes deserved to lose, but I wanted Udall to win.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. It's obvious the public is in a 'blame' mood,

so what would have happened if we held onto the Senate? Things would have kept on going as they are, and Dems would have gotten the 'blame' in 2016, perhaps even losing the White House.

With the House and the Senate, the 'blame' for the next two years accrues to Republicans.

We can do a wave election for Dems in 2016, IF in the 2016 ads, Dems make sure they tell the public over and over that the Republicans have held the House for about a decade, and now, in control of the Senate, STILL are not doing anything useful.

As I pointed out in another thread, in all the media markets I'm in, every ad that claimed job growth this cycle was made by Republicans.

Republican governors claiming they were the ones who created new jobs. And not a single Democratic ad saying they were lying, and that the new jobs resulted from the passing of the Recovery Act by Dems.

[whatchamacallit]

4. Yes

it does.

[el_bryanto]

6. The Third way is, among other things, a political philosophy - a toxic political philosophy.

It argues that the issues are that Democrats aren't compromising enough or aren't pro-business enough or aren't tough on crime enough. The problem is that that isn't true; Democrats have been interested in compromising since the Clinton Era. Historically Democrats are always more open to compromise (Democrats believe that Government can work and are willing to take steps to see that it does; Republicans believe that Government is the enemy, and so compromise is pointless - either they get 100% of what they want or nobody gets anything (either option is fine from the Republican point of view)).

You could argue that in the Clinton Era there was a rationale for the third way (I'd stay it was a bad idea even then, but at least it was new idea), but now we've had 20 years of the democratic party largely following that policy. It's time to stop. And while some individual members of the third way coalition might have some positive views (I'm sure many of them do) - they need to drop this label and the false meme that Democrats problem is they aren't compromising enough.

Bryant