A common sentiment around here is that a Democrat can win anywhere, and I mean ANYWHERE, as long as we articulate what we are for. If we are proud of our liberalism, then we can win any race we try hard enough to. Many here obviously don't believe all of that, but basically, the message from everybody is that Democrats will be better off if they don't moderate.
Whenever a Blue Dog or Obama (although I am not associating those two) does something conservative that's not popular, and if they lose, we say the reason is because they pissed off the liberal base, and a common repetition, is Harry Truman's famous line, "Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one, the public will choose the real Republican every time."
Now, I know I may get some flack for this, but I doubt Harry Truman meant what you think he meant, if he ever said it at all. It's not that I don't believe people here, but it's because
A) That quote is constantly mangled and misquoted. Every website I find it, it's a different quote. That, of course, doesn't mean he didn't say it. I looked it up, and he supposedly said it at an Americans for Democratic Action convention. He was rallying the base! He wasn't giving campaign advice or saying what he learned. So even though he did say it, the context does not apply to the neutral political world.
B) Conservatives say the same thing about their party. Several conservative blogs say the polar opposite of what we say, that "Given a choice between a fake Democrat and a real one, the public will choose the real Democrat every time." Such mirror images of impressions about voters implies that Harry Truman's sentiment is no different from any other member of the political elite.
C) It's likely not true.
Did it ever occur to people that Harry Truman could be wrong about that? That sometimes fake Democrats do win? Look, I don't like DINOs, either, but that's because they believe what I don't believe, not because they can't win.
I can prove what he said was false. Think of your least favorite Democratic congressman right now. That specific congressman is a DINO in your eyes. Now, that congressman has won an election before. Sometimes many of them. After all, if they hadn't won, you would never be complaining about them. Therefore, being a fake Republican did not hold him back. If anything, it got him farther than he would have had he been a real Democrat.
So your idea that no Democrat should be a fake Republican because they'll lose rings hollow. If anything, being a fake one gets you farther. And it obviously works sometimes. Because if it didn't, nobody would do it.
Let's take for example, Blanche Lincoln. She lost in a huge landslide, with people saying that if she had taken more liberal positions, she would have won. However, she won the primary against a more liberal challenger, but that didn't stop liberal complaints.
Supposedly, supporting a public option would have helped her win. This is despite the fact that Arkansas is where Obama is very unpopular right now, and always was. She was also very unpopular, and John Boozman was very popular.
Now, there is SOME merit to this argument. You could argue that if Lincoln had helped liberals more with helping the economy, she would have been more popular because of the economy. But that's not what I hear all the time. If only we take obscure policy decisions that do not affect the economy will the voting margin shift substantially. This was taken as a sign that if you piss off the base, you lose.
But I don't know; she won twice before, and has the same voting record as her former colleague Mark Pryor. This website started fawning over him when that poll came out showing him popular in the state, despite the fact that he's a creationist evangelical, and I do not believe that creationists belong in the Democratic Party.
I'm not saying that you should just accept dissent in the ranks. I actually believe the opposite of that. But it is important to remember that being a "fake Republican" can actually help more than hurt. Of course, we can win anyway in other areas of the country, but that's another issue.
And here's how I know the conservatives think this way, too. I went to Free Republic the day that PPP poll showing Warren leading Brown came out, and they were dancing in the blog aisles that Brown would be gone. I read quotes like these:
"This is one race not to waste your money on. I am from WI and I wasted $100 on a contribution for rino Brown. The RNSCC should spend the money on the GOP leaning and swing state Senate races where we can get a decent conservative. Rino Brown will sell conservatives out at every turn and join some ‘gang’ with other rinos and Dims that will water down or thwart conservative initiatives. We need conservatives to turn back 0bama’s legislation, rinos just won’t do that."
"In spite of it being a PPP poll, the result is not surprising. Liberals with D after their name beat Liberals with an R after their name nearly every time it happens."
"Why vote for a cheap imitation when you can have the real thing..."
"Scott Brown seems to have infiltrated the R Party, when he is clearly just a Liberal/Progressive. Having a D winning his former position won’t cause the vote record of the Seat to change at all. It’s a matter of the count or R’s vs. D’s, and the vote margins."
"See ya later, Brown, you sick piece of sh!+. Good riddance.
I’d rather be punched in the face by an enemy than stabbed in the back by a “friend”."
Does any of that sound familiar? Yep, just replace a few of the words and you've got Daily Kos. Now, I'm not creating full equivalence here, but I am with this issue. When it comes to purity, activists believe that only purity wins the day.
So whenever a Blue Dog loses, it's probably more likely than not he's too liberal, not too conservative. Besides, why would someone too conservative lose to a more conservative Republican? And don't get me fucking started on the "enthusiasm gap". Democrats were very enthusiastic for a midterm; Republicans were just more so.
Besides, the enthusiasm gap went away after the 2010 election...right after Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, which supposedly destroyed his relationship with the left. So if I can take anything from this isolated incident, it's that Obama should be more CONSERVATIVE to close the enthusiasm gap. I don't believe that, but this event isn't proving me otherwise.
So really, we should spend all our time trying to root out conservative Democrats...but our excuse should be because we don't like conservatives, not because they lose.