|
This belongs to you. Take it back...
|
Netroots 
Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:29:55 AM EST
|
Kos posted this on Daily Kos:
There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:
1.If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.
2.If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
3.If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.
Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.
I actually think the problem isn't related to any of that. You can't look at local and state elections through a national prism. As a friend said about NY-23, everyone in the nation can talk about health care, but they are talking about jobs (up there).
You have to start with the candidates. Jon Corzine was weak. His popularity was not there and he was suffering similar to how Governor David Paterson is struggling. In these tough economic times, it is hard to be governor of a state. States and municipalities are feeling the heat of the economic recession. As a result, voters feel the need to change things.
Virginia was odd. It reminded me of NY-26 in a way. Here you have Creigh Deeds (Alice Kryzan in NY-26) winning the Democratic primary by surprise only to lose the general election. Deeds didn't poll particularly well at all throughout the race, so his loss was expected. When that is the case, who is going to get excited about that?
The three points Kos came up with are great for a House or Senate race, but not for a gubernatorial race or for other local and state races. We are talking about a whole other set of issues. Instead of health care, we are talking budget cuts. Instead of Blue Dogs, we are worried about the Hiram Monserrates and Pedro Espadas of the world who seek to throw a legislature into disarray.
It does not surprise me that a national blogger has such a take on a state-level race. While I think the issues listed are important, I think they aren't relevant to Corzine or Deeds. We lost New Jersey because of the economic state of the state. We lost Virginia because the candidate that won the Democratic primary was running second the whole race. States are facing tough times right now. We know that in New York and no other state is closer to New York in terms of issues like New Jersey is. We can relate. And we see New Jersey as a red flag for our own elections in 2010.
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
Wed May 07, 2008 at 14:45:54 PM EDT
|
(Thanks to Paul for crossposting this. I was hoping to post my own response last night, but got carried away with other work. I'll be posting my own thoughts about this later today. - promoted by phillip anderson)
Cross posted from Open Left:
Dan Cantor's response to BlogPAC's endorsement of my campaign to unseat NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver fundamentally, even willfully, misses the point. I could not allow it to go unrebutted.
First let me say that I have great respect for the Working Families Party, and I intend to ask for their endorsement. WFP has, by in large, been a force for progressive change in New York State. I have disagreed with a number of WFP decisions -in particular their support for conservative Republican State Senators. I recognize, however, that the WFP is trying to use its influence as wisely as possible in an impossibly corrupt Albany and that they do so with the interests of poor and working New Yorkers in mind. Often, this requires supporting the status quo to maintain a foot in the (generally closed) door. It is in this spirit that I read Mr. Cantor's critique on my campaign. I do not agree with the strategy, but I do understand and respect it.
However, to say that "an attack on [Silver] from the left is, well, intellectually shallow and politically naive" is, while anything but naïve, intellectually dishonest.
More on the flip...
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 1060 words in story)
|
|
Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 16:27:26 PM EDT
|
(Very cool. - promoted by phillip anderson)
Pardon the interruption for some Netroots politicking.
I'm looking far and wide on the Web for Democrats and other progressives and liberals from Rockland County. I'd like to introduce them to two new tools at their disposal, the local Democratic Committee's Web site and a Facebook page for social networking.
If you're from Rockland County, please read on:
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 462 words in story)
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 13:00:09 PM EST
|
|
And you should read it.
Memo to the Netroots on Immigration
Memo
TO: The Netroots
FROM: Elana Levin
The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy
DATE: December 4, 2007
RE: Immigration and the blogosphere
The problem:
America's current immigration policy is clearly unacceptable to the general public, immigrant rights activists, immigration opponents and organized labor. Even corporations are dissatisfied with the status quo, even if for their own profit-driven reasons. There is a consensus that reform is needed but there is no consensus on what that reform should look like. At the same time, the status quo of maximum noise with minimum action is a political strategy for a certain segment of the organized right wing. The netroots can play a critical role on this issue by facilitating a conversation that will lead to increased political will for a progressive immigration policy that will benefit America's squeezed middle class and all those struggling to become middle class.
Many progressive and centrist politicians and political influencers have, until recently, chosen to either remain silent on the need for comprehensive immigration reform or confine their speech to statements supporting an increase in border control only. Local elections across the nation have shown that anti-immigrant demagogy does not win elections despite the public's concerns about the issue. Yet political leaders continue to advise progressives running for office to regard immigration policy as a "third rail" that should not be touched.
The current state of the debate on immigration policy is entirely unproductive and the relative silence of progressive movement voices has, and will continue, to contribute greatly to the lack of vision and unity on this issue. Treating immigration as a cause to support or attack for the sake of political expediency will not lead to an immigration policy that will strengthen and expand the middle class.
You really should go read the whole thing.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:08:55 AM EST
|
|
Last week I was contacted by John DeSio who wanted to write a column for New York PRESS on the Netroots in New York.
He asked me some questions and the result is:
Old vs. New Politics
It took a few years for the national party apparatus on both the left and the right to take the "netroots" seriously. Now they have become their own electoral machine. What used to be dismissed as a nuisance has become a serious threat to the power of the satiated incumbency. That movement has now landed in New York. Will Silver and his ilk take it seriously? Maybe not now, said Keeler, but their eventual wake-up call might be too late. "I think that is changing," said Keeler of the "netroots" perception in New York, "and those who don't will find themselves regretting it, I'm sure."
Albany, you've been warned.
BTW, hat tip to Blue Tiger Group for all the support they are providing for TAP. Many thanks.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
