Better Democrats: Open Left's Act Blue Page

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 19:30


Whenever a newly elected Democrat turns out to be a disappointment on a key vote, media messaging, or other campaign, there is a long-standing, knee-jerk response. In such situations, some variation of "well, I suppose you would rather have a Republican in that seat instead," is often brought up to quell dissent and keep the troops in line.

However, in Congress, there are now more than more than enough Democrats instead of Republicans to form a majority. To be precise, there are 236 Democrats in the House in seats that could otherwise be held by Republicans, and 49 Democrats in the Senate (plus two others who caucus with Democrats). Further, all indications are that in November, these majorities will grow substantially, providing Democrats will clear majorities in both branches of Congress of such size that Republican opposition could be rendered inert. In this situation, we are past the point of needing more Democrats in Congress. Now, unless we want a repeat of FISA and Iraq on virtually every issue, even under a vast Democratic trifecta, we have to work to make sure that we elect better Democrats.

It is with this principle in mind that today Open Left is introducing its first multi-candidate Act Blue page, simple entitled Better Democrats. In 2008, progressives do not have to, and should not, work to just elect any and all Democrats in every district across the country. Instead, we need to focus our efforts on those candidates who will be strong progressive voices in Congress, whose victories will help define the 2008 elections as a progressive victory, and whose victories will help ensure a long-term Democratic majority for years--maybe decades--to come.

Starting with our first seven candidates, Better Democrats will endorse those candidates whose victory, in our best estimation, will have the largest progressive impact on Congress as a whole. While there is no single criteria for our first seven candidates, there are several important factors we took into consideration. Endorsing The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq helps. Being from a blue district that will be easier to defend helps. Also, being a woman and / or a minority helps, given that the vast majority of conservative in the Democratic Congress are white men. Even though it is a generalization and not a hard rule, electing more women and minority Democrats to Congress means electing more progressives. Further, Willingness to speak out against Democratic capitulation on issues like Iraq and FISA helps. Yet further, running a primary campaign against a conservative Democratic in Congress really helps. The candidates who most closely match these criteria will end up on the Better Democrats page.

Our first seven candidates are:

  1. Donna Edwards, the newest member of Congress from Maryland's 4th Congressional district. In February, Representative Edwards defeated incumbent Al Wynn in the Democratic primary, but she will surely face strong, more conservative competition in 2010.

  2. Darcy Burner, Democratic nominee from Washington's 8th Congressional district. Darcy is a long-time netroots favorite, even a blogger herself, and hails from a very winnable, very blue district. She is also the organizer of the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.

  3. Jeff Merkley, Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives. After a hard fought primary that was waged largely online, not only is Merkley from a blue state, but he is the only Senate nominee to endorse the Responsible Plan.

  4. Regina Thomas, State Senator from Georgia, who is challenging Bush Dog John Barrow in the July 15th Democratic primary for Georgia's 12th congressional district.

  5. Sam Bennett, Eric Massa and Tom Perriello, who are respectively running in the lean-blue Pennsylvania 15th, the lean-red New York 29th and the reddish Virginia 5th. All three were among the original ten endorsees of the Responsible Plan. Not only will they be a step up from the Republicans who currently hold those seats, but they will also be a step up from the many Democrats who capitulated to Bush on FISA and Iraq last week.

More candidates will be added as time goes on, but for now we will start with these seven. Dollar for dollar, you won't find seven candidates who will create more progressive change for your money than these. Make progress happen--give today.

Chris Bowers :: Better Democrats: Open Left's Act Blue Page

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
2 candidates missing? (0.00 / 0)
You mention 7 candidates, but I only see 5 listed above.

I need to read better (0.00 / 0)
Oops.  3 candidates listed as #5.  Duh.

[ Parent ]
Uh (4.00 / 1)
under 5. he lists three candidates.

So that makes 7.

Great news!

I would add Debbie Cook to that list but for starters that is a pretty solid list. Glad to see Thomas and Perriello on there!

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
Yeah I noticed (0.00 / 0)
And gave $250 as penance.

