Clarifying: Winning Back the House

[vaberella]

I have been touting this for ages. But it's not about winning back the House. So many people are quick to say, well we had the House and Obama was not moving "left". Well it's not Obama. Obama, isn't and really doesn't write legislation. When his admin does, it's when the House or Senate are pussyfooting or dragging their feet on an issue he steps in.

It's not about JUST winning the House. It's about putting positive PROGRESSIVE THINKERS in the seats. I will make clear that Progressivism is not an ideology and it never was. However, it is a way of looking at the future of the nation. You do not have to be a left-wing or anarchist, you can be right-wing as well. I do consider Snowe and Collins to be progressive thinkers. Murkowski moves with whatever is popular---ditto with Brown. However, Snowe and Collins keep close to a bit of their crazy right-wing ideas but also thinking on the positive front.

However, what we had in the House or Senate as far as Dems during 2008-2010 was pretty bad. I mean really. We had people like Lincoln and still have people like Landrieu who stated very clearly and loudly they would reject the entire HCR if there was even a touch of a PO. And because they come from right wing districts it's understood.

We need to vet our Dems. I'm sorry but that's really the issue. I consider Obama to be very left. And he could be more, if he was given the arsenal.

Has anyone sat there and seen the votes on let's say on closing Gitmo? The legislation was there, Obama was all for it, the bill failed because we had Dem congressmen and women who sided with the Repubs.


Has anyone sat there and seen the votes on letting the tax cuts for the rich expire? The legislation was there, Obama was all for it, but the bill failed TWICE because we had many Dems in the House who sided with Repubs.

Has anyone seen the votes on the bill that was bipartisan for us making deals with other countries for lower priced meds? People liked to say Obama made a deal with Big Pharma, however he publicly supported this and was all for it if it went through, which would mean the deal with Pharma would be null and void. Better for us. But did people see how it failed? We had Menendez, who was all for it during Bush turn against it. We got some dirty dealer Dems here.


I think we need to vet each of our Dems very well in each State. I think Obama is great, but I think we need to do serious work on who's funding who and who might be working for who in the past and who's married to who---since a lot of cronism seems to be involved with politics. I think Obama is fine. I think a lot of people working in the Legislative field is not.

I think if we want strong Dems we need to look closely. Some Dems, or really one Dem I spoke to said that Christy in New Jersey didn't seem as much of a threat as the opposition. I think we need to look into that. And I think this is not done.

Voting Dem doesn't mean that they're necessarily the best bet. I think we need to get strong House Dems who think progressively. I do believe that if every Dem was let's say a Grayson---excluding some of his crassness at times---Obama would be very successful. But Grayson was working with a lot of Dems who were not like minded and I think us as the voters need to be very selective.

I think there are lot of Dems on this board who should run for political office. I would totally support them. I don't think they will. If they know anyone who might be willing and is a like minded thinker this would be great. I'm from New York and live in Harlem. It's tough to break the old boy politics here. Hence the reason I never managed to get enough people to vote out Rangel (UGH!).


Again, it's definitely about getting back the House and maintaining the Senate. But it's even more about who we put into office and if they have a positive progressive vision of the US. If they think along the lines of Nuclear Power (done safely) even if it not Solar or Wind (and wind power has it's problems for the bird population). And things of that nature.

What are they're ideas on health care and social projects and so on. I don't expect sharing everything with them. But what I'm saying is a good 85%. I can sit there and Landrieu or Lincoln and I know we don't think the same on 85% of things.

[JoePhilly]

1. Here is the real problem.

There are what, about 435 House seats ... right?

Each of those oddly shaped districts are different in terms of who lives there. What constitutes a "good dem" or a "good republican" is not uniform across these districts.

As a result, you get Dems that look like Republicans, and Republicans that look like Dems.

The people in those districts have to try and pick the best one they can get. Which means, in a conservative district in Alabama, Nancy Pelosi could never get elected there.

Which means in some instances, you won't get close to that 85% agreement. But you might not get 100% opposition either.

If my choices are 100% strong disagreement, versus 15% agreement, I'm going to take the 15% that I can get.

