|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 01:08 PM
|
|
TheWraith
Junior Member
|
Posts: 29
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-27-2011 12:56 PM)KonaKane Wrote: A marvelous opportunity for a real Democrat to fill that seat, if there is one in the region. Kerry is much closer than Nelson was.
Unfortunately, "real Democrats" as we'd like to tag them aren't very viable in Nebraska. More likely, we're going to lose Nelson--who voted with the Democrats almost 80% of the time--and get a Republican who votes with us 5% of the time.
Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Strongly favors requiring companies to hire more minorities. (Sep 2000)
Supports “Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws”. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
Opposes parents choosing schools via vouchers. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Supports spending resources to stop Global Warming. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on confirming of Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court. (Aug 2009)
Opposes privatizing Social Security. (Sep 2000)
Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/ben_nelson.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 01:06 PM
|
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
Hmmm, he wasn't much of a Democrat anyway. Of course this makes it more likely the R's will be able to control the Senate, which would be a disaster. Shame that our government lets relatively small population areas (Senate) and gerrymandered districts (House) control the dialog in this country. While it's good that the rights of the few are preserved, it's ashame that the wellbeing of the many is abridged as a result.
Confirmed, Fox "news" makes you stupid
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 01:49 PM
|
|
KonaKane
DFP Contributor
|
Posts: 2,437
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
That's an impressive list, but it sure throws a lot of smoke up around how Nelson voted on "key" issues. In fact, according to the Congressional Quarterly's annual vote study, Nelson earned the unenviable title of Senator Most Likely to Vote Against His Party. He voted with Democrats on just 54 percent of so-called "party unity" votes -- those in which a majority of Democrats opposed a majority of Republicans. Back in 2006, he voted with Democrats only 36 percent of the time.
He opposed key Democratic measures in the last Congress, voting with Republicans last year against the DREAM Act, the extension of unemployment benefits, and the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kaga.
I may be nuts, but I think we can do better. Even in Nebraska.
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 02:24 PM
|
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
The longer I'm here, the more Democrats I find, yet this place is soo friggin red. I don't know how this will work out.
I proudly support the President of the United States of America-Barack Hussein Obama
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 03:13 PM
|
|
|
KonaKane
DFP Contributor
|
Posts: 2,437
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-28-2011 02:51 PM)Treestar Wrote: What about Bob Kerrey? (I don't know much about him - another Nelson or a true progressive or what?)
Progressive? Not at all. While he would be the most obvious possible successor to Nelson's seat, ideologically I don't think we'd see much of a shift with Senator Bob Kerrey back in Congress. I'd call him another Democratic moderate, a little liberal on economic issues but pretty conservative on stuff like defense and foreign policy. Maybe even aggressive, and not in a good way.
He has a mixed voting record on economics, but to be fair it mostly favored liberals. His two biggest sticking points are one with policy and another about his own past. The policy problems involve his tortured relationship with labor, as upon becoming president of "The New School" he ardently opposed union efforts by the UAW to unionize adjunct faculty. He also unfortunately was one of those who voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which is almost unanimously agreed to as a main culprit for the problems created today by corporations running amok.
His personal problem has always been his role in the Thang Phong Massacre, an incident that occurred with his unit during his military time in the Vietnam War. That's too much to post here, but it's worth reading about.
All in all, he wouldn't be bad - but he certainly would not be what I called a Great Progressive Leap Forward in Nebraska. A political defensive hold position is about it.
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 04:30 PM
|
|
RoyGBiv
Auf Wiedersehen, adieu
|
Posts: 2,948
Joined: Nov 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-28-2011 03:13 PM)KonaKane Wrote: The policy problems involve his tortured relationship with labor, as upon becoming president of "The New School"
Don't EVEN get me started on that nonsense.
Quote:he ardently opposed union efforts by the UAW to unionize adjunct faculty. He also unfortunately was one of those who voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which is almost unanimously agreed to as a main culprit for the problems created today by corporations running amok.
Sadly, there are a lot of people who were on that bandwagon. It is easy for us to say what happened was bound to happen, and in fact a lot of people did argue this at the time. But in all fairness it was a difficult argument on its merits. Glass-Steagall and all that came after was designed to regulate markets that have changed entirely since the 30s. One argument in favor of changing it was that these new markets were engaged in the same behavior that Glass-Steagall prevented and thus made for an imbalanced playing field. Of course, if we grant that is true, there were two ways to go, and both Democrats and Republicans united to choose the wrong one.
