Monday, November 12, 2007



Bush Regime mouthpiece/right-wing propaganda sheet Weekly Standard is trying to bolster a counterintuitive notion that the GOP is not dead yet by quoting Democratic pollster Stu Rothenberg. Rothenberg acknowledges that the NRCC has some reason to be hopeful that they can minimize House losses by winning back a handful of seats that Democrats captured in deeply red districts. Rothenberg lists 5 as problematic for the Democrats.
Of them, a handful stand out because of their fundamentally Republican nature. Rep. Nick Lampson’s Texas district is horrible for Democrats, and that’s why he probably is the single most endangered Democrat who won in 2006. Yes, the Republican field has evolved in such a way that it now lacks big-name local officeholders, but that doesn’t change Lampson’s dubious prospects.

Reps. Nancy Boyda (Kan.), Christopher Carney (Pa.), Tim Mahoney (Fla.) and Jerry McNerney (Calif.) probably round out the top five ‘06 Democratic takeovers who are now vulnerable to a snapback...

If you examine the Progressive Punch rankings of every Democrat in the House you find Lampson way at the bottom of the barrel, far more likely to vote with the GOP than all but 3 reactionary Dixiecrats, John Barrow (GA), Gene Taylor (MS) and Jim Marshall (GA). Lampson's the 4th worst; not very inspiring for Democrats to go out and vote or to volunteer. But is it enough to convince actual Republicans to vote for him?

Chris Carney finds himself in a similar situation-- very red district, very Republican-friendly voting record that antagonizes every Democratic constituency except die-hard partisans who just want someone with a "D" next to their name, regardless how he votes on crucial values issues. Carney not only has a decidedly reactionary voting record, he has also developed a reputation for dishonesty and political expediency.

Tim Mahoney isn't even really a Democrat. Last year when Rahm Emanuel decided to take out hypocritical Republican closet queen/child predator Mark Foley, he found a wealthy countryclub Republican, Mahoney, convinced him to switch his party registration and run as a Democrat. In return Emanuel and Hoyer and their puppets at the pathetic excuse for a Florida Democratic Party knifed an anti-war grassroots progressive, Dave Lutrin, in the back so that Mahoney the Republican would have no opposition in a Democratic primary, and then made sure the Foley news was timed just right for an electoral win, Since coming to Congress Mahoney has supported the Bush Regime far more frequently than almost any other freshmen Democrats.

Nancy Boyda and Jerry McNerney have both racked up moderate voting records that reflect their red-leaning moderate districts. Each has a reputation in their district as a popular political straight-shooter and, although the DCCC is clueless about how to operate-- or even read-- either district, both seats are probably safe. Boyda was smart enough to tell the DCCC to keep out of her race altogether and let her do it on her own, the way she did last time. If McNerney is in trouble at all, with I doubt, it is because he has alienated his own personal core supporters in the progressive activist base. By burnishing his moderate credentials he may have lost many of his most avid volunteers and the goodwill of bloggers and activists but he has endeared himself to independents and moderate Republicans in the district and his seat looks far safer than freshmen who have chalked up truly reactionary voting records, particularly Lampson and Carney, the two Democrats I would bet will lose next year.

Labels: , , , , ,


At 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stu Rothenberg is not a Democratic pollster.

At 3:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm beginning to think that supporting good candidates at the primary level (often contrary to the efforts of the national party) might be the best use of contribution money.

The primaries are where our values are really won and lost. If a Bush dog gets nominated by the Dems, we've lost, because we'll get a republican either way in the general.

OTOH, if we get a liberal nominated, the national party is pretty much stuck with supporting that candidate. Let them do the heavy lifting. It'll serve them right for all the times they've screwed the country.

The primaries are where to put the effort. After all, we don't care that much about "party"; we care about what kind of country we're going to have.

Who knows, maybe sometimes it would be worth the trouble to support a candidate in the republican primary!

This seems to me the best way to get rid of scum like Pelosi and Feinstein, and all the other Bush-enablers.

And wouldn't it be gratifying - and helpful to the country - if you could get Chris Carney defeated in the primary?

Even if that resulted in a repub winning the general, have we really lost anything? No, I think we're still ahead.

At 6:17 PM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

Very few reactionary Democrats have primary opponents. That's why we are pushing so hard for the ones that do-- like Donna Edwards who is trying to end the shameful political career of Al Wynn in Maryland and Mark Pera who is surging against Dan Lipinski in Illinois. There's also an open seat in IL-14 and we are backing John Laesch against an Emanuel-backed Blue Dog named Bill Foster.

At 8:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Very few reactionary Democrats have primary opponents."

That can be changed, I'm sure, with enough money.

And it should be too, because I'd bet that in cases like that, where the only choice is between a repub and a DINO, no other opinions are ever heard in public. That really needs to happen, even if the candidate eventually loses.

Get the word out, and sooner or later, liberals will stop losing. Most people fundamentally agree with liberal positions on most issues. They just don't know it, don't attach the word "liberal" to any of their opinions.

"That's why we are pushing so hard for the ones that do-"


Thanks for all the work you do.


Post a Comment

<< Home