have southern democrats become, by default

[freepcrusher]

not very different from democrats in other parts of the country? They will never be as liberal as boswash and west coast democrats but looking at ADA scores, it is miles away from what it once was even as late as 20 years ago.


I guess it has an upside and a downside. The upside is that the democratic caucus is as unified as it has been in recent memory but the downside is that its hard to sell your goods in areas like Bart Gordon's old district when you have someone like Steve Cohen as your spokesperson (nothing against Cohen but to your average person in rural TN, he probably seems too exotic to them).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, they still have Manchin who is pretty DINOish, as opposed to merely being a conservative Democrat like Hagen. Zell Miller was crazy right-wing his last couple of years in the Senate ending with 2004. He was more liberal in the 1990s.

Of course it helps that right-wingers like the founders of the Blue Dogs stopped pretending they were Democrats.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues. Since the advent of the Tea Party aka the "No Compromise" wing of the GOP and the defeat of half the Blue Dog Coalition in the 2010 midterms, that strategy has been proven to have been foolish.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues. Since the advent of the Tea Party aka the "No Compromise" wing of the GOP and the defeat of half the Blue Dog Coalition in the 2010 midterms, that strategy has been proven to have been foolish.

So why was Ellen Tauscher a Blue Dog in a D+11 district? There are still plenty of Democrats who are far more conservative than their district would allow, such as Dan Lipinski or Tom Carper.

[smoltchanov]

In short - yes. There is no more neeed for a conservative to be Democrat in the South today (he/she can easily win election as a Republican now in most cases), and typical Southern conservative feels more at home in Republican party now (as a "bonus" - there are relatively few blacks there, and in most cases they don't pretend on leadership in the party). There are still some very conservative Democratic state legislators in some areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, but even they become a rarity. Democrats more and more become "party of minorities and metropolitan areas" in the South

[CatoMinor]

Well, they still have Manchin who is pretty DINOish

You mean that guy who votes with the Democrats 83%?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Well, they still have Manchin who is pretty DINOish

You mean that guy who votes with the Democrats 83%?

Considering the polarization in Congress, that doesn't mean much.

[Miles]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues. Since the advent of the Tea Party aka the "No Compromise" wing of the GOP and the defeat of half the Blue Dog Coalition in the 2010 midterms, that strategy has been proven to have been foolish.

I think most Democrats would rather have Democrats representing Republican constituencies than Republicans.

Case-in-point: Gene Taylor voted with the Republicans 30% of the time while representing a 67% McCain district...Palazzo votes the party line 95% of the time. I'll take Taylor any day.

The Democrats' House majority was built on the Gene Taylors and Heath Shulers; the national party would do well to remember that.

[freepcrusher]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues. Since the advent of the Tea Party aka the "No Compromise" wing of the GOP and the defeat of half the Blue Dog Coalition in the 2010 midterms, that strategy has been proven to have been foolish.

I think most Democrats would rather have Democrats representing Republican constituencies than Republicans.

Case-in-point: Gene Taylor voted with the Republicans 30% of the time while representing a 67% McCain district...Palazzo votes the party line 95% of the time. I'll take Taylor any day.

The Democrats' House majority was built on the Gene Taylors and Heath Shulers; the national party would do well to remember that.

i don't mind moderate to conservative democrats but to me its more of a style than substance issue. I don't like attention whores/concern trolls who whine about stuff. I'd rather have someone like Bart Gordon of TN or Butler Derrick of SC who were well liked by the leadership and were very good about playing their districts and who could be "all things to all people" with a liberal vote to support health care or gun control but also to throw a steak at their conservative constituents by voting with the republicans on some issues and played the role of "undercover cops" to their constituencies more than anything else.

[smoltchanov]

Well, they still have Manchin who is pretty DINOish

You mean that guy who votes with the Democrats 83%?