That said, many of the economists and policy wonks who were so heavily in favor of changing GS have since admitted their error. I don't know that Kerrey is among them, but it's worth the inquiry. Even some really smart liberals screwed that one up.
“The first thing I do in the morning is brush my teeth and sharpen my tongue.” -- Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 05:54 PM
|
|
|
RoyGBiv
Auf Wiedersehen, adieu
|
Posts: 2,948
Joined: Nov 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-27-2011 03:27 PM)Treestar Wrote: That a more progressive Democrat can get elected - who can the Democrats run?
This is an odd statement. Without the assistance of the party and its resources, no one gets elected. This is what many of us in red states continually complain about with regard to the national party. The national party is not supporting leftward candidates and, at least with the House, often don't bother supporting any opponent to the Republican. They leave us to our own devices while the Republican national party structure pours money in here to make it as red as possible.
I think, rather, it's time for the national Democratic party to show it supports more progressive candidates by promoting and financing their campaigns the way they have with Senator Nelson.
“The first thing I do in the morning is brush my teeth and sharpen my tongue.” -- Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 10:40 PM
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-27-2011 10:04 PM)KonaKane Wrote: (12-27-2011 09:30 PM)Treestar Wrote: So do you think David M. Pantos wants to run and could beat the Republican candidate? But only if the national party finances the campaign?
I was the one who mentioned Mr Pantos, and notice I said "draft" as in, he was not offering to run. i just noted that he was a good candidate from what I could find out about him.
If the national party got over the defeatist attitude when it comes to these "difficult" states, no telling what wonders could be worked.
Hmmm, perhaps we could have something like a "50 state strategy" - that would be an awesome idea! 
Confirmed, Fox "news" makes you stupid
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 04:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2011 04:58 PM by Drunken Irishman.)
|
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
Unfortunately, I think Nelson is about as electable as it gets in Nebraska. He might not be an Obama Democrat, but he was instrumental in getting healthcare and the stimulus passed. Even though he 'only' voted with the party about 80% of the time, it would be a huge setback if he was replaced with a Republican, who would hardly vote at all with the Democrats and could potentially flip the senate in favor of the Republicans.
I've not been satisfied with Nelson on a great deal of issues, but even I concede, as a liberal in a red state, that sometimes you've got to grin and bear it when dealing with these politicians. They're not ideological purist, but they're always (always) better than the alternative.
Now maybe, hopefully, a more progressive Democrat can win this seat. But Nelson sees the writing on the wall and I think much of his not running is tied to the fact he realizes he won't win in '12 - mostly due to his healthcare vote. That's what sucks about these Democrats in conservative states. They vote for liberal legislation and often are voted out of office for it.
I know we'd like to think it was because they voted conservatively on some issues, and that, as we're told, voters will pick the 'real' Republican over the 'fake' Republican every single time. But it's also possible to assume that had Nelson voted against the stimulus and healthcare bill that he would've been able to hold on to this seat. So, in the end, what very well could have cost Nelson his job was actually voting for progressive policies.
That's the tightrope many Democrats (and the few Republicans left in ideologically different states) have to walk. Nelson successfully did it until he was put in the position to vote on policy that was proposed BY the president who belongs to his party. That's a game changer, really. In his first term as senator, he was only there in opposition to Pres. Bush - not casting votes for the winning side. I know that doesn't sound like a big difference, but I believe it is. Nelson was casting votes these last three years in radical policy changes - the stimulus and healthcare. Even today, the stimulus is thought to not be working and healthcare has its lowest support rating since it passed.
My guess, unless Bob Kerrey runs, this is a seat the Republicans win easily.
The fact is, Nelson only won comfortably as a senator once - in '06, when Democrats held a huge favorability rating over Republicans. In his first election, back in 2000, he won narrowly, by about 20,000 votes. In '96, he lost by 15 or so to Chuck Hagel, even though he was a popular governor at the time. So, it's definitely a conservative state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 06:09 PM
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-27-2011 05:32 PM)KonaKane Wrote: The part of the "unelectable" meme which has made my teeth ache the most in the past, is the part that provides a dynamic in which change has no chance to occur. It is the change killer, the dull hum that whispers "this is how things are and don't expect them to be different in the future".
