home

Childers Wins MS-01 Race

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Blue Dog Democrat Travis Childers has won the special election for the MS-01 Congressional race. As a Democrat, I always prefer the Democrat over the Republican. As a progressive, Childers is not a very exciting win. He is anti-choice, anti-gay marriage and very conservative generally. So one cheer for a Dem winning. I save my two cheers for progressives winning.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Obamaland | There is No Nominee: On To The Five Remaining Primaries >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Childers Wins MS-01 Race | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'm Not Even Sure I Can Manage One Cheer (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:24:37 PM EST
    I'd almost rather a Republican than another Democrat who can be used by Republicans to claim "bipartisan" support of something.  Because you know that's all he's basically going to be - a Republican with a (D) after his name.

    Hypothetically... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:06 PM EST
    ...if he votes with the GOP 80% of the time, whereas a GOP Rep would vote with the GOP 100% of the time, that's 20% of the time that he's different. And that's 20% of the time bills that matter to America may go in a different direction than the one that's led us to 80% "wrong track" numbers.

    If you count yourself a Democrat and left of center there is never a time to not support a Democrat in a general election -- if you support the party's goals, that is -- as long as that Democrat will vote Democratic more often than the Republican candidate. It's nonsensical to object or qualify the hope that the Democrat will win. The time for fighting for the soul of a party is in the primaries. The GE is the time to win. That holds true for Republicans as well, in their attempts to get their party to do what they see as right.

    Parent

    Reality (none / 0) (#14)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:39:07 PM EST
    He is anti-choice, anti-gay marriage and very conservative generally

    That is a Republican in Democratic clothing.   How is that going to help push any kind of progressive agenda????

    Parent

    That's silly -- It depends on the district (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:21:28 PM EST
    I hear what you're saying, but he won a district that voted for Bush by a good margin and has been in GOP hands for 14 years. There is a calculus that needs to be done in every election about getting the most progressive candidate ELECTED.

    Parent
    I believe... (none / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:52 PM EST
    ...the Republican was the Klan supporting one.  You think he would have pushed a progressive agenda?  Or just an agenda to to push this country back a 100 years?

    Parent
    if your only defense is going to continue (none / 0) (#32)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:36 PM EST
    to elect the least worse (bad english here) it's ok.  But my point is that if that was the only thing we could put up to be elected we are in trouble.  Unfortunately the Democratic party has lately been content with just winning even if it is just putting another Republican with a D behind his/her name in Congress.  BTW as far as I'm concerned both of them will have an agenda to to push this country back a 100 years.

    Parent
    Real life.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:34:53 PM EST
    ...is very often a choice between the lesser of two evils...

    The job you hate, but has great pay and benefits so you can support your family versus a job you love but doesn't give you any security.  Or, for me, dialysis versus hospice.  

    Why would politics be any different?

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#26)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:53 PM EST
    Someday, check out the type of Southern Democrats we partnered with to get the Great Society programs passed.  Dems like this guy are a gift from the gods if you look at it in that light.

    Parent
    With the resurgence of Democrats like this (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:35 PM EST
    Republicans might be restricted to winning in Utah and Idaho.

    Mitt Romney, come back!

    Parent

    He campiagned on ending the (none / 0) (#53)
    by auboy2007 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:04:34 PM EST
    Iraq war and bringing troops home.

    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:17 PM EST
    Over at MyDD the cries of "OBAMA COATTAILS!" have already begun.

    I thought we had reached the pinnacle of silliness when they tried to credit Obama's "coattails" for Bill Foster's win, but this is several degrees beyond.  For heaven's sake, the guy RAN TELEVISION ADS saying that he didn't know Barack Obama and had nothing to do with him!  It takes a very special person to attribute this win to Obama.

