Blue Dogs Look to Expand Influence Over Dem Recruitment

[Frodo]

Moderate Blue Dogs see new influence over Dem recruitment

By Ben Kamisar - 09/21/17 12:00 PM EDT

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Sounds great!

[Frodo]

I wonder just how much larger both the Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions will grow relative to the Progressive Caucus... 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The DCCC has definitely made it clear that they don't like progressives.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Good. We need more Blue Dogs and we need more progressives in the party. We have to build a broader coalition.

Blue Dogs should tend to be in more republican leaning districts, and Progressives should tend to be in more democrat leaning districts. I don't think this should be a hard rule though -- some aspects of a progressive candidate might appeal more to rural Wisconsin, whereas a Blue Dog might appeal more in suburban Arizona.

[SATW]

good

[ProgressiveCanadian]

The DCCC has definitely made it clear that they don't like progressives.

True, this will only work until ACTUAL people in the party vote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Could be good or bad depending on the districts. The

[Chief Justice Keef]

And what, not be able to govern when Democrats take power?

[McGovernForPrez]

This all depends on the candidate and the district to me. There are blue dogs I like and blue dogs I dislike. If it helps us win the house in 2018 then I'll be all for it. Hopefully the Blue Dogs don't try to recruit in more Democratic leaning districts. We don't need another Henry Cuellar.

[GlobeSoc]

This all depends on the candidate and the district to me. There are blue dogs I like and blue dogs I dislike. If it helps us win the house in 2018 then I'll be all for it. Hopefully the Blue Dogs don't try to recruit in more Democratic leaning districts. We don't need another 435 Henry Cuellars.

FTFY

[TheSaint250]

Yay!

[PragmaticPopulist]

Let's hope the purist wing doesn't screw this up by getting nutjobs nominated in places like NC-09.

[Figueira]

I'm cool with this as long as they're in swing or R districts, and they're the right kind of moderate for the district (a Wall Street hack is not going to help us win ME-02).

[RINO Tom]

"Blue Dogs runing in Republican-leaning districts" could mean two COMPLETELY opposite scenarios to me when I hear it, LOL.  Is Travis Childers running in Mississippi or is John Ossoff running in metro Atlanta?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Sigh. Please don't go where leftists can win.

[Zioneer]

Honestly, I'm deeply surprised that the Blue Dogs haven't tried to recruit a candidate for UT-04, whose last (and only) Democratic occupant was a Blue Dog to end all Blue Dogs. They seem to have left that seat to the ultra-progressives, even though it's totally winnable with the right candidate.

[Virginiá]

Sigh. Please don't go where leftists can win.

That seems to be their angle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't mind their involvement so long as they leave safe/reliable democratic seats to liberals/progressives. If more conservative Democrats have a better shot at knocking off Republicans in more conservative districts, then that is fine by me.

Progressives don't need to control 100% of the party to push policy they want or guide the direction of the party. They just need to be the loudest voice in the room. They can do that by gobbling up safe dem seats, and being more flexible in more Republican-leaning districts.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Sounds great!

[GoTfan]

Sigh. Please don't go where leftists can win.

That seems to be their angle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't mind their involvement so long as they leave safe/reliable democratic seats to liberals/progressives. If more conservative Democrats have a better shot at knocking off Republicans in more conservative districts, then that is fine by me.

Progressives don't need to control 100% of the party to push policy they want or guide the direction of the party. They just need to be the loudest voice in the room. They can do that by gobbling up safe dem seats, and being more flexible in more Republican-leaning districts.

That's the problem though. Democrats have made it abundantly clear they'd rather lose with a Blue Dog or New Democrat than win with a progressive, because they don't like progressives.

[Figueira]

Sigh. Please don't go where leftists can win.

That seems to be their angle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't mind their involvement so long as they leave safe/reliable democratic seats to liberals/progressives. If more conservative Democrats have a better shot at knocking off Republicans in more conservative districts, then that is fine by me.

Progressives don't need to control 100% of the party to push policy they want or guide the direction of the party. They just need to be the loudest voice in the room. They can do that by gobbling up safe dem seats, and being more flexible in more Republican-leaning districts.

That's the problem though. Democrats have made it abundantly clear they'd rather lose with a Blue Dog or New Democrat than win with a progressive, because they don't like progressives.

When have they made that "abundantly clear"?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sigh. Please don't go where leftists can win.

They most definitely will. Loretta Sanchez was in a D+15 district. Their sister organization, the New Democrats has Meeks in a D+37.

[Blackacre]

Sigh. Please don't go where leftists can win.

They most definitely will. Loretta Sanchez was in a D+15 district. Their sister organization, the New Democrats has Meeks in a D+37.

Then we'll primary them. The progressive base of the Democratic Party has been awakened, and the time of Blue Dogs and New Dems being acceptable in solid blue districts is over.

[Kamala]

Sigh. Please don't go where leftists can win.

They most definitely will. Loretta Sanchez was in a D+15 district. Their sister organization, the New Democrats has Meeks in a D+37.

Lol, you do know that when Sanchez was first elected, she unseated a 10-year incumbent Republican in a rather conservative district? The district was redrawn and shifted left, but Sanchez wasn't ousted in the primaries, which means that she was at least decently representative of her district.

She's not even in congress anymore, so I don't know why you bring her up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sigh. Please don't go where leftists can win.

They most definitely will. Loretta Sanchez was in a D+15 district. Their sister organization, the New Democrats has Meeks in a D+37.

Then we'll primary them. The progressive base of the Democratic Party has been awakened, and the time of Blue Dogs and New Dems being acceptable in solid blue districts is over.

I should hope so, but the party does everything they can to prevent progressives from getting in. There aren't that many successful primaries. The Republicans are much better at primarying.

Sigh. Please don't go where leftists can win.

They most definitely will. Loretta Sanchez was in a D+15 district. Their sister organization, the New Democrats has Meeks in a D+37.

Lol, you do know that when Sanchez was first elected, she unseated a 10-year incumbent Republican in a rather conservative district? The district was redrawn and shifted left, but Sanchez wasn't ousted in the primaries, which means that she was at least decently representative of her district.

She's not even in congress anymore, so I don't know why you bring her up.

She was in congress last year. And even worse, Mike Thompson is in a D+21 district.  In any case, there are plenty of bad Democrats, most of whom are in neither of these terrible organizations in heavily Democratic districts.