Elizabeth Warren is bucking that meme in Massachussetts, currently. There was also a little known Black Illinois Senator who stood up to a chorus of those scolding that he was the definition of 'unelectable' - and became president anyway.
Change starts when we say to ourselves out loud "Yeah, this is possible."
Those states are worlds bluer than Nebraska.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-Sy8Wkw8RrZ-PS8QwfNa...lWPNPpUA2w]](http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-Sy8Wkw8RrZ-PS8QwfNabDPDkdUMzI-iTwtjGOZGcm7cAllWPNPpUA2w)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 07:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2011 07:42 PM by Drunken Irishman.)
|
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
Democrats can do better than Ben Nelson. That isn't up for debate.
Will they do better than Ben Nelson, though? That's the bigger question. I live in a state where we consistently throw up fairly progressive Democratic candidates to run against the locally established party and none have sniffed 40% - let alone a number needed to knock off a senator.
The problem here is that we're discussing a statewide race. Nebraska IS conservative. It's a state that Obama lost 42-56%. Yes, he managed one electoral vote, but that shows you just how conservative it is. Obama, in a change election, who had a great message and an opposition party coming off eight awful years, still couldn't make Nebraska competitive.
Even then, Obama's showing in Nebraska was better than Kerry's, Gore's (he lost 33-62% to Bush) and Clinton (35% of the vote in '96 and 29% in '92).
To be a successful ideologically different politician in these states that are heavily conservative, you need a few things on your side...
1) An already successful path of victory in the past. J. James Exon, Bob Kerrey & Ben Nelson were governors of this state. They had an already built in support they could rely on. Even so, as I mentioned, Nelson still lost in a landslide, while a popular governor, to Chuck Hagel.
2) A moderate record. I'm not saying conservative, but a record that will get you Republican support. Nelson, in his reelection campaign in '06, garnered 42% of the Republican votes.
In many of these states, Republicans outnumber Democrats by a great deal. Republicans outnumber Democrats 48-34 in Nebraska. That's a pretty big deficit for a liberal to overcome and win an election.
So, it takes us back to the original point: Nebraskans do deserve better, but can they get better?
I don't know. If you're a Democrat in Nebraska, to win, you've got to gain most of the independent support (and remember, independent doesn't mean liberal or conservative) and a fair amount of Republican support.
I'd love for more progressive Democratic senators. But at what expense?
That's just me, though. I'm not convinced a liberal, or even a pretty progressive Democrat, could win statewide there. Maybe I'm wrong, but the fact the last three Democratic senators from there have been moderate (Kerrey, Nelson and Exon) makes me question that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 09:01 PM
|
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
O'Donnell reporting that Kerrey is not ruling out a run for Senate.
Confirmed, Fox "news" makes you stupid
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 09:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2011 09:05 PM by Drunken Irishman.)
|
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
Not overlooking anything, I guess. Could be giving the senate to the Republicans, though. I guess that's okay, depending on your line of thought. I know many liberals who don't see much difference between this House and the Democratic-controlled House of Obama's first two years. If that's the case, you're absolutely right. We should take the risk and hope the liberal can somehow mount a successful campaign.
But from my point of view, I know just throwing up token liberals, or progressive firebrands won't guarantee anything. Rocky Anderson, as you've said a many of times, is a very liberal politician and he still lost by a lopsided margin to Merrill Freakin' Cook in the 2nd Congressional District here in Utah - a district that, since 2001, has been represented by Jim Matheson...a fairly moderate Democrat. In fact, that district currently is the most conservative district in the country represented by a Democrat.
It's also the only district (well was, since they gerrymandered it) a Democrat had any shot in and even then, it's still extremely conservative (McCain beat Obama 57-49 there and that was less than what Bush did here).
I know you want to believe that even the most conservative states will somehow rally behind liberal firebrands, but it doesn't always work out that way. If we have nothing to lose, sure, throw up a liberal and see what he can do statewide in Nebraska.
But I think you and I know there is a lot to lose. As much as Nelson pissed me off, he still put his butt on the line to vote for healthcare and probably lost his political career for it. That vote, coupled with his support of the stimulus, did him in there. So, I guess I find it hard to buy into the idea that Nebraska voters, who five years ago reelected Nelson in a landslide and now reject him for supporting Obama's policies, will turn around and vote for an even more liberal candidate.