[ Parent ]
slightly confused over Regina Thomas (4.00 / 1)
Stoller the other day commented at length that Regina Thomas was not worth fundraising for. That giving her money was pointless. Now, I'm all for this, but you know, I'm like paying attention and everything and I don't get how first Obama is criticized for not supporting Thomas, then Thomas is criticized for not being able to run a campaign (thus making her seem like a total waste of time), then Thomas places 4th on the list of best campaigns to support. So, again, I'm really very into this and very into selective targeting to make the most of limited resources, but I'm rather confused by what's up with Thomas.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Huh? (0.00 / 0)
He nailed Christine Jennings pretty hard but was rather supportive of Thomas as I recall.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
Here (4.00 / 1)
If we want to help her win then she needs cash. Period.

No, she doesn't.  She doesn't believe in doing direct mail or TV.  She doesn't believe in fundraising.  She isn't going to run a modern campaign even if she gets the cash.  That isn't to say that things can't be done, it's just that it's going to take time and effort to do it for her outside of her campaign.

http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
Stand corrected n/t (0.00 / 0)


John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
There certainly are some mixed messages (0.00 / 0)
in that thread.  This one looks problematic.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Priorities (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, it's not clear why Thomas should be a priority if she's not actually electable. Maybe it makes sense, if we're just trying to send a message rather than get someone elected. But I'd like some clarification.

Edwards is a questionable priority on the other end. She's great, of course, but is giving to someone who's got a virtual lock on the seat really the best use of limited resources?


[ Parent ]
any thought about nonfederal races? (4.00 / 2)
Like state governments, city governments, county, etc.?  I know there are a zillion local blogs, and that's exactly the problem.  Without going to each and every one of them, there's no way to know who's running, who's good, who isn't, etc.  Given that local people can work their way up to federal races, it would be great to have some sort of coordinated way to know about them and to grow our own.

That's a good 2009 Project (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
I know I'm the first of many to suggest someone (4.00 / 1)
but NM-01, Martin Heinrich.  He's a great progressive in a district that has never gone Democratic -- even though the district has more Dems than GOP voters.

Also, his opponent, Darren White, is a huge supporter of Bush.

-New Mexico politics from the local perspective.


Exactly what I wanted (4.00 / 3)
I wanted some replacement for giving money to the DCCC & DSCC, i.e. some systematic way to support all the good Democrats in Congress, Democrats serious about universal health care, ending the Iraq war, etc. Can't give more than a little at the moment, but even a little helps, if enough people do it.  

Good ideas, and (0.00 / 0)
I've already given to almost all of these candidates and will go over to the page and leave a few hundred more, but here are some other suggestions.

In this post I mentioned several instances where the Dem candidates, if elected, would be replacing really bad GOPers or had an amount of expertise that would be a quantum leap in Congress.  Two were Darcy Burner and Tom Perriello, who are on the list, but others to consider are Judy Feder in VA-10 (healthcare expert) and Betsy Markey in CO-04, who, while she might be a New Dem, is running against gay-hater Marilyn Musgrave, and beating Musgrave would send a powerful message.  Judy, OTOH, is a solid progressive in a district that, while R+5, is trending bluer.

I understand the improtance of keeping Donna Edwards, but isn't raising money now for this fall a greater priority than building up her warchest for 2010?  Just asking.


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
I want to repost a suggestion that someone else has been flogging around here, (4.00 / 6)
albeit modified: a standing, permanent "Better Democrats" fund.  Something that the netroots, maybe even in conjunction with MoveOn, could be dumping money into all year long, all the time, every time something outrageous like FISA happens and we're all pissed and bitter and don't know what to do but give up.

I think that fund, without MoveOn, could reach 100k a cycle fairly easily if there was extensive buy-in across the netroots.  

Then, when primary season comes, you give all that money to the best candidate running the best primary challenge that year.

The decision process for how to award the money is the tricky part.  You'd need either to vest power in a named committee of bloggers beforehand, and make it clear going in that the power to decide rests with them, or you'd need a blog-and-vote process in which contributors vote on which primary challenger should get the money.  That last option could be contentious, obviously, if there are multiple excellent primary challengers, and especially if they are different in identity or ideology in some important way.

But, the payoff would be having a 100k bank account just sitting around, ready to be aimed at any congressman who truly, outstandingly deserves it, and who already has drawn a capable, for-real primary challenger.  Having a resource like that is like leaving a loaded gun on the table in the House; it's a constant reminder that this base really is capable of harming at least one congressman per cycle, and an incentive to congressmen to not be that guy.  

It also gives the netroots something constructive to do in times of total despair.

If a way is found to do this in conjunction with MoveOn or some larger group, that would raise the numbers and thus the seriousness of the threat by an order of magnitude.  A liberal club for growth is what's desired, and if big money individuals or the Groups (environment, labor, etc) were willing to play that would be nice too.  That's what "They Work for Us" was though, and that effort seems to have collapsed of its own weight.

You could leave out Labor and friends though, and still be absolutely rocking with netroots+MoveOn.  Those numbers would probably go high enough that you might get some high net worth individuals playing alongside you in a 527.  If that proves impossible, even just netroots and 100k would be enough for a small but meaningful and actual -- and everpresent -- threat.  Which is a big improvement over what we have now.


Shit, I meant to look up whose idea it was and forgot. (0.00 / 0)
It was Joel.

[ Parent ]
I'm in for this one (0.00 / 0)
Especially next year--eternal vigilance and all that.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
The problem with that is (0.00 / 0)
You are handing your funds over for someone else to decide who a "better" Democratic candidate might be. I have had to cut financial ties to some groups when I learned that they contribute money and lend endorsements in competitive primaries.

I'll give early and often to people of courage who stand up on their own and ask for my support. But I'm through donating money to the "Support the Charitable Giving Fund."

Imagine if you had contributed to the general OR-Sen fund only to see the DSCC candidate Merkley get along with a little financial help from his friends in Washington. Unless you intend to vote D no matter what, I can imagine you'd be regretting the earlier blind donation.


[ Parent ]
Once again, Cheryl Crist in WA-03 - (0.00 / 0)
y'all just don't seem to listen very well. Crist will join the Progressive Caucus as soon as she is elected.

Then there's her main opponent - one Brian 'Flake' Baird - who is just burying himself in this district. When we publicize his vote on the FISA capitulation, his support will crumble some more.

I gave money immediately for the Regina Thomas campaign, and I've given money to Darcy and to Donna in the past, but I'm done with y'all. I'm only giving time and money to Cheryl and to George Fearing in WA-04 against the waste-of-space Doc Hastings. I can't even get y'all to acknowledge Cheryl, so we'll just stick to our little local concerns.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?


Nope. (4.00 / 1)
But I'm the Secretary of my county's Dem Party, and I am currently running an e-mail debate among 300 members concerning Brian vs. Cheryl. Pro-Brian comments are 2 and sort of squishy; pro-Cheryl comments are 10+. By the time the debate finishes (pre-primary), we should have my county nailed down, because these are the active members who will talk to neighbors, etc.

Meantime, Cheryl is making converts at the Vancouver Farmers' Market, at the C.D.3 convention in Napavine, at the state convention in Spokane. Brian avoided both conventions, and is barely seen in person these days. And Cheryl is getting interviewed now as a legitimate candidate.

Plus - big plus - our primary is a 'top two' now. At this point there are also 2 Republicans in the primary race. One is a Libertarian, who will get 5% of the vote, for sure. (Hope neither of them drops out.) Point being, if we get Cheryl past the primary, then the real battle begins with two solid months of opportunities for Brian to sully his brand some more.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?


[ Parent ]
Keep pressing (4.00 / 1)
The Capitulation Caucus needs to start hearing the footsteps of this pissed off citizenry.

Try emailing mcjoan at dKos and doing a few diaries at Swing State.


[ Parent ]
Thanks. (0.00 / 0)
I will.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

[ Parent ]
Keep pushing paul (0.00 / 0)
She's starting to catch on. Giving up won't help her.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
No fear there. (0.00 / 0)
I'm just giving up on getting OpenLeft on-board. Basically, I was just saying that I'll save my money - and time - for the local campaigns.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

[ Parent ]
Good to see Jeff Merkley on the list. (4.00 / 3)
Gordon Smith really is beatable here in Oregon this year, but it's going to take a smart, energetic, well-funded campaign. All Americans, not just Oregonians, will benefit from having the woefully bad Smith out of the Senate and a solid progressive legislator in.  

Donna Edwards? (4.00 / 1)
Um, she's a congresswoman for life, almost certainly.  I don't see why she needs our money when she has the power of incumbency now, and no Republican challengers EVER on her horizon.

And "she will surely face strong, more conservative competition in 2010"?  Even if that were likely, we could always raise money for her then, rather than two years before the fact, when there are other candidates elsewhere who need it more this cycle.

The rest of the list is pretty awesome though.


