Why aren't progressives issuing primary challenges to incumbants like Right Wingers are?

**Dinner** · January 6, 2010, 08:42

It seems like a pretty straight forward question. Every where you look you see hordes of pissed off arch conservative activists issuing primary challengers to incumbent Republicans they deem to be insufficiently ideologically pure; sure, this has back fired on the conservatives causing them to lose elections but the tactic has had the desired effect of making just about all Republicans tightly tow the party line. Compare that to the Democrats, who normally are as cohesive as a herd of cats, with positions ranging from die hard reactionary to down right socialist but there just hasn't been a single progressive primary challenge to any Democratic incumbents even as those same incumbents piss all over the party's base and routinely give them the finger. See the recent health care "debate" for examples.

Why is this? Why won't progressives ever stand up and fight while the conservatives always fight tooth and nail even when (especially when?) they know they're wrong? Are liberals just pussies?

**Dinner** · January 6, 2010, 08:46

Arlen Specter started his term as a Republican but it looks like he's easily going to win the Democratic primary while Blanche Lincoln basically held his own party's signature piece of legislation (which has been in the party's platform for over 20 years) hostage while he threw a temper tantrum trying to outlaw abortion. Where is the progressive sense of revenge? When are they going to grow a pair?

I mean, like the tea baggers, these primary challenges would likely result in some races being lost but also like the tea baggers I bet the remaining Democrats would suddenly get religion about listening to the party's base.

**Elok** · January 6, 2010, 08:53

Originally Posted by Oerdin

Are liberals just pussies?

Yes. Yes, they are.

**MrFun** · January 6, 2010, 09:20

Two Democratic representatives and one Democratic governor have decided not to run for reelection.

**Wezil** · January 6, 2010, 09:26

Are any Dems lining up for a shot at Pres in 2012? It looks like a serious contender will be needed.

**Kuciwalker** · January 6, 2010, 10:03

Because they wouldn't win.

**Dinner** · January 6, 2010, 10:06

As I said, like the tea bagger challengers, even if they don't win there is a very noticeable effect of having the remaining members more closely follow the party line out of fear of facing expensive primary challenges. The right wingers have at least accomplished that and I think it could work for the left as well.

**MrFun** · January 6, 2010, 10:24

Originally Posted by Kuciwalker

Because they wouldn't win.

yeah

**Theben** · January 6, 2010, 11:30

Originally Posted by Oerdin

Compare that to the Democrats, who normally are as cohesive as a herd of cats,

This.

Hard-line conservatives prefer authoritarian leadership which leads to group-think but also well-focused direction if such a leader is present. This also pushes everyone else into the democrat camp, including moderates, so of course you'll have many varied opinions of how things should be done.

As for progressives themselves, they do back candidates but they rarely get the needed corporate backing to win office.

**DinoDoc** · January 6, 2010, 11:39

Originally Posted by Oerdin

Blanche Lincoln basically held his own party's signature piece of legislation (which has been in the party's platform for over 20 years) hostage while he threw a temper tantrum trying to outlaw abortion.

If it makes you feel any better, Lincoln is likely going to loose her seat in part because of the vote made in support of Obama's health care reform.

Nelson's numbers aren't looking so hot now either but he's not up for reelection now.

**Boris Godunov** · January 6, 2010, 17:01

Lincoln might draw a primary challenge from the Lt. Governor, too, IIRC.

Dodd's retirement is good news for the Democrats, though. AG Blumenthal announced his bid, and he's hugely popular. Dodd was in big trouble, but now it looks safe for the Dems to hold it.

Nate Silver just released his early Senate picture, and he has the GOP picking up a net of 2 Senate seats. Of course, it's very early.

**Drake Tungsten** · January 6, 2010, 17:04

Does Oerdin really think Blanche Lincoln is a man? Her name is Blanche, for god's sake...

**Bosh** · January 6, 2010, 17:07

Lamont in 2006?

Also TOE line line. Aaargh!

**Boris Godunov** · January 6, 2010, 17:14

Lamont was successful, he just had the misfortune of running against an exceedingly disloyal Democrat who also happened to enjoy considerable GOP support in his liberal NE state. The GOP was also a joke.

Lincoln and Nelson wouldn't fair nearly as well in independent bids, I doubt they'd even attempt them should they lose their primaries.