Maybe they do...but that seems to be a mighty big if.
Are they going to run on supporting the healthcare law, which appears to have sunk Nelson?
It's a tightrope and I'm not sure a liberal can walk it. Some states just don't elect liberal politicians to statewide office. Utah hasn't. I can't remember the last statewide official who was a bleeding heart liberal. It certainly wasn't Scott Matheson, the last Democratic governor. It wasn't Cal Rampton, another Democrat, or Frank Moss, the last Democratic senator.
Yet that hasn't stopped the party from running liberal candidates like Anderson for congress (he lost), Pete Ashdown (he lost) for senate and Bob Springmeyer for governor (he lost). Sure, Nebraska is probably more progressive than Utah - but I wouldn't wager it's by a wide margin. Certainly it's still a solidly Republican state that has, since '64, voted Republican at the presidential level, has a Republican governor, a Republican (unofficial, since it is technically non-partisan) unicameral legislature (by a 32-17 margin), one Democratic senator (Nelson), one Republican senator and three Republican congresspeople.
Ben Nelson is the most prominent Democrat in the state. I'm just saying that sometimes practicality needs to be our goal here. Was Nelson really awful for Obama? No. He was instrumental in getting healthcare passed, got the votes needed for the stimulus and has, at least right now, kept the senate in the hands of the Democratic Party.
I know you'll agree a Republican in that seat will vote far more against Pres. Obama than Nelson. Of course, I get that ideally, we could get someone like Barbara Boxer in there.
But is it likely? This is high stakes. Playing it safe sometimes is the smart move.
If it's Kerrey or a sure loss, I'll take Kerrey every day and twice on Sundays.
That's just me, though. I'd love to be proven wrong and have a true progressive win.
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 09:35 PM
|
|
Treestar
Moderator
|
Posts: 2,823
Joined: Nov 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-27-2011 09:02 PM)Drunken Irishman Wrote: Not overlooking anything, I guess. Could be giving the senate to the Republicans, though. I guess that's okay, depending on your line of thought. I know many liberals who don't see much difference between this House and the Democratic-controlled House of Obama's first two years. If that's the case, you're absolutely right. We should take the risk and hope the liberal can somehow mount a successful campaign.
But from my point of view, I know just throwing up token liberals, or progressive firebrands won't guarantee anything. Rocky Anderson, as you've said a many of times, is a very liberal politician and he still lost by a lopsided margin to Merrill Freakin' Cook in the 2nd Congressional District here in Utah - a district that, since 2001, has been represented by Jim Matheson...a fairly moderate Democrat. In fact, that district currently is the most conservative district in the country represented by a Democrat.
It's also the only district (well was, since they gerrymandered it) a Democrat had any shot in and even then, it's still extremely conservative (McCain beat Obama 57-49 there and that was less than what Bush did here).
I know you want to believe that even the most conservative states will somehow rally behind liberal firebrands, but it doesn't always work out that way. If we have nothing to lose, sure, throw up a liberal and see what he can do statewide in Nebraska.
But I think you and I know there is a lot to lose. As much as Nelson pissed me off, he still put his butt on the line to vote for healthcare and probably lost his political career for it. That vote, coupled with his support of the stimulus, did him in there. So, I guess I find it hard to buy into the idea that Nebraska voters, who five years ago reelected Nelson in a landslide and now reject him for supporting Obama's policies, will turn around and vote for an even more liberal candidate.
Maybe they do...but that seems to be a mighty big if.
Are they going to run on supporting the healthcare law, which appears to have sunk Nelson?
It's a tightrope and I'm not sure a liberal can walk it. Some states just don't elect liberal politicians to statewide office. Utah hasn't. I can't remember the last statewide official who was a bleeding heart liberal. It certainly wasn't Scott Matheson, the last Democratic governor. It wasn't Cal Rampton, another Democrat, or Frank Moss, the last Democratic senator.
Yet that hasn't stopped the party from running liberal candidates like Anderson for congress (he lost), Pete Ashdown (he lost) for senate and Bob Springmeyer for governor (he lost). Sure, Nebraska is probably more progressive than Utah - but I wouldn't wager it's by a wide margin. Certainly it's still a solidly Republican state that has, since '64, voted Republican at the presidential level, has a Republican governor, a Republican (unofficial, since it is technically non-partisan) unicameral legislature (by a 32-17 margin), one Democratic senator (Nelson), one Republican senator and three Republican congresspeople.
Ben Nelson is the most prominent Democrat in the state. I'm just saying that sometimes practicality needs to be our goal here. Was Nelson really awful for Obama? No. He was instrumental in getting healthcare passed, got the votes needed for the stimulus and has, at least right now, kept the senate in the hands of the Democratic Party.
I know you'll agree a Republican in that seat will vote far more against Pres. Obama than Nelson. Of course, I get that ideally, we could get someone like Barbara Boxer in there.
But is it likely? This is high stakes. Playing it safe sometimes is the smart move.
If it's Kerrey or a sure loss, I'll take Kerrey every day and twice on Sundays.
That's just me, though. I'd love to be proven wrong and have a true progressive win.
In a case of the opposite, the Tea Party Republicans of Delaware prevailed and got Christine O'Donnell nominated, over the moderate Michael Castle, who they would have considered their equivalent of a "blue dog." It's likely they would have won with Castle, but they chose "purity" and lost big time - now a Democrat has the seat.
Don't know about Nebraska as I am not from there. But the left now has a chance to prove that a progressive candidate can win there. That's what they've been claiming all along, while celebrating that Nelson is retiring. Unless they are celebrating that seat going to a Republican, then that means they are given here a chance to prove themselves right.
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." Barack Obama
Is féidir linn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 03:52 PM
|
|
|
Treestar
Moderator
|
Posts: 2,823
Joined: Nov 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-28-2011 03:47 PM)KonaKane Wrote: (12-28-2011 03:35 PM)Treestar Wrote: This is what the left has been saying for three years. Vote them out and replace them with progressives. They have insisted on that over and over and never cared about the risk of Republicans winning in red states over blue dogs. Now they have a chance to prove their theory.
Outline for us the real difference...when the rubber meets the road....between a Republican and a Democrat who votes like a Republican, please?
Not the point. I said do the thing you've been saying. Get a progressive Democrat elected by Nebraska.
And you've been contradicted before about Nelson's voting record, but never mind. There's also having the majority, no matter how they vote, there are some perks to that.
But the point is, OK, run that progressive Democrat in Nebraska. I wonder if the people who've been saying that for three years are too afraid to find out they will lose to a Republican the fastest that way? But here is a good place to try it.
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." Barack Obama
Is féidir linn.
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 04:05 PM
|
|
|
KonaKane
DFP Contributor
|
Posts: 2,437
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-28-2011 03:52 PM)Treestar Wrote: Not the point. I said do the thing you've been saying. Get a progressive Democrat elected by Nebraska.
And you've been contradicted before about Nelson's voting record, but never mind. There's also having the majority, no matter how they vote, there are some perks to that.
But the point is, OK, run that progressive Democrat in Nebraska. I wonder if the people who've been saying that for three years are too afraid to find out they will lose to a Republican the fastest that way? But here is a good place to try it.
Perhaps you are confused about how our system works, but it's not up to me to "get a progressive Democrat" to run in Nebraska. That is up to the Nebraskans. I'm merely making a suggestion, something I believe will benefit the over all picture.
As far as Nelson's voting record goes, I corrected whoever said it was "80% with Democrats" when in fact according to the Congressional Quarterly, it was far below that and in 2006 was as low as 36%. If you care to read that, I'm sure it's online.
Back to my previous question to you - can you demonstrate the substantial difference between a Republican, and a Democrat who votes Republican?
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 04:00 PM
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-28-2011 03:47 PM)KonaKane Wrote: (12-28-2011 03:35 PM)Treestar Wrote: This is what the left has been saying for three years. Vote them out and replace them with progressives. They have insisted on that over and over and never cared about the risk of Republicans winning in red states over blue dogs. Now they have a chance to prove their theory.
Outline for us the real difference...when the rubber meets the road....between a Republican and a Democrat who votes like a Republican, please?
I think you need to set up exactly what you mean when you say a 'Democrat who votes like a Republican...'