[TheWraith]

3. Well spoken.

My area will never elect the Democrat I might want, but I also know that it doesn't need to be represented by an asshat.

[craigmatic]

4. All that's true except that you get repubs who look like dems. Those are few and far between.

[flpoljunkie]

8. And, of course, we need Dem 'butts in the seat' to regain the majority.

We have out work cut out for us to elect more Democrats from the 'Democratic wing of the party.'

[vaberella]

9. See I think it's possible to change that.

Remember when Obama was organizing busing people around? I think that's what needs to be done in some of these districts. I think that was well organized and was possible to turn some districts purple if not completely blue. I think if let's say you living in the stat of Wyoming and come from a blue district it's a good idea to move to a red district and get things moving.

I also think that these Dems who look more Republican--what needs to be done is to get Dems who know their shit. If you get a Dem who knows how to explain things clearly then there won't be this array of misinformation which makes this weird shift in ideological umbrella. I think most people think like Dems and Liberals, but once they hear anything about Dems and Liberals they turn off.

I think this can be changed. Education is the part and it starts off small.

[JoePhilly]

11. I think it can change too ... I grew up in PA and moved to NC.

And in 2008, NC voted for Obama and not McCain.

That is progress. We also unseated Liddy Dole. That's progress.

So it can be done, but I've lived here for 20 years now and 2008 was the first time my D voted made a difference here.

So when I hear Liberals complain that Obama isn't liberal enough, I try to imagine which Dem other than Obama would have taken NC, Edwards maybe ... and we know where we'd be if that had happened.

My point is that we can't assume that a D in one location is the same as a D in another. We have a lot of work to do, and the best way to get better Dems to run is to put more Dems in office.

[vaberella]

12. I completely agree with you.

This is why I say we vet our people and also that if we can get some DailyKos or even DU people to run for office. These freeper clowns are all running for Congress and many of them are winning, we need to get ourselves out there.

[jaxx]

2. We do need strong Dems and they, in turn, need strong backing from us.

You won't get a strong Dem winning in a red area without a big push behind them. It will take money and time for volunteers to GOTV.

Well thought out post. Thanks. K&R

[flpoljunkie]

6. Like your poster a lot, but would prefer 'Vote Democratic.'

[jaxx]

7. It's the way it was and it's hard to change the wording and get it sized right.

I had enough trouble with the date. Glad you like it though, I do too.

[craigmatic]

5. Our floor in the house is about 15 seats so we need to pick up 10 from somewhere.

[Mojeoux]

10. If They Voted to Give Millionaires Tax Breaks, They GO!!!

Rep or Dem.

This is a powerful meme. The "tax break for the rich," is a diss that keeps on dissing as these fools flop around and babble idiotic ideas.

It's going to be "schadenfreudic" fun to watch all the wanna-be POTUS Repubs attacking each other's idiotic ideas, while who-knows-what kind of events unfold in the next .....what? 19- 20 Months?


To any RightBagger who squawks "Socialism!," I say, "Hey, Communist China is on the phone and they want you to STFU and go shopping!"

Ed. for punc.

[quaker bill]

13. What we need is enough votes to lose some and win

If our or for that matter their margin of majority is small, then every vote matters, and each player in the coalition gets outsized power, as "without them nothing proceeds". Regardless of which party is in charge, if the margin is small enough, the fence sitters make the call and end up running the country. Neither party is served well by this.

If the margin is larger, large enough that a dozen or two votes in the House, and 5 to 10 votes in the Senate either way does not effect the outcome, then getting held hostage by individual fence sitters becomes unlikely. If a bill is clearly going to pass anyway, the fence sitters will often vote for it, simply to be in the winning side. If it takes a dozen or more of them teaming up to impact the course of events, this will be quite rare.

The problem in not Lincoln and Landrieu per se, the problem is that their votes were truly critical and that they could use this to be a power player and change policy. The specific names don't matter because there will always be some fence sitters in any governing coalition. The question is one of relevance. If the majority is large enough, these folks don't make news and fade into the background.