UT-04/Mason-Dixon: Matheson in a tough fight for new seat

[Zioneer]

First, I want to thank JohnnyLongtorso, for taking an interest in my state's politics. It seems nobody cares about Utah politics (even most Utahns).

I'm in favor of none of them, since I think Matheson is essentially a republican-in-democrat clothing (as I call him), and of course the GOP candidates are all crazy (except maybe Mia Love, and even she's far too conservative for me).

I'm thinking Mia Love will eventually get the GOP nomination, simply because she has none of the negatives Wimmer and Sandstrom have (they're unacceptable to Salt Lake County for attempts at school vouchers and criminalizing miscarriage shenanigans, among others), and if she gets the nomination, she will probably have a good chance against Matheson.

I live in this district, but I honestly don't care who wins, since none of them will adequately represent me. I think I'll vote for the Justice Party guy running, because I frankly can't stand Matheson.

[Zioneer]

I think I'll vote for the Justice Party guy running, because I frankly can't stand Matheson.

No!!! Congress needs more centrist Democrats! You're not gonna get a progressive elected from a 56% McCain district...

But he's so centrist he's practically a (moderate to 90s conservative) Republican! There can and should be a centrist Democrat in Utah, but he isn't it. Moderates and leftists aren't inspired to vote for him, and since the new district has the biggest chunk of Salt Lake City in it, that counts for a lot. He could easily be at least a little bit more liberal, but he refuses to do so. That's what makes me hate him.

PioneerProgress; Do you label yourself a liberal/progressive dem?

The criminalizing miscarriage is an extreme position in my opinion. School Vouchers are a catch 22 issue I think but in Salt Lake City where they have a hard left mayor(Rocky Anderson) maybe its an extreme right policy as you put it.

Yes, I consider myself a liberal/progressive Dem (which is why I gave myself this username, after all), though in Europe I would probably just be center-left.

The School vouchers in Utah are basically an excuse to have as many private/charter schools as possible, and to privatize education. Additionally, many Utah conservatives want to teach social conservatism at private schools, so there's the social element as well. It's hard right. In fact, school vouchers are so hard right that every time the GOP has attempted to pass voucher legislation in Utah, Utahns have overwhelmingly rejected them.

[Zioneer]

I think I'll vote for the Justice Party guy running, because I frankly can't stand Matheson.

No!!! Congress needs more centrist Democrats! You're not gonna get a progressive elected from a 56% McCain district...

But he's so centrist he's practically a (moderate to 90s conservative) Republican! There can and should be a centrist Democrat in Utah, but he isn't it. Moderates and leftists aren't inspired to vote for him, and since the new district has the biggest chunk of Salt Lake City in it, that counts for a lot. He could easily be at least a little bit more liberal, but he refuses to do so. That's what makes me hate him.

I doubt it. Having part of a liberal city in your district doesn't make it possible to vote liberally if the rest is conservative.

Well sure, except when that liberal city is the biggest and most politically active city in Utah, and is connected to several moderate-ish cities. I can't excuse Matheson's conservative votes. Plus, he's not charismatic. I'm sure there's a candidate out there (maybe not this cycle, but surely in the future) that's both more liberal and more charismatic than Matheson, using his charisma to make his liberal views seem less onerous to Utah conservatives.

But Matheson is making sure that the "only conservative Democrats can win, and even then just barely" paradigm is alive and well in Utah, when it doesn't need to be.

[Zioneer]

I'm pretty sure Matheson is infinitely better than any of the Republican candidates.  Also, he still puts us one vote closer to a Democratic house majority.  I'm all for primarying people like Lieberman in states and districts where we can do better.  The thing is that there are some districts and states where only conservative Democrats can win.  If we ran a candidate who was too liberal to appeal to the rest of this district, we'd lose pure and simple.  I'd be fine with primarying Matheson if this was a Dem-pack (to the degree you can have one in Utah) that only consisted of parts of Salt Lake county.  But that isn't the district that we're dealing with today and so it makes no strategic sense to vote against Matheson b/c he's a conservative Democrat.

I'm just saying that he could be a little bit more moderate/liberal without losing. I'm not saying any Utah district would welcome a progressive Democrat, but surely Matheson could be a tad bit more liberal, or a more well-liked Utah Democrat could manage to eke through a bit more liberalism.