That's an example of "Democratic idiocy", which is no better hen Republican, IMHO. So-called "activists" in BOTH parties (for many of which i have no better word then "dumbass zealots") insist on ideological purity even where it goes against simple common sense. They demand "wild-eyed progressives" as Democratic candidates in rural Deep South, while their counterparts lament the fact that republican  candidate, say, in CT-05 is moderate, not "true conservative" (the fact, that "true conservative" simply can't win there under ANY cicrumstances, just as"true progressive" can't win in the above mentioned Deep South districts is simply ignored). In fact - they simply ignore the wish of the voters and try to impose (with their money and resources) their own will and vision on them. Often - successfully (i frequently come back to the phrase of old Texas political operative, that "with enough money i can guarantee the victory of stray dog over apostle Peter"). IMHO, as a result there are way too much "ideologized stray dogs" in US politics now and too few real politicians

[smoltchanov]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues. Since the advent of the Tea Party aka the "No Compromise" wing of the GOP and the defeat of half the Blue Dog Coalition in the 2010 midterms, that strategy has been proven to have been foolish.

I think most Democrats would rather have Democrats representing Republican constituencies than Republicans.

Case-in-point: Gene Taylor voted with the Republicans 30% of the time while representing a 67% McCain district...Palazzo votes the party line 95% of the time. I'll take Taylor any day.

The Democrats' House majority was built on the Gene Taylors and Heath Shulers; the national party would do well to remember that.

FULLY agree. And vice versa - i am sure, that Republican party was MUCH better, when Javits-Case-Mathias (and so on) wing of the party was alive and well, then it's now. To observe a 2 ideologically extreme parties almost intolerant even to minimal dissent and voting with the unity, reminding USSR during the Communist party reign, is absolutely disgusting

[BigSkyBob]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues.

Fortunately, there were replaced with Congressmen whom "work with Republicans on [almost every] issue." "Republican-voting" districts now have "Republican-voting" Congressmen.

[Miles]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues.

Fortunately, there were replaced with Congressmen whom "work with Republicans on [almost every] issue." "Republican-voting" districts now have "Republican-voting" Congressmen.

Then you naturally must also prefer to have only "Democratic-voting" represent "Democratic-voting" constituencies So, I guess you'd be more than happy to trade out the Bob Dolds and Charlie Dents in favor of actual Democrats?

[BigSkyBob]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues. Since the advent of the Tea Party aka the "No Compromise" wing of the GOP and the defeat of half the Blue Dog Coalition in the 2010 midterms, that strategy has been proven to have been foolish.

I think most Democrats would rather have Democrats representing Republican constituencies than Republicans.

Case-in-point: Gene Taylor voted with the Republicans 30% of the time while representing a 67% McCain district...Palazzo votes the party line 95% of the time. I'll take Taylor any day.

The Democrats' House majority was built on the Gene Taylors and Heath Shulers; the national party would do well to remember that.

And, Obamacare and the trillion dollar "stimulus" bill were built on the votes of such folks. The voters in these districts would do well to remember that fact. No matter how "moderate" such candidates claim to be, it is Pelosi the voters will be electing to run the show.

[Miles]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues. Since the advent of the Tea Party aka the "No Compromise" wing of the GOP and the defeat of half the Blue Dog Coalition in the 2010 midterms, that strategy has been proven to have been foolish.

I think most Democrats would rather have Democrats representing Republican constituencies than Republicans.

Case-in-point: Gene Taylor voted with the Republicans 30% of the time while representing a 67% McCain district...Palazzo votes the party line 95% of the time. I'll take Taylor any day.

The Democrats' House majority was built on the Gene Taylors and Heath Shulers; the national party would do well to remember that.

And, Obamacare and the trillion dollar "stimulus" bill were built on the votes of such folks. The voters in these districts would do well to remember that fact. No matter how "moderate" such candidates claim to be, it is Pelosi the voters will be electing to run the show.

With MS-04 specifically, there were, of course, other, more localized benefits to electing Taylor. e.g, he used his seniority to help with securing funds for reconstruction after Katrina. A freshman like Palazzo would have been less apt to serve the district in such cases.

[BigSkyBob]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues.

Fortunately, there were replaced with Congressmen whom "work with Republicans on [almost every] issue." "Republican-voting" districts now have "Republican-voting" Congressmen.

Then you naturally must also prefer to have only "Democratic-voting" represent "Democratic-voting" constituencies So, I guess you'd be more than happy to trade out the Bob Dolds and Charlie Dents in favor of actual Democrats?

I believe that "Republican-voting" district ought to elect Republicans. I will leave it to the electorates of
Democratic-voting" districts to choose their own representatives. I suppose the duals of my arguments to Republicans would point to certain conclusions.

