I see Charlie has fired up the more progressive leaning readers today. Here's my perspective:
I live in the state of Nebraska. Not that many years ago, we sent Bob Kerrey to the US Senate, and since then a more conservative Democrat Ben Nelson (remember the Cornhusker Kickback that delivered the final vote for Obamacare?) To our East, Iowa had Tom Harkin. To our North, South Dakota sent Tom Daschle and North Dakota Kent Conrad. As it now stands, it is almost unimaginable that a Democrat could win a statewide race in any of these states. Charlie, yesterday asserted that a Mandela Barnes nomination will mean six more years of Ron Johnson. Is he wrong? Couldn't a Democrat in the mold of Amy Klobuchar win in Wisconsin?
When I read Charlie's piece today, it's like I'm reading something entirely different than a lot of today's commenters. The question in my mind is what do the S.F. events mean for the Democratic Party brand in the minds of voters that need to won over to make the party competitive in many more states.
During the years of Harkin, Nelson and Daschle places like San Francisco and Seattle were seen as just as crazy and out of touch as today. They haven't really changed. So I don't buy that San Francisco liberalism is what caused Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota to start electing Republican Senators.
I see Charlie has fired up the more progressive leaning readers today. Here's my perspective:
I live in the state of Nebraska. Not that many years ago, we sent Bob Kerrey to the US Senate, and since then a more conservative Democrat Ben Nelson (remember the Cornhusker Kickback that delivered the final vote for Obamacare?) To our East, Iowa had Tom Harkin. To our North, South Dakota sent Tom Daschle and North Dakota Kent Conrad. As it now stands, it is almost unimaginable that a Democrat could win a statewide race in any of these states. Charlie, yesterday asserted that a Mandela Barnes nomination will mean six more years of Ron Johnson. Is he wrong? Couldn't a Democrat in the mold of Amy Klobuchar win in Wisconsin?
When I read Charlie's piece today, it's like I'm reading something entirely different than a lot of today's commenters. The question in my mind is what do the S.F. events mean for the Democratic Party brand in the minds of voters that need to won over to make the party competitive in many more states.
During the years of Harkin, Nelson and Daschle places like San Francisco and Seattle were seen as just as crazy and out of touch as today. They haven't really changed. So I don't buy that San Francisco liberalism is what caused Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota to start electing Republican Senators.