Matheson's voting has been way too conservative for my tastes; just look at his voting record as recorded by VoteSmart. He's voted in favor of so many conservative bills, and I'm sick of it. He only remains a Democratic candidate for Congress in Utah every election because he's already a Democratic member of Congress. He hasn't done much for Democrats in Utah.

I never understood why people don't understand the concept that DINO's and RINO's help to serve one purpose for their party: another number towards a majority. Once you have the majority, you can control what comes to the floor and that DINO or RINO's vote won't matter as much.

The problem is when the DINO/RINOs are in positions of authority in the House/Senate; then they can screw up key bits of legislation (like Obamacare; it's not like it would have a public option, but it would be a lot better if there would have been actual progressives looking over it).

[Zioneer]

The problem is when the DINO/RINOs are in positions of authority in the House/Senate; then they can screw up key bits of legislation (like Obamacare; it's not like it would have a public option, but it would be a lot better if there would have been actual progressives looking over it).

Are the DINOs actually subtracting from the bill - that is, they're making it worse than if they were replaced by Republicans? Or are they are worse relative to the fantasy counterfactual where they're all replaced by progressive Democrats?

Matheson has still been way too conservative and it turns out (after doing a little digging) that he actually voted against Obamacare (and multiple other pieces of legislation that I would consider to be "moderate"), so yeah, I would consider him to be unacceptably bad.

[Zioneer]

The problem is when the DINO/RINOs are in positions of authority in the House/Senate; then they can screw up key bits of legislation (like Obamacare; it's not like it would have a public option, but it would be a lot better if there would have been actual progressives looking over it).

Are the DINOs actually subtracting from the bill - that is, they're making it worse than if they were replaced by Republicans? Or are they are worse relative to the fantasy counterfactual where they're all replaced by progressive Democrats?

Matheson has still been way too conservative and it turns out (after doing a little digging) that he actually voted against Obamacare (and multiple other pieces of legislation that I would consider to be "moderate"), so yeah, I would consider him to be unacceptably bad.

 

Unacceptably bad relative to what though?  It's not like if Matheson loses than he'll be replaced by a semi-progressive or even moderate Democrat.  It will simply become a safe Republican seat and will probably be occupied by a Stephen Sandstrom.  Having a hyper-right-wing Republican for a few years and then an even slightly progressive Democrat a cycle or two later is simply not a realistically possible option in this district.  Say what you will, but Matheson puts the Democrats one seat closer to a house majority and he is pretty much the only Democrat who can win in this district.  I'm all for primarying Democrats like Lieberman, Tom Carper, Daniel Lipinski, David Scott, Tim Holden, Jason Altmire (since I think Critz can hold that district and even if he loses, someone better than Altmire could probably win it in 2014), etc.  However, trying to primary or protest vote against people like Ben Nelson, Jim Matheson, Collin Peterson, Larry Kissell, etc is a foolproof path to defeat.  Doing so actually moves the house to the right.

Unacceptable to anybody who's actually "moderate" in Utah, I'd say.

But I guess you're right. I suppose I'll vote for Matheson, even though I really don't want to. I really think Utah could take a slightly more liberal candidate, and that in terms of re-election, Matheson is hurting himself, but I suppose that it's not like there will be anyone more electable this time around. Bleh, being a liberal in Utah sucks.

[Zioneer]

By the way, Matheson is still not a moderate. I'm pretty sure I get to complain when he talks (and votes, most likely) like a Republican on one of my pet issues (energy and the local environment).

Look, the only reason Matheson continues to be re-elected is because he's the only guy who bothers to run most of the time, and because of that, even if he gets a challenger that could be a better Congressperson, 3/4s of the Utah Democratic Party usually supports him. Why should I be in favor of a guy who only keeps being supported by my party because he was previously supported by my party? He talks like a Republican, he votes like a (moderate) Republican, and he brooks no opposition to his continued re-election. Why shouldn't I show my frustration towards him?

[Zioneer]

When I move out to Utah this summer, I'm going to try and meet Mia Love. She seems like an excellent individual.

She really just eloquently repeats Tea Party talking points while being a minority, but everyone has their own opinions, I guess.