(cross-posted at soapblox/chicago

i have a checkered past.  it's almost surprising to me when i come across someone (like carolyns at the recent dfa training) who's unaware.

i mention this because i have a pretty rote reply to comments like this one: Welcome to 1968, when anti-war Democrats threw the baby out with the bath water.  i'm simply amazed that people who claim loyalty to the democratic party are so quick to defend the middle as if having an ideological base is a bad thing.

so i always ask: what's wrong with democrats?  why is it that people assume that democrats can't win with ideological candidates when republicans having been doing so successfully since 1978?

let's be honest: i'm biased.  i've been electing ideological candidates -- and people who run against ideological candidates -- since 1980.  i believe that anyone can win, as long as they are willing to make the sacrifices required to do so.  it's the latter part of the equation that most people fall down on.

i don't believe that most voters -- an overwhelming majority -- care about things like ideology.  their concerns are much more simple: what can you do for me?  do you have a plan for solving these problems?  the issues they care about are ones we commonly call kitchen table issues.

so when i hear the media (et al) say that a ned lamont can't win because he'll drag the party over to the left, i scoff.  if you want to tell me that republicans are better, smarter, more committed, whatever, go right ahead.  because there's really no other explanation.  voters don't care.  the only people who care are those who want their ideological position (and centrism is an ideological position) to win.

that's ok.  but let's not assume that candidates running from the ideological extremes can't win in this country.  republicans have done nothing but prove that assertion wrong.

republicans didn't exactly start out this way.  much the same thing was said to movement conservatives after 1964.  but there is a difference: movement conservatives came away from that experience with the determination to learn how to win.  conservatives weren't prepared to sacrifice their goals and values in order to win, so they looked for strategies and tactics that would allow them to compete almost anywhere in this country.

and now they do.  granted, this was only the first step.  as they learned these strategies and tactics (which we can broadly reduce to (field/gotv) organization, fundraising, and aggressive messaging) they became committed to teaching them to conservative activists.  yes, conservatives have a knowledgeable consultant class, but they also have a trained and experienced activist base from which to draw.

i learned the power of these techniques when a social conservative ran -- and won -- in my very moderate, very competitive congressional district in florida.  the space coast is now served by one of the most extreme social conservatives in the country, who is basically a one-issue candidate (abortion) despite the fact that it is a very high tech community which revolves around the space industry and harris.  it didn't have any mega-churches, there wasn't a highly organized pro-life movement, there was merely one man who had the will to win.  he took on the republican establishment, beat the state senate president and then won the general election (which, of course, everyone predicted he didn't have a chance, given the fact that the seat had been held by a democrat).

so i'm naturally skeptical whenever someone tells me that this or that ideological candidate can't win.  the question i always ask it, do they want to win (iow, will they make the sacrifices required to win)?

i don't know if ned lamont will win in november or not, but i wouldn't bet against him.  he will be tested even more before the general -- but the fact is that he can win.  people who tell you otherwise don't understand politics.  i've never met ned lamont and i don't have a clue about whether he is a charismatic figure.  i'm not sure that it matters as long as tom swan is his campaign manager.  oh, yeah, i believe in the power of the consultant.

one of the candidates that tried to lure me to his campaign recently explained why: 50% of the reason why i want to hire you, he said, is because everyone you meet has confidence that you can win.  swan has that same "aura."  people will charge the ramparts for him.

to win you have to believe that you can win.  sure, people who hang around the middle ideologically tend to believe that they can win instinctively.  not that there's anything wrong with that.  but ideologues can win, too.  the argument that ideologues can't win is tautological.  they don't win because people tell them they can't win.  you have to drink the kool-aid if you'e going to win.

but that's true for moderates, too.  the one thing i have to hand it to tammy duckworth is that she truly believes that she can win.  good for her.  if you don't find it too taxing on your ideological leanings, i'd like to strongly suggest that you volunteer in one of your local congressional campaigns, whether it's bean or duckworth, seals or pavitch, laesch or auman.  they may not be where you are ideologically, but right now they probably have the best available field staff and it's never a bad thing to learn a new trick or two.  we can't argue that democrats should get out and support ned lamont if we are unwilling to go out and support our local democrat, regardless of what we think of them.

progress is made one step at a time, changing one voter at a time.  it's a long process, so we better start now!