On the other hand,if you believe that folks in "Republican-voting" districts ought to consider voting for the likes of Taylor and Shuler, then, you should consistently believe that folks in places like the North suburbs of Chicago and the Lehigh Valley ought to consider voting for folks like Bob Dold and Charlie Dents. Is that your position?

[BigSkyBob]

The premise of the Blue Dogs was that you could have conservative Democrats in Republican-voting districts who would work with Republicans on many issues. Since the advent of the Tea Party aka the "No Compromise" wing of the GOP and the defeat of half the Blue Dog Coalition in the 2010 midterms, that strategy has been proven to have been foolish.

I think most Democrats would rather have Democrats representing Republican constituencies than Republicans.

Case-in-point: Gene Taylor voted with the Republicans 30% of the time while representing a 67% McCain district...Palazzo votes the party line 95% of the time. I'll take Taylor any day.

The Democrats' House majority was built on the Gene Taylors and Heath Shulers; the national party would do well to remember that.

And, Obamacare and the trillion dollar "stimulus" bill were built on the votes of such folks. The voters in these districts would do well to remember that fact. No matter how "moderate" such candidates claim to be, it is Pelosi the voters will be electing to run the show.

With MS-04 specifically, there were, of course, other, more localized benefits to electing Taylor. e.g, he used his seniority to help with securing funds for reconstruction after Katrina. A freshman like Palazzo would have been less apt to serve the district in such cases.

1) So you are saying folks in such districts ought to consider trading being governed by Pelosi in exchange for pork? And, if Dold and Dents can bring home the pork their electorates ought to prefer being governed by Boehner?

Personally, I resent the political class pointing a gun at the electorate and saying, "Reelect, or your roads will crumble and your bridges will fall into disrepair!" They are suppose to fear the electorate, not loath it.

2) Given the fact that almost every one of those "Blue Dogs" have either lost, capitulated, or ran away, at this point the choice faced by the electorates in such districts is reelecting a Republican member of majority with some seniority, or electing a Democratic member of the minority with no seniority.

[Miles]

I believe that "Republican-voting" district ought to elect Republicans. I will leave it to the electorates of
Democratic-voting" districts to choose their own representatives. I suppose the duals of my arguments to Republicans would point to certain conclusions.

On the other hand,if you believe that folks in "Republican-voting" districts ought to consider voting for the likes of Taylor and Shuler, then, you should consistently believe that folks in places like the North suburbs of Chicago and the Lehigh Valley ought to consider voting for folks like Bob Dold and Charlie Dents. Is that your position?

Exactly, I like to see moderates elected, from either party. I'm not sure if you agree with that.

[Miles]

1) So you are saying folks in such districts ought to consider trading being governed by Pelosi in exchange for pork? And, if Dold and Dents can bring home the pork their electorates ought to prefer being governed by Boehner?

Personally, I resent the political class pointing a gun at the electorate and saying, "Reelect, or your roads will crumble and your bridges will fall into disrepair!" They are suppose to fear the electorate, not loath it.

2) Given the fact that almost every one of those "Blue Dogs" have either lost, capitulated, or ran away, at this point the choice faced by the electorates in such districts is reelecting a Republican member of majority with some seniority, or electing a Democratic member of the minority with no seniority.

1) Well, thats your personal opinion. I've never heard the term "political class" used as anything other than a hollow conservative buzzword.

You obviously haven't spent much time down here in the Gulf Coast region; the "pork" that Taylor brought home after the storm helped many people to simply get back on their feet after the storm.

In any case, I myself, have no problem with pork spending or earmarks.

2) Well, thats for the voters to determine based on factors such as the quality of the candidates.

[7,052,770]

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. 

[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.  

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

[BigSkyBob]

I believe that "Republican-voting" district ought to elect Republicans. I will leave it to the electorates of
Democratic-voting" districts to choose their own representatives. I suppose the duals of my arguments to Republicans would point to certain conclusions.

On the other hand,if you believe that folks in "Republican-voting" districts ought to consider voting for the likes of Taylor and Shuler, then, you should consistently believe that folks in places like the North suburbs of Chicago and the Lehigh Valley ought to consider voting for folks like Bob Dold and Charlie Dents. Is that your position?

Exactly, I like to see moderates elected, from either party. I'm not sure if you agree with that.

I can believe many things, but, what I can't believe is any notion that you are anything other than a partisan Democrat. While Scott Brown is by any objective measure closer to the center than Elizabeth Warren, I seriously doubt you are really for his reelection. I certainly don't remember you publicly endorsing his reelection. [You, on the other hand, can't really point to a single real race in which the Democrat is more conservative than the Republican running for that office.]

