12th July 2018, 11:18 PM
Fortunately, even the most conservative Democrats in the Senate vote with the Dems a whole lot more than any potential Republican who would replace them would. And that's what people do wrong when they focus too much on the votes Manchin and such take against the Dems -- most of the time he votes with his party, and any Republican in that seat would have a VERY different voting record.
On the Senate side, there are ten Democrats in the Senate running for re-election in states Trump won. These people are already Senators, so I don't think it would make any sense at all to primary them and throw away any incumbent advantage they have in favor of a "purer" candidate who would be much less likely to win. Now, how likely are they to win? Polling is sparse, but in what polling there is, most are currently favored. Going by the polls I've seen so far, we could well go 7-3 in those ten races, or better if we're lucky. The most endangered Democrats are the ones in Indiana, North Dakota, and Florida, it seems, followed by Missouri.
As for offense, there are only four target states, and one, Texas, is an extremely unlikely edge case. The real targets are Arizona and Nevada, with Tennesee as a "we hope that maybe it could actually go well" race and Texas as, well, a very unlikely one worth the try anyway because beating Ted Cruz would be fantastic. Texas is the only one of these races I'd say we are "probably going to lose anyway". There are going to be a lot more races like that at the US House and state levels, though, of course, lots of races in very red districts often against incumbents, and I'm sure some here and there have farther-left candidates... not that many are likely to win, but we can hope!
But anyway, candidates are chosen by primaries, so if the people of those states wanted far-left candidates they'd win... but they don't, most of the time, except for in more liberal districts like the one in New York recently. Candidates aren't "allowed" to win anymore, like they were back when candidates were chosen in back rooms it's up to the voters.
I agree that there are plenty of more liberal issues that need to get more normalized in this country though, and doing so is hard, yes. It needs to happen, and some of the liberal movement we're seeing now, with voter enthusiasm way up on the left and lots of people running for races in an off year, is quite promising. But right now, facing the deficit we are, we need to win first, and attack other liberals less... the left is very good at infighting, unfortunately...
Quote:I feel like Democrats are doomed to the margins in red states as long as they believe that a failure rate >0% makes a strategy acceptable. There is such extreme reluctance to even try anything different that it makes the party seem to find failure acceptable and that they are content with their second-place status. If you're going to lose an election anyway, at least take the opportunity to display some principles and help normalize left-wing policies by giving them a visible platform especially on economic issues. It won't work right away, but there's no other way to ever effect real change, and the current strategy of being Republican-lite is objectively futile.
Conservative Democratic candidates in red states should only be allowed to run when their overall chance of winning is strong. Keeping a seat out of Republican hands is the only purpose they serve anyone, so they should be sent packing if they do not pose a legitimate threat to do so.
On the Senate side, there are ten Democrats in the Senate running for re-election in states Trump won. These people are already Senators, so I don't think it would make any sense at all to primary them and throw away any incumbent advantage they have in favor of a "purer" candidate who would be much less likely to win. Now, how likely are they to win? Polling is sparse, but in what polling there is, most are currently favored. Going by the polls I've seen so far, we could well go 7-3 in those ten races, or better if we're lucky. The most endangered Democrats are the ones in Indiana, North Dakota, and Florida, it seems, followed by Missouri.
As for offense, there are only four target states, and one, Texas, is an extremely unlikely edge case. The real targets are Arizona and Nevada, with Tennesee as a "we hope that maybe it could actually go well" race and Texas as, well, a very unlikely one worth the try anyway because beating Ted Cruz would be fantastic. Texas is the only one of these races I'd say we are "probably going to lose anyway". There are going to be a lot more races like that at the US House and state levels, though, of course, lots of races in very red districts often against incumbents, and I'm sure some here and there have farther-left candidates... not that many are likely to win, but we can hope!
But anyway, candidates are chosen by primaries, so if the people of those states wanted far-left candidates they'd win... but they don't, most of the time, except for in more liberal districts like the one in New York recently. Candidates aren't "allowed" to win anymore, like they were back when candidates were chosen in back rooms it's up to the voters.
I agree that there are plenty of more liberal issues that need to get more normalized in this country though, and doing so is hard, yes. It needs to happen, and some of the liberal movement we're seeing now, with voter enthusiasm way up on the left and lots of people running for races in an off year, is quite promising. But right now, facing the deficit we are, we need to win first, and attack other liberals less... the left is very good at infighting, unfortunately...