    Short bus supporters. (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:38 PM EST


    Parent
    winning formula (none / 0) (#29)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:05 PM EST
    I think the argument would be that pro-Obama folks rallied to cause the record turnout numbers, and the "distancing" ads worked well enough on the anti-Obama folks to decrease the GOP margins. All in  all you can't argue with results, and this is one heck of a result. Not really attributable directly to Obama -- though his candidacy probably helped enthusiasm in certain demographics -- but certainly not a brake on any thought of Obama's November coattails. If they can reap the best of both worlds (pro-Obama and anti-Obama), whatever. Winning formula.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#34)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:15:40 PM EST
    In a deep-red Southern district like this, I assume an overwhelming percentage of the Democrats are African-American.

    But unless Obama ran an ad, did GOTV, something, I think it's going a bit too far to say that Obama now gets credit every time African-American voters show up!

    My real point is that "coattails" is a misnomer.  Obama probably helped Bill Foster get elected, but it wasn't "coattails."  Coattails means that the presence of your name at the top of the ticket helps the party in downticket races; helping downticket candidates get elected through celebrity star power is simply a different issue.  Obama campaigned for a lot of Democrats in 2006, and I'm sure he helped them, but it wasn't "coattails."

    Parent

    asdf (none / 0) (#37)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:18:53 PM EST
    I think Obama has a lot to do with certain demographics -- not just blacks -- in many regions being more energized and voting in greater numbers.

    But yes, on your definition of "coattails" it's impossible for him to have provided them.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:24 PM EST
    I hope you understand that I'm not just being pedantic by bringing up the definition of coattails.  The point is, Obama is a Democratic rock star who can help a candidate just by cutting ads and headlining fundraisers - but he could do all of that if he were simply Barack Obama, famous Senator, just as he was in 2006.

    Making Obama the nominee gets us the benefit of whatever traditional "coattails" he provides.  But all this other stuff, we get whether he's the nominee or not.

    Parent

    In Most Recent Elections (none / 0) (#51)
    by The Maven on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:49:56 PM EST
    perhaps that was the case, as the last two Democratic candidates took 24% in 2002 and 34% in 2006 (no Dem ran in 2004).  The demographics of MS-01 are 26% African-American, so given those percentages, it's reasonable to presume that most of those Democratic votes came from the AA community.  But it would be difficult to believe that in this special election runoff -- as well as the earlier race which Childers almost won outright -- those 26% of the district's population somehow accounted for much more than about half of Childers's total vote, unless their turnout was several times higher than that of white voters.

    Parent
    And this was also mentioned (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:40 PM EST
    by Jamal on CNN as proof of his coattails, lol!~

    anyone have a link to his ads dissing Obama?

    Parent

    seriously... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:46:50 PM EST
    I thought he stepped away from the coattails as quickly as he could in an effort to save his bid.

    Parent
    A Victory In Name Only (none / 0) (#2)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:18 PM EST
    So why do we care? Will he actually vote with democrats?

    More often than the Republican would... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:23 PM EST


    Parent
    there are repubs out ther (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:39:30 PM EST
    who vote with dems by the same percentage.

    Lookit, this is what the problem is: the guy is diluted the democratic brand.  What do we stand for anymore?  It's not quantity, it's quality.  How does it help us push through progressive agendas if he's going to vote against us as every point?

    Parent

    Those Republicans are NE Republicans... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:46:20 PM EST
    ...and this is a Southern Democrat. And I'd rather a Southern Democrat than a Southern Republican.

    And, just my POV, I'm not sure how much I align myself with the "progressive" agenda, and I'm not sure if I think such a thing actually exists in reality. I think I'm more conservative than most lefty blog posters on many things. So, that may be a cause of the disagreement on how to view these sorts of Dem victories.

    Parent

    Anti-choice and anti-gay? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:37 PM EST
    Ummmm.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:27 PM EST
    ...I say this in honesty and with complete respect, but I'm not really sure which part of my comment(s) you're oversimplifying here.

    Leaving out specifics (because they're irrelevant to this particular argument), the "progressive agenda" is obviously amorphous (progressives are like political Unitarians, sometimes), and in certain formulations includes strategies and policies I disagree with. I don't base my opinions on things based on something I feel is amorphous. And I don't support things I think are bad because better isn't quite good.