Yes, Donna Edwards. (4.00 / 3)

She's likely to face Al Wynn 2.0 in a Democratic primary.  Since she's become the poster woman for progressive democrats, and since "Wynn" is now a verb on Capitol Hill, it's critical to protect her.  Remember, her district borders Steny Hoyer's and her very presence in the House sends a message about "Better Democrats". 



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq

[ Parent ]
Why do we think that? (0.00 / 0)
She won because Wynn was too conservative for the district. In two years he will STILL be too conservative for the district- no candidate with his positions would stand a chance.

[ Parent ]
Plus, she doesn't need the money now (0.00 / 0)
And all these, plus a dozen or so more, need the money RIGHT NOW.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Perriello VA-05 (4.00 / 1)
Wonderful to see Tom Perriello on this list. Though his district is far more rural than most (if not all) the others, he is really convincing the people in his district that he is the type of conviction-driven politics that will bring jobs and economic fairness back to his the poor sections of Southside. He's someone Open Left and all the netroots should be supporting.

How about "best possible democrat"? (0.00 / 0)
One thing that bothers me is the knee jerk reaction against Democrats from deep red districts. Not everyone has the skills of Nancy Boyda in her opposition of the FISA capitulation.

So while I'm disappointed in the votes of people like Travers Childers and Don Cayzoux on FISA, I shudder at the thought of primarying them.

OTOH, people like John Barrow, who consistently vote with Rs, in positive D districts, should get challenged. Go Regina!


Jeff Merkley (4.00 / 2)
Thank you Open Left, for taking a giant step forward in helping to elect the most progressive Senate candidate in the nation: Jeff Merkley!

Chris is spot on in naming Merkley as one of the candidates who will have the most impact once he's in office.  He's done it at the state level, bringing even Republicans along to pass some of the most progressive legislation Oregon has seen in over 30 years.


Need better photos (0.00 / 0)
That one of Darcy is dated - she looks much older now!  Also, no hats, please. What's the point of a photo that hides the face? Don't control that? OK. Neither do I so who in the unniverse could call the Burner campaign and ask for a better photo? Who could change it? Otherwise - very smart approach to our giving and supporting. Makes it easier. Thanx. I bookmarked.

Merkley just more, not better (0.00 / 0)
Merkley beat a more progressive candidate in the primary and is now rather beholden to Chuck Schumer for his victory--not a good start. And "better Democrats" don't lie and smear other Democrats in order to be elected. You won't see Jeff Merkley standing up in a group of four or five Senators to filibuster something, that's pretty evident.

Help us Optimize McCain! Use these widgets to make it crazy-easy...

Actually... (4.00 / 1)
Merkley beat a good progressive activist..and it was well known locally that both are good progressives.  Oregon won no matter the outcome--and that's the conventional wisdom here about the matter.

Torridjoe is wrong about filibustering as well. Not only has Merkley come out against telecom immunity (and has been since February--with a petition to both Wyden and Smith to support Dodd's filibuster), he's again today posted a diary at Kos about why such immunity is wrong.

Merkley has stood up time and again on issues here in Oregon. One of my favorites is from 2005, when Jeff went to the well of the Oregon House, demanding that the GOP Speaker follow the rules and pull a civil unions bill out of committee.  The Speaker tried to gavel Jeff silent..trying to bully him--but Jeff stood his ground.  The Speaker even threatened to have Jeff hauled off by security when he wouldn't stop speaking.

This man is a fighter and a leader for Oregon.  As a progressive activist and blogger, I can't wait for him to be my Senator.



[ Parent ]
That is flat out not true (4.00 / 1)
Merkley is one of the most progressive Democrats running for Congress. Merkley has been outspoken about opposing immunity for telecom and illegal surveillance for a long time now, and I'm sure that he'd be standing up and opposing this bill like he said he would if he were in the Senate.

BTW, Merkley wrote a piece about opposing the current bill, it's on the rec list on Open Left right now.

Novick was a great candidate and he supports Jeff Merkley for Senate. I hope that eventually you'll come on board.  

Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley


[ Parent ]
NY-13's Steve Harrison (0.00 / 0)
Steve Harrison was one of the original endorsers of the Responsible Plan, has spoken out against retroactive immunity, has been endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America,is running for the seat currently held by Vito Fossella, and was just challenged to a primary by Bush Democrat Michael McMahon.

Oh, and the DCCC endorsed McMahon. Yup, in a primary.

Let's add Steve Harrison to Better Democrats.







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search