House Dem: Liberal groups need to back off for party to win in 2012
Liberal groups need to stay out of Democratic primaries if the party is going to retake the House majority, according to a conservative Massachusetts Democrat.
Rep. Stephen Lynch was one of several Democrats who faced an aggressive primary challenge from the left in 2010. His challenger Mac D’Alessandro, a former top official with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), received almost $300,000 from labor groups for his campaign.
Clearing primaries for members and discouraging liberal groups from spending against incumbents should be a priority for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said. “It would definitely help, I think. You need to talk to those groups.”
FTW comment goes to somebody named “John Puma”:
Great, another “we can only win by NOT distinguishing ourselves from the GOP” idiot.
If you think Lynch is a lone-nut think again. They may not admit it publicly but his pro-incumbent beliefs are widely shared on both sides of the aisle in Washington.
Look at what happened last year on the GOP side – Tea Partiers aggressively challenged incumbents in the Republican primaries, winning many of the contests. Most of those challengers went on to win in the Republican tsunami last November.
But the Village Idiots focused on a few races (like Delaware and Nevada) to argue that the Tea Party cost the Republicans several seats and possibly the Senate majority.
Speaking of idiots, let’s check in with Booman:
I think it is safe to say that progressives did not cause the loss of a single seat in Congress through the use of primary challenges to incumbents or moderate candidates. But that isn’t stopping some people from whining.
What? That actually makes sense. Has Booman finally seen the light?
It’s possible to screw things up by adopting unrealistic purity tests. We all saw that happen with the Tea Party. But it didn’t happen on our side. We lost almost every single competitive contest in the country, regardless of funding, the quality of the candidate, the campaign strategy, or the quality of the opponent. We lost because our base didn’t turn out and their base did. It’s that simple. Under the circumstances, nothing in the known universe could have saved Blanche Lincoln, or countless other backstabbers. But voting progressive wouldn’t have saved them either. In the last election cycle, the only thing that could have mitigated disaster would have been something that created real fear or real excitement in our base. Individual candidates had no control over that. As for excitement, our opinion leaders were too busy nit-picking to do anything but crush what little excitement that might have existed.
Sometimes, it’s just not your cycle.
Okay, there’s the Booman we all know.
“Our” base didn’t turn out because they were disgusted with the 2% less evil DINOcrats. And now Obama is signaling he plans to take a hard right turn for the next two years.