**Drake Tungsten** · January 6, 2010, 17:21

Nelson really hurt himself. I'm relatively sure that he's already decided to retire after this term; his vote for healthcare reform makes no sense for someone planning on running for office again in Nebraska, but makes perfect sense for a longtime health insurance industry flack who's looking to curry favor and secure a cushy job after retirement.

**HalfLotus** · January 6, 2010, 17:32

The "right-wing" splintered because Bush made a disgrace of the country and the GOP. Perhaps if Obama bends over his lefty supporters a few more times, the Dems will spawn their own version of a tea bagger movement and have ideologically consistent challengers.

I would say the left doesn't have any platform as effective as the one the tea baggers use - namely, embracing the Founding Fathers of the United States.

Lefty Gaia worship tends to be the most powerful psychological driver of their belief, but that movement is falling apart in the US in the wake of Climategate and because of the economic costs involved in addressing the so-called climate change "crisis".

The left pushes its morality effectively with respect to certain issues (health care, etc.), but doesn't really have the spunk of a Tea Party movement which embraces the genuinely American ideals of great men like Washington and Jefferson.

**Ben Kenobi** · January 6, 2010, 17:38

Hard-line conservatives prefer authoritarian leadership which leads to group-think

Right, and progressives are all different from one another. Look at what happened when Republicans had both a majority in the house and senate. We had the gang of 14. It's clear to me that the Dims are far more likely to tow the party line.

**David Floyd** · January 6, 2010, 17:49

The fact of the matter is that Progressives don't win because they, by and large, can't win. The US electorate is in no way "progressive", or, for that matter, "liberal", when seen as a whole. The only way candidates like Obama can win is in response to 8 years of Bush - and it wasn't really Bush's politics that pissed people off, it was his results.

**Boris Godunov** · January 6, 2010, 18:35

Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

It's clear to me that the Dims are far more likely to tow the party line.

You don't get to call anyone else "dim," since you can't even get basic sayings like "toe the line" right.

**Boris Godunov** · January 6, 2010, 18:37

Originally Posted by HalfLotus

a Tea Party movement which embraces the genuinely American ideals of great men like Washington and Jefferson.

Washington and Jefferson would look upon the teabaggers with utter horror.

**Theben** · January 6, 2010, 18:50

EVERY group tries to tie itself to the founding fathers in this country, to add legitimacy. Hell, you capitalized the F's, Lotus.

We had the gang of 14.

That "we" being some Canadian group, I presume?

**Drake Tungsten** · January 6, 2010, 18:56

Washington and Jefferson would look upon the teabaggers with utter horror.

Why, exactly? Jefferson, in particular, would be far more likely to view our powerful federal government with utter horror...

**Boris Godunov** · January 6, 2010, 18:59

The Teabaggers aren't concerned about the powerful federal government. They didn't exist under Bush, after all. They're concerned about a black man being president.

**Theben** · January 6, 2010, 19:01

Close. They're concerned about the powerful federal government in the hands of a black man.

**Boris Godunov** · January 6, 2010, 19:02

And Jefferson would be horrified that the cause of limited federal government was being co-opted by such ignorant, hateful morons.

**Drake Tungsten** · January 6, 2010, 19:04

The Teabaggers aren't concerned about the powerful federal government. They didn't exist under Bush, after all. They're concerned about a black man being president.

Silly me for thinking you might be making a serious point. Lesson learned.

**DinoDoc** · January 6, 2010, 19:07

People who use the word "Teabaggers" don't have a serious point by definition.

**HalfLotus** · January 6, 2010, 19:33

Originally Posted by Theben

EVERY group tries to tie itself to the founding fathers in this country, to add legitimacy.

To some degree yes. But when certain folks, Obama for instance, use language like "new solutions for a new world", and call for "sacrifices" of "global citizens" he is challenging the traditional American view to individual liberty and national sovereignty.

Does anyone have evidence to validate the smears being heaped upon Teabaggers in this thread, or just typical poly trolling?

I'm not a huge fan of the movement, but it is encouraging that people realized that Bush era politics was not at all conservative and are moving forward with something a little more genuine. At least until the movement is fully co-opted by corporatist backers and their COINTELPRO operatives.