Nor, have I read any efforts on your part to replace liberal Democrats with "moderate" ones in in heavily Democratic districts, or, promote "moderate" minority Democrats in, for instance, heavily Hispanic districts in places like Texas which are currently represented by White liberals. You seem mosted interested in adding marginal Democrats at the expense of Republicans, which benefits the political left, not center.

[BigSkyBob]

1) So you are saying folks in such districts ought to consider trading being governed by Pelosi in exchange for pork? And, if Dold and Dents can bring home the pork their electorates ought to prefer being governed by Boehner?

Personally, I resent the political class pointing a gun at the electorate and saying, "Reelect, or your roads will crumble and your bridges will fall into disrepair!" They are suppose to fear the electorate, not loath it.

2) Given the fact that almost every one of those "Blue Dogs" have either lost, capitulated, or ran away, at this point the choice faced by the electorates in such districts is reelecting a Republican member of majority with some seniority, or electing a Democratic member of the minority with no seniority.

1) Well, thats your personal opinion. I've never heard the term "political class" used as anything other than a hollow conservative buzzword.

You obviously haven't spent much time down here in the Gulf Coast region; the "pork" that Taylor brought home after the storm helped many people to simply get back on their feet after the storm.

In any case, I myself, have no problem with pork spending or earmarks.

I will only say that you are suggesting that the political class is willing to not only hold roads and bridges hostage, but, the fate of disaster victims as well! That is pathetic. Aid to victims of disasters ought to be directed to where the disasters are, and, not to where "key" Congressional members happen to live.

That is exactly what is wrong with Washington. Roads ought to be built where traffic needs to move. Bridges ought to be sited where traffic crosses rivers. And, disaster aid ought to target disasters. Election, then, could revolve around things like issues, and which direction to lead the country.

[Miles]

I believe that "Republican-voting" district ought to elect Republicans. I will leave it to the electorates of
Democratic-voting" districts to choose their own representatives. I suppose the duals of my arguments to Republicans would point to certain conclusions.

On the other hand,if you believe that folks in "Republican-voting" districts ought to consider voting for the likes of Taylor and Shuler, then, you should consistently believe that folks in places like the North suburbs of Chicago and the Lehigh Valley ought to consider voting for folks like Bob Dold and Charlie Dents. Is that your position?

Exactly, I like to see moderates elected, from either party. I'm not sure if you agree with that.

I can believe many things, but, what I can't believe is any notion that you are anything other than a partisan Democrat. While Scott Brown is by any objective measure closer to the center than Elizabeth Warren, I seriously doubt you are really for his reelection. I certainly don't remember you publicly endorsing his reelection. [You, on the other hand, can't really point to a single real race in which the Democrat is more conservative than the Republican running for that office.]

Nor, have I read any efforts on your part to replace liberal Democrats with "moderate" ones in in heavily Democratic districts, or, promote "moderate" minority Democrats in, for instance, heavily Hispanic districts in places like Texas which are currently represented by White liberals. You seem mosted interested in adding marginal Democrats at the expense of Republicans, which benefits the political left, not center.

Well, you don't even have an avatar showing what party you're in...are you pretending to be some sort of post-partisan independent?

Since when are you such an expert on my political endorsements and philosophy?

As for MA, I haven't made an endorsement yet. Still, I'm leaning towards supporting other Republicans in swingy states like Heller and Thompson.

I'm a conservative Democrat and I personally like to see when such candidates are elected; I think even someone as critical and pessimistic as yourself can understand that. 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.  

[Miles]

I will only say that you are suggesting that the political class is willing to not only hold roads and bridges hostage, but, the fate of disaster victims as well! That is pathetic. Aid to victims of disasters ought to be directed to where the disasters are, and, not to where "key" Congressional members happen to live.

That is exactly what is wrong with Washington. Roads ought to be built where traffic needs to move. Bridges ought to be sited where traffic crosses rivers. And, disaster aid ought to target disasters. Election, then, could revolve around things like issues, and which direction to lead the country.

Again, I don't mind pork spending/earmarks. A lot of people in the region where I live, even quite a few of the Republicans I've talked with, share that sentiment. If you think its "pathetic", well thats your opinion.