have southern democrats become, by default

[nclib]

As often as Gene Taylor and Travis Childers pissed me off, I really wish they were in DC instead of the dunces who beat them.

If there were a representative like them representing a district a liberal Democrat would easily win, though, I would support a primary challenger.  

Quite natural position. I already stated my many times: Democrats, as (generally) more liberal  party, must run the most liberal candidate who can win corresponding district. But it follows from this that if the only Democratic candidate, who can win a district, is to the right of Bobby Bright - run this canddidate without hesitation! Even more so because Republican candidate in this district will, most likely, be even more conservative. And vice versa for Republicans: so if a district may be won ONLY by republican candidate with views to the left of Jacob Javits - run him!!!! The only thing i care about is about winning as well as about congressman really representing views of the district. Despite having my own views i don't care about "party purity" and, on the contrary, consider that a very bad thing when you have only 2 big parties in a country.

MS-01 and 04 are good examples. No liberal and even moderate Democrat could win them - only people like Childers and Taylor. On the other hand Childers and Taylor were still less conservative then Nunnelly and Pallazzo, so liberals lost (and rather heavily) with their defeat

I don't disagree with any of this, but it does bother me when Dems spend a lot of money on Bobby Bright, and then he votes with the GOP on most of the major issues.

As for the subject title, it may have more to do with fewer white Dems (more minority CD's are constitutionally protected), i.e. a higher percent being minority. BTW, which Southern white Dems will still be in office in 2013? (not counting NoVA or south Fla. or most of Texas)

Safe
Price, NC
Cooper
Cohen (though represents a black CD)

Possibly
McIntyre
Kissell
Barrow
Rigell's opponent in VA-2?

any others?

[Miles]

I don't disagree with any of this, but it does bother me when Dems spend a lot of money on Bobby Bright, and then he votes with the GOP on most of the major issues.

As for the subject title, it may have more to do with fewer white Dems (more minority CD's are constitutionally protected), i.e. a higher percent being minority. BTW, which Southern white Dems will still be in office in 2013? (not counting NoVA or south Fla. or most of Texas)

Safe
Price, NC
Cooper
Cohen (though represents a black CD)

Possibly
McIntyre
Kissell
Barrow
Rigell's opponent in VA-2?

any others?

Rahall, Chandler and Yarmuth are also pretty likely/safe.

[nclib]

I don't disagree with any of this, but it does bother me when Dems spend a lot of money on Bobby Bright, and then he votes with the GOP on most of the major issues.

As for the subject title, it may have more to do with fewer white Dems (more minority CD's are constitutionally protected), i.e. a higher percent being minority. BTW, which Southern white Dems will still be in office in 2013? (not counting NoVA or south Fla. or most of Texas)

Safe
Price, NC
Cooper
Cohen (though represents a black CD)

Possibly
McIntyre
Kissell
Barrow
Rigell's opponent in VA-2?

any others?

Rahall, Chandler and Yarmuth are also pretty likely/safe.

I wasn't really considering KY and WV as the South, but in that case, yes.

[smoltchanov]

I don't disagree with any of this, but it does bother me when Dems spend a lot of money on Bobby Bright, and then he votes with the GOP on most of the major issues.

Still Bright would vote with Democratic leadership more then any possible "republican alternative". There is a "price" to be paid for everything, and for this - as well...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Well, after the Dubya yrs, blue dogs except for the likes of Joseph Lieberman have united behind the Democratic symbol except for one aspect of it, 100% pro gun 2nd amendment right.

[Gass3268]

As often as Gene Taylor and Travis Childers pissed me off, I really wish they were in DC instead of the dunces who beat them.

If there were a representative like them representing a district a liberal Democrat would easily win, though, I would support a primary challenger. 