Because I just don't see that with Nelson. He was obviously more moderate and conservative than a guy like Bernie Sanders, but in the end, he still voted with the Democratic Party almost 80% of the time - and on key issues that will define the legacy of Obama's president, healthcare, the stimulus, ending DADT, he voted with the party every single time.
A Nebraska Republican would've voted against healthcare, the stimulus and DADT, which was the case with Mike Johanns, who voted against all three of those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 09:07 PM
|
|
jaxx
Moderator
|
Posts: 18,562
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
A Snapshot of the Race for the Senate
December 27, 2011, 9:34 pm
A Snapshot of the Race for the Senate
By NATE SILVER
The electoral implications of the impending retirement of Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska are fairly obvious. This is bad news for Democrats, who were already going to have a difficult time holding on to their narrow 53-47 advantage in the upper chamber.
![[Image: senate_guestimate_Dec11.jpg]](http://d21c.com/SassyYank/Pubs2012/senate_guestimate_Dec11.jpg)
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...he-senate/
Well that sucks. We have 10 months to make sure we keep those seats.
![[Image: haironfire.jpg]](http://d21c.com/SassyYank/dc_5/haironfire.jpg)
The GOP conspiracies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2011, 09:45 PM
|
|
|
jaxx
Moderator
|
Posts: 18,562
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-27-2011 09:39 PM)Treestar Wrote: (12-27-2011 09:07 PM)jaxx Wrote: December 27, 2011, 9:34 pm
A Snapshot of the Race for the Senate
By NATE SILVER
The electoral implications of the impending retirement of Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska are fairly obvious. This is bad news for Democrats, who were already going to have a difficult time holding on to their narrow 53-47 advantage in the upper chamber.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...he-senate/
Well that sucks. We have 10 months to make sure we keep those seats.
Looks like we'd be better off trying for Massachusetts and Nevada. Let the progressives run their candidates in Nebraska and North Dakota - two chances for them to prove that a progressive Democrat would beat a Republican and that there is no point in supporting conservative Democrats. Then if they are proven wrong and they've handed those seats to the Rs, we still hang onto the same 53 total. MA looks kind of good, actually. Don't know about NV - can't be Harry Reid, because he was up last time.
I think we have a good shot at Mass and really don't know anything about Nevada politics, but it would be good to have that seat. NE and ND would most likely be a blue dog. But a Democrat is a seat towards the majority and we need to keep it. I am not sure if a progressive would win in any of those red states, but they can surely try.
The GOP conspiracies
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 01:18 AM
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-27-2011 09:45 PM)jaxx Wrote: (12-27-2011 09:39 PM)Treestar Wrote: Looks like we'd be better off trying for Massachusetts and Nevada. Let the progressives run their candidates in Nebraska and North Dakota - two chances for them to prove that a progressive Democrat would beat a Republican and that there is no point in supporting conservative Democrats. Then if they are proven wrong and they've handed those seats to the Rs, we still hang onto the same 53 total. MA looks kind of good, actually. Don't know about NV - can't be Harry Reid, because he was up last time.
I think we have a good shot at Mass and really don't know anything about Nevada politics, but it would be good to have that seat. NE and ND would most likely be a blue dog. But a Democrat is a seat towards the majority and we need to keep it. I am not sure if a progressive would win in any of those red states, but they can surely try.
The Nevada seat is that of Ensign's. Dean Heller, a Republican, was appointed and has said he'll run again in '12. This is a seat I think the Democrats can win, especially with Obama bringing some coattails to the race - he leads in the polls there.
If the Democrats can win Nevada & Massachusetts, that would help offset some potential losses.
That would give them 19 seats won, I think they'll still keep Montana, though Wisconsin is iffy with Tommy Thompson throwing his hat into the ring.
So, the seats the Democrats could lose will be Wisconsin, Nebraska and North Dakota. If they lose those three seats, hang on to the others and flip Nevada & Massachusetts, they'd only be -1 and still hold a very narrow advantage.
But that means they've got little room for error, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 01:11 AM
|
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-27-2011 09:15 PM)KonaKane Wrote: What's the huge advantage to the Democrats if you hang on to a Democrat that is part of a contingent that shivs this president on the key issues?
Not seein' it here. I think there are times when it's worth a forray into danger. This may be one.