    Parent

    I'm with you on this (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:27:14 PM EST
    a bad dem is worse than a good republican.  At least we know where the repub stands.  What is the point of having these guys serve as a tick in the dem column if it changes the dem party into something that no longer represents what have been core dem values for my entire life?

    I suppose one could argue that this is Brazile's mythical aa and latte new dem party.  What a mess.  How many more values must we compromise before no values are left?

    It's like anti-gun activists taking over the NRA.

    Parent

    It matters for the votes that matter (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:35:04 PM EST
    You cannot whip a Republican, but you can whip a Democrat.

    LBJ was right, better to have them "inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in."

    Parent

    If he can serve as Gene Taylor does (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:21 PM EST
    then I won't have a problem with him.

    I'm quite sure that we can't do better in a district like this. Not for a few decades, at least.

    Parent

    My favorite was the democrat (none / 0) (#38)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:01 PM EST
    can't remember his name, who represented a district around Rockwall, TX.  He voted with the GOP over 95% of the time and always voted for the GOP for Speaker of the House.  A real winner he was  :-)


    Parent
    Remember: the most important vote that (none / 0) (#41)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:14 PM EST
    any House or Senate member makes: House or Senate leadership.

    Parent
    It's great sign for the fall (none / 0) (#3)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:29 PM EST
    assuming the Dems mutually assured destruction presidential campaign doesnt undermine it

    I suppose it matters because he (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:51 PM EST
    won despite the GOP trying to link him with the Rev. Wright, lapel pin or lack thereof, and bitter/cling.

    Nah (none / 0) (#5)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:40 PM EST
    He ran ads running away from Obama.  

    Parent
    Didn't Childers distance himself from Obama? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Davidson on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:37 PM EST
    I keep hearing Obama supporters pointing to this race as proof Obama won't hurt downticket Dems, but it doesn't prove anything at all since Childers publicly put some distance between himself and the "presumptive" nominee.

    Parent
    Smart fellow. Creative class. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:24 PM EST


    Parent
    He was also (none / 0) (#7)
    by cannondaddy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:57 PM EST
    attacked pretty heavily with Obama/Wright ads in a republican district.  

    A Democrat is a Democrat (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:50 PM EST
    when it comes to keeping control of Congress.

    Now we just gotta figure out a way to oust Pelosi.

    With democrats like these (none / 0) (#22)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:58:13 PM EST
    who needs a party?

    Parent
    One benefit from this (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:16 PM EST
    If there should be a tie in the electoral college, Democrats now control the the Mississippi House delegation 3-1.

    If they keep electing Democrats like this (none / 0) (#13)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:31 PM EST
    pretty soon there really won't be any difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

    As was said above... (none / 0) (#18)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:44:04 PM EST
    ... in terms of votes, a conservative Dem is better a conservative Repub. But he does give cover to Republicans who can point to defections and claim bipartisanship.

    Maybe we can trade him for Chris Shays?

    Big Tent (none / 0) (#25)
    by downtownted on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:52 PM EST
    Sometimes it looks like I am reading that there is a strict, carefully drawn litmus test to be a democrat. i would hope the party is capable of having a broad tent so we can embrace most American aspirations and not those of a chosen few.  

    One and one-half cheer (none / 0) (#30)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:31 PM EST
    This is the first of three special elections where the Republican was not properly described as a "deeply flawed" candidate.

    "Republican", a.k.a. "The Change You Deserve", is a damaged brand.

    In the South, ya' takes whatcha' can get. (none / 0) (#31)
    by wurman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:57 PM EST
    The Blue Dogs can pander to their base, but those issues never come to an up or down vote in the US House of Representatives.  He'll never vote on a judicial appointment.  Roe v. Wade will not be in committee or on the floor of the House.  "Advise & Consent" only applies to the Senate.  His choices on the pork barrel will be identical to all of his brethren & sustren--here's yours, make sure I get mine.

