Gee, that's great, Chris.... (0.00 / 0)

So, based on current and past Democratic practice, what exactly does that get us besides the same old same-old with new guys in charge?

Sorry for the cynicism, but I'm a boomer, and I've suffered through too many sell-outs to hope that this-time-it-will-be-different. 

Sure, there may be some marginal change -- a decent social program inplemented here, a less-reactionary judge confirmed there. 

But the fundamental erosion of our constitutional rights will not be turned back.  The war in Iraq will continue on unabated and unchecked.  The myth of the GWOT will continue to be the driving force of American foreign policy.  Corporations will continue to buy legislators and legislation.  The utterly bizarre fantasyland that is our nation's capitol will continue to be as unconnected to the reality of the rest of the country as it ever was.

I wish I was wrong; I hope I am.

But experience tells me I'm not.

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

---

by: leftvet @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:14:55 AM CST

Too bad there's nothing you can do about it... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.actblue.c...
http://www.darcyburn...
http://www.donnaedwa...

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:52:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Candidates I gave $ to in '06 (0.00 / 0)

Jim Webb

Jon Tester

Claire McCaskill

That sure helped, didn't it?

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

---

by: leftvet @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:17:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The definition of insanity (0.00 / 0)

is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

---

by: leftvet @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:29:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In 2006 (0.00 / 0)

we were in the minority.  Taking the majority was important.  Now we are in the majority and making it more progressive is important.  If you aren't happy with the Democrats, give money to Donna Edwards and Mark Pera.  I guess it is obvious to me that supporting challengers to Democrats and out-spoken progressive Democrats is not "the same thing" as supporting Democrats in close races in conservative states.

But, hey, if you would rather just whine about it, I'm 90% sure we'll be able to get the country on the right track without you.

I agree, though, that the Senate races this year are rather disappointing.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 19:59:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sam, my friend (0.00 / 0)

If we were to compare politial activist resumes, I am 90% sure that mine would outstrip yours by a substantial margin. 

I'm not prone to whining, but I am prone to recognizing reality as the first step towards effectively dealing with it.

Good luck on your quest to "get the country on the right track."  Given the tack you're taking, you'll need it.

I'm also working towards that; I just have a different idea from you of how to get there.

For one thing, I don't need to insult you in order to disagree with you.

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

---

by: leftvet @ Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:48:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Apologies (0.00 / 0)

I don't know your personal history or credentials, and so had only your comment to go on:

"Corporations will continue to buy legislators and legislation.  The utterly bizarre fantasyland that is our nation's capitol will continue to be as unconnected to the reality of the rest of the country as it ever was."

I see now that perhaps that comment was meant to imply that there is some activity that could undermine or work outside the federal government which you would support. If you do think so, I'm surprised you didn't simply spell out that approach in your initial comment.

On a personal note, I'm fairly certain that you implied that I, or at least my approach to politics, is "insanity" before I said anything that could be construed as insulting.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 15:00:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you took my (4.00 / 1)

"insanity" comment as being personally directed at you, it wasn't, but I apologize if it seemed so.  I was just trying to make the point generally that "electing more Democrats" is not necessarily the answer to the problems we face.

As an aside, I had already contributed to Donna Edwards -- several times -- before our exchange took place.

I do agree that supporting progressive Democrats to replace corrupt DINOs is "part" of the solution.

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

---

by: leftvet @ Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 15:27:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Although (0.00 / 0)

not particularly representative of what I have done and currently do, this gives you a good perspective on where the "roots" of my political activism lie.

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

---

by: leftvet @ Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 16:38:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I would suggest (0.00 / 0)

Taking a look at everything that has been either vetoed or filibustered in 2007. That should give you a good idea of what to expect under a Democratic trifecta.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 13:00:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hitting on a great point (0.00 / 0)

Chris, your comment about Maine really hit home- I was asked the other day about why Texas wasn't considered a higher race on the traditional target lists... and just like in Maine or other states, the answer is in part because there are so many other opportunities this year.

One look at the Senate 2008 entry on Wikipedia will show you this outstanding table of where the political observers stand. Given the lay of the land this cycle and next, we can finally talk about real change (maybe even permanent change) with a true Democratic majority.

---

by: KTinTX @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:05:30 PM CST

But where will this get us? (0.00 / 0)

I keep comparing the 2008 potential pickups to 2006, and I'm just left scratching my head.  Our class of 06 senators can be split into a few categories. 

1.  Impressive progressives: Cardin, Sherrod-Brown, Sanders, Whitehouse.  All of these have had impeccable progressive records since being elected to the Senate.  Sanders has been quiet, but both Whitehouse and, to a lesser extent, Cardin, have exceeded my impressions.  Sherrod-Brown is commendable in that he has remained a progressive even though he's gone from a left-leaning district to a purple statewide office. 
2.  Netroots letdowns:  Tester, Webb.  I think people were expecting far, far too much out of both of them, though in general I think they're showing far more spine than moderate democrats in the past (Tester for example has a better voting record than Baucus). 
3.  DSCC creations from day one: Casey, Klobuchar, McCaskill.  These candidates were never, in any sense, "ours."  While not conservatives on all issues, we should not expect them to side with progressives in the power battles to come in the Democratic Party. 

When I look at what's to come, what do I see?

Mark Warner - Lieberdem
Jane Shaheen - Lieberdem
Both Udalls - More business-friendly Democrats.  I don't think they'd be the worst Democratic senators, but on the whole, I think they'll be no better than Ron Wyden.
Al Franken - May govern as a progressive, though he's often noted he considers himself a moderate.  Still, out of the top-tier, he probably looks the best. 

I don't know too much about the lower-tier candidates, but nothing about them excites me as particularly progressive.  Novick would probably be a great progressive, but there's already impetus to push him aside.  Noriega strikes me as another "Webb/Tester" like candidate - looks great now, may be his own man in governance, but won't be on our side unless it strikes his fancy. 

Honestly, I can't see a single credible democratic senator I'm excited to see win - when I can sincerely say I was pretty excited about at least four candidates in 2006 (okay, one was Bernie, which doesn't count but still).  Maybe I'm just getting more cynical, but I think a progressive majority won't be any closer, even if we hit 60 or 61. 

---

by: telephasic @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:09:52 PM CST

Tom Allen? (0.00 / 0)

Seems like a pretty good guy.

I think part of the problem here is that the movement is only a few years old, and so we haven't graduated candidates into positions where they would run for Senate, and don't have the kind of financial influence to propel a Senate campaign in the way we can push Burner or Donna Edwards into a seat.  Maybe one day Donna or Darcy will run for Senate, but obviously they have to make it to the house and make a name for themselves first, so we'll have a few years to wait.

The only candidate I can think of who has already made the jump is Scott Kleeb, if he decides to run for Nebraska Senate.

That said, having a filibuster proof majority makes a big difference.  Passing the Employee Free Choice Act alone (which I believe every Democrat you listed will support) would alter the American political landscape profoundly.  Of coures, any real change does rely on having a Dem president as well.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 13:15:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a primary in New Hampshire (0.00 / 0)

Governor Shaheen is not the nominee yet.  Former astronaut and current Dartmouth medical and engineering professor Jay Buckey is running against her. 

Here are Matt's Open Left pieces on Jay, and on Governor Shaheen including video of her supporting the Iraq War in 2002 and Bush's tax cuts.  And here's Joe Trippi's piece on Jay.

Shaheen was for the war.  She was a controversial Governor who lost a supposedly winnable race to Sununu in 2002.  Her negatives are deeply embedded and some think she may be the only Democrat who could lose to Sununu.  She does have the Beltway locked up though.

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination is probably going to defeat Sununu -- though given his defeat of her in 2002 Shaheen might be in the weaker position than a fresh face.

NH has a long tradition of voting for candidates with independent backgrounds.  Imagine how formidable an astronaut/Air Force officer/ Medical School Professor who opposes and opposed the war would be. 

In addition, who is going to be a better Senator?  I think the Senate could use more scientists and fewer career politicians.

This primary gives us an opportunity to debate what sort of a Democratic Senate do we want to have.

I think that when a Democrat takes stands against core Democratic principles, like Governor Shaheen did, there ought to be a debate.  Otherwise we get Democratic Senators who are ok with torture, vote for wars to protect their future political viability, and won't stand up against an administration that has clearly overreached.
 

Voter Genome Project

---

by: Ron Turiello @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 15:25:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pretty rare, actually (0.00 / 0)

Democrats will have controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency for only six years between January 1969 and 2009 (1977-1981, 1993-1995).  In all three of these congresses, conservative southern Democrats held the balance in the Senate (there were 14 Southern Dems in the Senate in the 103rd Congress and 42 "northern" Dems; there were 17 southern Dems in the 96th Congress and 41 "northern" Dems).

I suspect that the only time northern/progressive Dems actually controlled things was during the early FDR years (1933-39) and the first Congress post-LBJ landslide. 

It's quite possible we could have 51 or 52 "northern Dems in the Senate.  That is meaningful.Of course a lot of committess were headed by southern Dems even in these special periods(6 in the House, 6 in the Senate in the 103rd Congress).

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:10:20 PM CST

Looking good (0.00 / 0)

Even in places like Oregon where the incumbent holds the lead,  if they're drawing under 50% that usually's a good predictor of a loss.

I have no doubt some new seats will go our way.

On the other hand, I also anticipate other races will crop up involving incumbent Dems we're counting on right now, where they'll suddenly be in trouble.

Overall, and this comes from talking to people around the country, I think Dems might pick up a couple of Senate seats, enough to negate Joe Bleederman (I-Fubar), but Blue Dogs will continue to hold sway for one more cycle. And similar results in the House.

As long as there's a Dem in the White House, veto-proof won't matter as much. But it's 2010 when I expect the public will finally toss some Blue Dogs out, frustrated by their games.

---

by: Kevin Hayden @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 14:37:13 PM CST