On what key issues? Okay, he voted against Kagan, but that might've been a token vote knowing she would be accepted anyway. He did vote for Sotomayor, and, as I mentioned, supported the healthcare reform and the stimulus.
He has been a thorn, no doubt, but definitely less of one than any Republican who could theoretically win that seat. Don't forget that Nelson also voted to repeal DADT.
So, yeah, he was bad on some issues, but on key issues important to Obama's legacy, he's kind of sucked it up and voted, most of the time, anyway, for them.
I don't know. I'm just saying that a moderate Democrat probably has a better chance of winning the seat than a liberal, especially someone who isn't very well known.
But I get what you're saying and I agree in part...if Nebraska were a more moderate state like say, Minnesota or Wisconsin. Unfortunately, it's a right of center state and because of that, Democrats are already handicapped because of ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 12:20 PM
|
|
|
KonaKane
DFP Contributor
|
Posts: 2,437
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-28-2011 01:11 AM)Drunken Irishman Wrote: ....
But I get what you're saying and I agree in part...if Nebraska were a more moderate state like say, Minnesota or Wisconsin. Unfortunately, it's a right of center state and because of that, Democrats are already handicapped because of ideology.
Precisely. The neat thing about ideology is that it can be an instrument instead of a handicap. Nebraska is one of those states culturally "trained" to believe the worst about modern Democrats, liberalism and progressivism. They have been practically raised with the worst stereotypes of those groups in their heads. Yet ironically, they are the petrie dish for the triumph of Democratic values. They are a state of farmers and minimum wage workers, benefitted most by Democratic ideas.
It's like the universe is handing us a model for a turnaround.
So instead of crying uncle and begging once again for what we "think we can get" in perceived unfriendly territory, why are we not going on the offensive with some massive public education efforts and campaigns? Why not show Nebraska that they are actually a natural fit for Democratic ideas?
Why not use party resources to make a concerted effort to turn it a shade of purple, at the very least?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 04:24 PM
|
|
|
KonaKane
DFP Contributor
|
Posts: 2,437
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-28-2011 04:17 PM)jaxx Wrote: Holding the majority is prime. It means we control what goes to the floor, and we chair the committees. I'll take a blue dog any day over a pub. If the Democrats learned anything in 2010 it is that having the majority in at least one house is the only way to stop the pubs from enacting all their crazy bills.
Although, it didn't much help when the Blue Dog enclave in the Senate voted against Obama on Health Care Reform, stalled the DADT and DREAM bills in 2010, and on and on.
What's in a name? Not that much at the end of the day, after all has been said and mostly done. I advocate that we start the hard work of pushing the Democratic Party further left, toward progressivism, toward that big white word in italics at the head graphic of this entire site.
That is what we're here for, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 04:33 PM
|
|
|
jaxx
Moderator
|
Posts: 18,562
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
(12-28-2011 04:24 PM)KonaKane Wrote: (12-28-2011 04:17 PM)jaxx Wrote: Holding the majority is prime. It means we control what goes to the floor, and we chair the committees. I'll take a blue dog any day over a pub. If the Democrats learned anything in 2010 it is that having the majority in at least one house is the only way to stop the pubs from enacting all their crazy bills.
Although, it didn't much help when the Blue Dog enclave in the Senate voted against Obama on Health Care Reform, stalled the DADT and DREAM bills in 2010, and on and on.
What's in a name? Not that much at the end of the day, after all has been said and mostly done. I advocate that we start the hard work of pushing the Democratic Party further left, toward progressivism, toward that big white word in italics at the head graphic of this entire site.
That is what we're here for, isn't it?
I'm here to win. The Oval Office, the Senate and cut the House majority. Health care passed, DADT passed, DREAM is coming. It's much better to get what you can get than go away chewing on some principle.
What's in a name? The Democratic Party is not the GOP for one big thing.
The GOP conspiracies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-28-2011, 04:36 PM
|
|
|
jaxx
Moderator
|
Posts: 18,562
Joined: Dec 2010
|
|
RE: BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
Ben Nelson (D)
Senate - Nebraska - Up for re-election in 2012
Voting history
Votes with party
82%
of 234 votes
111th Congress
69%
of 689 votes
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congr...s/n000180/
The GOP conspiracies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection 
Post: #1
BREAKING: Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
![[*]](images/twilight/ndxdragns.gif)