I totally agree with this. There shouldn't be Blue Dogs in seats that are D-6 or more liberal. Mike Thompson (CA-5)(D+18), Joe Baca (CA-35)(D+10), Adam Sciff (CA-28)(D+20) and Davis Scott (GA-13)(D+10) are all Blue Dogs that should face primaries. I would also wouldn't be opposed to a more liberal candidate running against  Stanford Bishop (GA-2) (D+5) or Jim Cooper (TN-5)(D+5). The remaining members of the Blue Dog Caucus are cool with me. I would be in favor of more Blue Dog members if they come from borderline or Republican leaning districts, are willing to vote with the party at least 80% of the time and when big defining issues come up they vote with the Democrats.

[smoltchanov]

As often as Gene Taylor and Travis Childers pissed me off, I really wish they were in DC instead of the dunces who beat them.

If there were a representative like them representing a district a liberal Democrat would easily win, though, I would support a primary challenger. 

I totally agree with this. There shouldn't be Blue Dogs in seats that are D-6 or more liberal. Mike Thompson (CA-5)(D+18), Joe Baca (CA-35)(D+10), Adam Sciff (CA-28)(D+20) and Davis Scott (GA-13)(D+10) are all Blue Dogs that should face primaries. I would also wouldn't be opposed to a more liberal candidate running against  Stanford Bishop (GA-2) (D+5) or Jim Cooper (TN-5)(D+5). The remaining members of the Blue Dog Caucus are cool with me. I would be in favor of more Blue Dog members if they come from borderline or Republican leaning districts, are willing to vote with the party at least 80% of the time and when big defining issues come up they vote with the Democrats.

All four are technically "Blue Dogs", but in practice - at least - moderate liberals. So i don't see any contradiction between them and their districts. None of them votes as Childers, Taylor or Bright did))))).

And to require 80% "party loyalty" from Blue Dogs from districts like Childer's or Taylors is, excuse me - an idiocy, pure and simple. They couldn't even get elected first time if they would promise to vote "80% in accordance with national party" after all. 30% - another matter. And even that would be great improvement over sole alternative - extremely conservative Republican, who will not vote for "Democratic program" at all. 30 is MUCH more then zero))))

[BigSkyBob]

However, I do think there are some districts/states where a more conservative Democrat would fit the constituency poorly; e.g, I endorsed Hirono in HI because Case would have been too conservative, IMO.  

This makes zero sense. If you are willing to prefer "conservative" Democrats in districts in which Republicans are a "better fit," then out of consistency you ought prefer "conservative" Democrats in districts in which "liberal" Democrats are a "better fit."

Frankly, if you really are a "conservative Democrat" then you ought to aspire to the day that the Democratic Senate caucus votes out a Harry Reid in favor of a Ben Nelson. Preferring a Hirono over a Case in a Democratic primary completely sabotages that goal. Majorities are built by winning tough districts, not just ones in which your candidate is a "good fit." That's your ultimate goal, right?

Frankly, I don't see the "conservatism" of a Case in any way being a detriment to running against Lingle. Frankly, Lingle's best hope is the Democrats nominating someone to the left of the electorate. Moreover, primaries exist for people to vote their differences. I would fully expect "conservative" Democrats in Hawaii to naturally gravitate to Case, and "liberal" Democrats in Hawaii to naturally gravitate to Hirono.

[Miles]

However, I do think there are some districts/states where a more conservative Democrat would fit the constituency poorly; e.g, I endorsed Hirono in HI because Case would have been too conservative, IMO.  

This makes zero sense. If you are willing to prefer "conservative" Democrats in districts in which Republicans are a "better fit," then out of consistency you ought prefer "conservative" Democrats in districts in which "liberal" Democrats are a "better fit."

Frankly, if you really are a "conservative Democrat" then you ought to aspire to the day that the Democratic Senate caucus votes out a Harry Reid in favor of a Ben Nelson. Preferring a Hirono over a Case in a Democratic primary completely sabotages that goal. Majorities are built by winning tough districts, not just ones in which your candidate is a "good fit." That's your ultimate goal, right?

Frankly, I don't see the "conservatism" of a Case in any way being a detriment to running against Lingle. Frankly, Lingle's best hope is the Democrats nominating someone to the left of the electorate. Moreover, primaries exist for people to vote their differences. I would fully expect "conservative" Democrats in Hawaii to naturally gravitate to Case, and "liberal" Democrats in Hawaii to naturally gravitate to Hirono.

I identify as a right-of-center Democrat, but I also call races as I see them. I don't get why that such a hard concept for you, Bob. I'm sick of you telling me how I should think and how I should endorse candidates.

'Ya know, you're like the vulture of this forum. You rarely ever contribute anything positive to the forum or the forum community as a whole, rather, you go around dissecting other people's comments and throwing your own, negative, deprecative analysis in their faces.

[smoltchanov]

I identify as a right-of-center Democrat, but I also call races as I see them. I don't get why that such a hard concept for you, Bob. I'm sick of you telling me how I should think and how I should endorse candidates.

'Ya know, you're like the vulture of this forum. You rarely ever contribute anything positive to the forum or the forum community as a whole, rather, you go around dissecting other people's comments and throwing your own, negative, deprecative analysis in their faces.

Exactly. I had my own "discussions" with Bob, and they always went exactly that way - he is absolutely sure that only he knows everything and that only his opinion is correct, and he is very naughty "proving" that. In fact - he always proves nothing, because from a logical point of view his "arguments" are invariably extremely shallow, but that doesn't deter him from putting them up time and again.

[Adam Griffin]

However, I do think there are some districts/states where a more conservative Democrat would fit the constituency poorly; e.g, I endorsed Hirono in HI because Case would have been too conservative, IMO.  

This makes zero sense. If you are willing to prefer "conservative" Democrats in districts in which Republicans are a "better fit," then out of consistency you ought prefer "conservative" Democrats in districts in which "liberal" Democrats are a "better fit."

Frankly, if you really are a "conservative Democrat" then you ought to aspire to the day that the Democratic Senate caucus votes out a Harry Reid in favor of a Ben Nelson. Preferring a Hirono over a Case in a Democratic primary completely sabotages that goal. Majorities are built by winning tough districts, not just ones in which your candidate is a "good fit." That's your ultimate goal, right?

Frankly, I don't see the "conservatism" of a Case in any way being a detriment to running against Lingle. Frankly, Lingle's best hope is the Democrats nominating someone to the left of the electorate. Moreover, primaries exist for people to vote their differences. I would fully expect "conservative" Democrats in Hawaii to naturally gravitate to Case, and "liberal" Democrats in Hawaii to naturally gravitate to Hirono.

It makes zero sense because you are a modern right-wing partisan. There are numerous differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties that transcend simple policy debates, and one of them is how each party views its constituencies as a whole.

Democrats - liberal, conservative and moderate alike - understand and mostly appreciate the diversity of our party and its ideas. We truly are a big tent party and it is how we have survived in an era in which had we been as ideologically pure as the Republican Party is today, we would have been decimated. Much like the Republican Party will be over the next 10-15 years.

Republicans - conservatives and only conservatives - now view any differentiation between their individual ideology and that of others as malignant. The ideological purification of the Republican Party has mostly completed itself in mainstream Republican circles and the House of Representatives, and will most likely be finished after these elections in the Senate.

The breakdown of the Republican Party and its individuals - namely people such as yourself - to understand the necessity for variation in ideas in order to be a successful governing entity is the reason the political system is broken today. In the past, each party had to debate within itself before heading to the floors of Congress to debate one another. That's why and how compromise worked and it was how things were accomplished. The Democratic and Republican coalitions of the past that were united by seemingly odd (in today's sense) factors have shifted into a bland, predictable entrenchment of similar ideologies. The Democratic Party, however, hasn't engaged in ideological purification to the same standard and I can speak for the uber-vast majority of Democrats in saying that we appreciate our Claire McClaskills, Jon Testers and Bill Nelsons in addition to our Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Browns and Chuck Schumers.