Will Democrats suffer from a "Club for Growth" mentality

[Vepres]

There are many Democrats, including many on this forum, who are very mad at the Democrats for being weak and not liberal enough. Indeed, if one looks at the map for the house elections, many moderates are retiring or facing challenges from the left. Do they seem headed towards this mentality? Could this hurt Democrats? Will they go to the extreme as Republicans?

A good example is FL-2 (on the panhandle), where the conservative Democrat Boyd has consistently won with 60%+ of the vote. Yet he is facing a challenge from the left. Though he'll probably survive this, if he is somehow defeated or his war chest is depleted, even an unknown Republican could have a chance in this very conservative district.

[Senator Ben]

Hopefully not; besides, Democrats aren't organized enough to form a CFG type organization

[True Federalist]

Hopefully not; besides, Democrats aren't organized enough to form a CFG type organization

So you think what Will Rogers said still holds true?

I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.

[Senator Ben]

So you think what Will Rogers said still holds true?

I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.

Now, more than ever.

[Lief]

No such thing could ever happen, Vep. The Democratic party represents the pragmatic center; people like Allen Boyd and Blanche Lincoln are not only out of the Democratic party mainstream but out of the American mainstream. The CfG, on the other hand, primaries already fairly right-wing politicians who dare to stake out one or two centrist positions (probably because their conscience weighs so heavily on them), and replaces them with out-and-out crypto-fascists.

[Vosem]

(probably because their conscience weighs so heavily on them),

Excuse me?

[anonymiad]

As each party's majority expands, it will naturally become less ideologically pure and so, I think, it will try to purge the moderates who don't appear to help the party out. Democrats tend to be better in this regard than Republicans, though: they have 59 seats in the Senate and so can afford to ditch, for instance, Blanche Lincoln for Bill Halter; Republicans, if they want to make gains, can't afford to nominate Rand Paul over Trey Grayson, or Bob Dold over Elizabeth Coulson (in IL-10).

[Vosem]

As each party's majority expands, it will naturally become less ideologically pure and so, I think, it will try to purge the moderates who don't appear to help the party out. Democrats tend to be better in this regard than Republicans, though: they have 59 seats in the Senate and so can afford to ditch, for instance, Blanche Lincoln for Bill Halter; Republicans, if they want to make gains, can't afford to nominate Rand Paul over Trey Grayson, or Bob Dold over Elizabeth Coulson (in IL-10).

Last I checked, Rand Paul was beating both Democratic candidates in polling.

[Lief]

(probably because their conscience weighs so heavily on them),

Excuse me?

Presumably voting day in and day out to kill poor people and prevent loving adults from getting married is taxing on one's conscience.

[Vepres]

(probably because their conscience weighs so heavily on them),

Excuse me?

Presumably voting day in and day out to kill poor people and prevent loving adults from getting married is taxing on one's conscience.

Presumably, you don't understand their perspective. They don't think, "Yes! Let's prevent lovers from marrying and let the poor die. BWAHAAHAHAHA!"

Contrary to popular belief, there are a few Republicans who don't look like this:

[Badger]

(probably because their conscience weighs so heavily on them),

Excuse me?

Presumably voting day in and day out to kill poor people and prevent loving adults from getting married is taxing on one's conscience.

Presumably, you don't understand their perspective. They don't think, "Yes! Let's prevent lovers from marrying and let the poor die. BWAHAAHAHAHA!"

Contrary to popular belief, there are a few Republicans who don't look like this:

But very few who don't vote  or legislate like Monty Burns (or Reverend Loivejoy).

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As each party's majority expands, it will naturally become less ideologically pure and so, I think, it will try to purge the moderates who don't appear to help the party out. Democrats tend to be better in this regard than Republicans, though: they have 59 seats in the Senate and so can afford to ditch, for instance, Blanche Lincoln for Bill Halter; Republicans, if they want to make gains, can't afford to nominate Rand Paul over Trey Grayson, or Bob Dold over Elizabeth Coulson (in IL-10).

From what I here Coulson ran a Coakley-esque campaign hardly a strong candidate for the general. Atleast Dold has enthusiasm and energy behind him and is actually working for it. So in a sense Dold may have been the better candidate.

Also Grayson, despite voting for Bill Clinton, is still quite conservative on many issues. And in FL, I would argue that Rubio is stronger in the general then Crist at this point. Electabilility is a losing arguement for moderates who have already acknowledged their own inevitable defeat.

You need some new talking points.

[Bo]

As each party's majority expands, it will naturally become less ideologically pure and so, I think, it will try to purge the moderates who don't appear to help the party out. Democrats tend to be better in this regard than Republicans, though: they have 59 seats in the Senate and so can afford to ditch, for instance, Blanche Lincoln for Bill Halter; Republicans, if they want to make gains, can't afford to nominate Rand Paul over Trey Grayson, or Bob Dold over Elizabeth Coulson (in IL-10).

From what I here Coulson ran a Coakley-esque campaign hardly a strong candidate for the general. Atleast Dold has enthusiasm and energy behind him and is actually working for it. So in a sense Dold may have been the better candidate.

Also Grayson, despite voting for Bill Clinton, is still quite conservative on many issues. And in FL, I would argue that Rubio is stronger in the general then Crist at this point. Electabilility is a losing arguement for moderates who have already acknowledged their own inevitable defeat.

You need some new talking points.

Paul and Rubio have about the same chance of getting elected as Grayson and Crist, and I say this as a Democrat. Also, many Republicans said in the 1930s that the GOP needed to moderate after the Great Depression, but the GOP afterwards nominated moderates three times before winning with one in 1952. Who's to say that the GOP would not have won in 1948 or 1952 had they nominated a conservative? In reality, whether a candidate is moderate or not matters very little in many areas and is only important on certain specific issues.