    There are 3 areas of discord: military budgets & war powers, church/state type stuff & a form of overall "thuggery" on human rights stuff that may come up in the House; i.e., immigration & undocumented workers are a prime example right now.

    Yeah this one is not for the Senate but (none / 0) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:30:17 PM EST
    if the party keeps nominating folk like this to races..... anyone remembers Zell Bryan Miller?

    Parent
    yuck, don't remind me (none / 0) (#50)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:49:50 PM EST
    his only good act was blowing up on Tweety and wishing he could challenge him to a duel  :-)

    Parent
    The Blue Dog is important in 2 ways. (none / 0) (#54)
    by wurman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:06:03 PM EST
    First, every representative who caucuses with the Democratic Party raises the percentage of Dems who are on the various House committees.  It truly is "the more, the merrier."  So Speaker Pelosi & Majority Leader Hoyer may get to add one Democrat to every committee in the House when & if the percentage climbs high enough.  That is very important.

    Second, it puts Speaker Pelosi that much closer to a parliamentary "critical mass," wherein she can simply shut down the GOP side of the aisle with an overwhelming number--remember Robert's Rules of Order?  The House has its own rule book, but the idea is that a super majority can just totally freeze out the minority.  When the Dems need a two-thirds or three-quarters majority, it may be available because the Blue Dogs usually go along with the gang on the procedural votes.

    Parent

    I know we're winning the south back... (none / 0) (#33)
    by dianem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:14:37 PM EST
    ...but it sometimes seems as if in order to win them back we have to give up what makes the Democratic Party special. Each time we win one of these seats, the power of our party seems to grow - but it doesn't really work, since the people being elected to these right wing seats vote as a bloc to block reform.

    Excited? (none / 0) (#35)
    by thentro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:34 PM EST
    Someone with a "D" behind their name won in a deep deep red district where Democrats really have no business. That is great news!

    Well I guess I changed parties too late. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:18:53 PM EST
    I might as well had stayed a Republican with Ideas like these.  Keep dreaming people and before you know it you will have no Party worth saving.  Heck and the you complain about Republican lite when you talk about the Clintons,  Whatever happened to principles or do the ends justify the means?

    Well I guess I changed parties too late. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:14 PM EST
    I might as well had stayed a Republican with Ideas like these.  Keep dreaming people and before you know it you will have no Party worth saving.  Heck and the you complain about Republican lite when you talk about the Clintons,  Whatever happened to principles or do the ends justify the means?

    One Cheer Works (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:34:10 PM EST
    BTD, I think you labeled it right...one cheer instead of two.

    Those that see a Dem winning in Mississippi as no different than a Republican winning obviously haven't been paying close attention to the Mississippi GOP. A Mississippi Republican votes with the GOP 100% of the time because the GOP isn't conservative enough for them but thats the only choice they have.

    Anyone that sees no difference between a Childers or a Davis is wearing blinders. A Blue Dog Democrat is far better than a George Bush Republican every single day.

    Pardon Me for Pointing Out (none / 0) (#52)
    by The Maven on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:04:28 PM EST
    the 800-pound donkey in the room, but isn't this kind of race exactly what one would expect to see as the result of the Howard Dean 50-state strategy?  The purpose of that was supposedly to get the organization into place so that Democrats could successfully mount challenges in every corner of the country.  In fact, if I recall correctly, Paul Begala specifically derided Dean's plan in 2006 by saying, "What he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose."  Maybe some of those nose-pickers got lucky tonight.

    (And no, I'm not trying to suggest that Childers is going to be wonderful, but he'll be vastly better than Greg Davis.  In deep-red districts such as this, I'll take whatever we can get.  Maybe with time, Childers will move consistently to the left.  One can always hope . . .)

    My understanding (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:10:04 PM EST
    is that Childers was an establishment good ol' boy with a history of winning elections in N. Mississippi.

    This isn't about having boots on the ground, this is about the localization of an election.

    Parent

    Childers Wins MS-01 Race | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment