Jim Cooper - victim of attempt to purge centrist Dems?

[Keystone Phil]

http://politi.co/11EuF8s

When will the left stop trying to "purify" the Dem ranks?

[CountryRoads]

lol, democrats.

[Niemeyerite]

http://politi.co/11EuF8s

When will the left stop trying to "purify" the Dem ranks?

It's the teabaggers "puryfing" GOP ranks.  Democrats, generally speaking, tolerate conservative representatives if they can win where a moderate/liberal candidate can't.

[Donerail]

It's only a D+3 district he's in, he's not David Scott or Mike Thompson.

[Keystone Phil]

http://politi.co/11EuF8s

When will the left stop trying to "purify" the Dem ranks?

It's the teabaggers "puryfing" GOP ranks.  Democrats, generally speaking, tolerate conservative representatives if they can win where a moderate/liberal candidate can't.

Right...except when they don't.

[CatoMinor]

http://politi.co/11EuF8s

When will the left stop trying to "purify" the Dem ranks?

It's the teabaggers "puryfing" GOP ranks.  Democrats, generally speaking, tolerate conservative representatives if they can win where a moderate/liberal candidate can't.

Right...except when they don't.

[Miles]

The extremes on both ends try to purify their respective parties. It just seems more obvious on the Republican side, as they have let several Senate seat slip away from them over the past few cycles.

Cooper's vote against Sandy relief was pretty inexcusable to this centrist Democrat.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The extremes on both ends try to purify their respective parties. It just seems more obvious on the Republican side, as they have let several Senate seat slip away from them over the past few cycles.

Cooper's vote against Sandy relief was pretty inexcusable to this centrist Democrat.

Voting against Sandy relief doesn't only make you unworthy of the D label, it should utterly disqualify you as a serious politician.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Phil, you might think it's cute when you do crap like this, but it isn't.

[Tayya]

Primary challenges is one of these questions where the correct alternatives may actually be found in the middle ground. Democrats say that only Republicans do it, Republicans say that Democrats do it too, when Democrats do it but not as often or as visibly as Republicans.

D+3 could be iffy, especially with a personally popular Representative among centrists, so they should probably not bother. But those that you listed, Joyce, yikes, they could be low-hanging fruit if the right people bothered.

[DrScholl]

First off, the district is D+5, no Democrat with that high of a PVI district should be voting against necessary aid to those effected by Sandy, it's totally unacceptable. It's not like Republicans are winning that sort of seat, so a primary isn't a risk.

This little attempt to flip the script is a fail, which is no surprise coming from the poster. Your party threw out a 30 year senator for being too conciliatory and ended up with the nominee that believes that rape is a gift from God, who went on to lose.

[Keystone Phil]

Mourdock quote still being blatantly twisted. Not surprising given the poster.

[Mr.Phips]

It's only a D+3 district he's in, he's not David Scott or Mike Thompson.

A D+3 seat in Tennessee is pretty darn safe for a Dem. 

[DrScholl]

Mourdock quote still being blatantly twisted. Not surprising given the poster.

Right, he said pregnancy from rape was a gift from God, which in itself is disturbing and if he's saying the pregnancy is a gift, what does that make the crime that made it happen? It's all the same. Bad comments are bad comments.

[Sbane]

Cooper's vote against Sandy relief was pretty inexcusable to this centrist Democrat.

^^^ This. I don't really mind him being a centrist at all, but what the hell was he thinking voting against Sandy relief?

Also, it needs to be said that this is a Nashville based district. Nashville isn't trending Republican. It's getting full of hipsters and it also has a lot of blacks. Also there is a fair amount of growth in the downtown/greens hills/east Nashville area. If anything it will continue to trend Democrat.

[osideguy92]

Vote him out along with all the rest of the Blue Mutts.

Seriously though, I think the seeming move to the left of the House Democratic Caucus over the last couple of election cycles has more to do with natural political alignment than anything on the part of activists. The utter decimation of the Blue Dog Caucus from 54 members out of 257 House Democrats in the 111th Congress (21%), down to 25 out of 192 in the 112th (13%), and now down to 14 out of 200 in the 113th (7%), is almost entirely a byproduct of two things:

• The strength of Republican candidates in these members' districts, given results of previous presidential elections
• A passive-aggressive bordering on mildly overtly aggressive approach on the part of liberal and progressive groups to essentially cut off any additional funding for these Blue Dogs' campaigns.

It's definitely encouraging to see liberal and progressive groups finally taking much more concentrated aim at remaining Blue Dogs like John Barrow and Jim Cooper, but like I said, the Death of the Blue Dogs has much more to do with Republicans reaching certain demographic thresholds in Blue Dog districts over the 2010 and 2012 election cycles as part of a natural political realignment which has been taking place since the 1960s, and which we are now in the final stages of, as opposed to any organized, concentrated effort on the part of progressive activists and voters.

[Nichlemn]

Redistricting makes it kind of interesting. If there was a liberal Democrat in that seat, Republicans might have gone for a 8-1 map in 2010. With Cooper, there's the danger he could win one of the cracked seats while leaving the others semi-vulnerable. However, with 8 years to go until the next redistricting (by which time Cooper might retire anyway), it's probably not significant at the moment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is it even possible to reduce TN Dems to one seat? With Memphis and Nashville being so far from each other, this would require a gerrymander of Ohio levels...

[Donerail]

Is it even possible to reduce TN Dems to one seat? With Memphis and Nashville being so far from each other, this would require a gerrymander of Ohio levels...

It's certainly doable. All the districts surrounding Nashville are at least R+6, and with one exception R+13 or higher. They could probably absorb much of Nashville into their districts without losing their R advantage. Just split up Nashville into parts of Nashville+R suburbia.

[morgieb]

Is it even possible to reduce TN Dems to one seat? With Memphis and Nashville being so far from each other, this would require a gerrymander of Ohio levels...

I think I've seen maps which split up Nashville fairly cleanly, which would make it hard for a non-Blue Dog to hold.

[Miles]

It's definitely encouraging to see liberal and progressive groups finally taking much more concentrated aim at remaining Blue Dogs like John Barrow and Jim Cooper, but like I said, the Death of the Blue Dogs has much more to do with Republicans reaching certain demographic thresholds in Blue Dog districts over the 2010 and 2012 election cycles as part of a natural political realignment which has been taking place since the 1960s, and which we are now in the final stages of, as opposed to any organized, concentrated effort on the part of progressive activists and voters.

'Because a far-left Democrat would be very electable in GA-12

Is it even possible to reduce TN Dems to one seat? With Memphis and Nashville being so far from each other, this would require a gerrymander of Ohio levels...

I think I've seen maps which split up Nashville fairly cleanly, which would make it hard for a non-Blue Dog to hold.

Legislators actually considered an 8-1 map from RRH that cracked Davidson County 3 ways.

[osideguy92]

It's definitely encouraging to see liberal and progressive groups finally taking much more concentrated aim at remaining Blue Dogs like John Barrow and Jim Cooper, but like I said, the Death of the Blue Dogs has much more to do with Republicans reaching certain demographic thresholds in Blue Dog districts over the 2010 and 2012 election cycles as part of a natural political realignment which has been taking place since the 1960s, and which we are now in the final stages of, as opposed to any organized, concentrated effort on the part of progressive activists and voters.

'Because a far-left Democrat would be very electable in GA-12

Who said anything about electing a Democrat in GA-12? My point is that Democrats should abandon any of their remaining southern conservative House Reps. Starve their campaigns and focus on electing liberals and progressives in more friendly territory with Republican incumbents, like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, California, etc.

[Miles]

It's definitely encouraging to see liberal and progressive groups finally taking much more concentrated aim at remaining Blue Dogs like John Barrow and Jim Cooper, but like I said, the Death of the Blue Dogs has much more to do with Republicans reaching certain demographic thresholds in Blue Dog districts over the 2010 and 2012 election cycles as part of a natural political realignment which has been taking place since the 1960s, and which we are now in the final stages of, as opposed to any organized, concentrated effort on the part of progressive activists and voters.

'Because a far-left Democrat would be very electable in GA-12

Where in my post did I mention electing a Democrat in GA-12? My point is that Democrats should abandon any of their remaining southern conservative House Reps. Starve their campaigns and focus on electing liberals and progressives in more friendly territory with Republican incumbents, like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, California, etc.

So, we should exacerbate the polarization in Congress by giving the shaft to moderates in favor of electing more far-right Republicans in the south and liberals in the north.

They did that with Larry Kissell this election. Instead of having a Congressman who votes with the Democrats 73% of the time, Hudson will surely be voting with his caucus on 95%+ of votes.

If nothing else, I think the party should be open ideological diversity.

[morgieb]

Yes, I don't understand why people want to remove Blue Dogs in unwinnable locations. Like it or not Barrow, McIntyre and Matheson are the best we can do in those districts.

That said, Cooper's made too many right-wing votes despite representing a Democratic district. I think primaring him shouldn't backfire.

[osideguy92]

It's definitely encouraging to see liberal and progressive groups finally taking much more concentrated aim at remaining Blue Dogs like John Barrow and Jim Cooper, but like I said, the Death of the Blue Dogs has much more to do with Republicans reaching certain demographic thresholds in Blue Dog districts over the 2010 and 2012 election cycles as part of a natural political realignment which has been taking place since the 1960s, and which we are now in the final stages of, as opposed to any organized, concentrated effort on the part of progressive activists and voters.

'Because a far-left Democrat would be very electable in GA-12

Where in my post did I mention electing a Democrat in GA-12? My point is that Democrats should abandon any of their remaining southern conservative House Reps. Starve their campaigns and focus on electing liberals and progressives in more friendly territory with Republican incumbents, like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, California, etc.

So, we should exacerbate the polarization in Congress by giving the shaft to moderates in favor of electing more far-right Republicans in the south and liberals in the north.

They did that with Larry Kissell this election. Instead of having a Congressman who votes with the Democrats 73% of the time, Hudson will surely be voting with his caucus on 95%+ of votes.

If nothing else, I think the party should be open ideological diversity.

I fail to see the downside in what you are describing. Republicans have already fully re-located to the South, and now Democrats are beginning to follow suit in re-locating to the North. You know, when you go against what the demographics are telling you is going to happen, you're going to lose. And not just lose, but get annihilated. Democrats went against the demographic grain in 2006 and 2008 by focusing on electing Blue Dogs throughout the South and Plains, and they paid for it dearly in 2010 when the vast majority of those candidates lost their seats.

Why do you want your party to continue this losing strategy of fielding candidates who are vastly out of step with the overwhelming majority of the party on a wide variety of issues from abortion, guns, LGBT rights, budgetary issues, and climate change? When you do that, your base will eventually become disaffected, believing (correctly) that the party leaders are not listening to their concerns. And, since the base is the most likely bloc of voters to actually go out and standing in line at a polling place, those voters are going to be extremely more inclined to simply stay home.

As the base moves left, the party and the candidates it fields must move with it, lest it risk losing their support. Not losing their support to their opponents at the other end of the spectrum, but losing their active, efficacious support. Your prescription of electing more conservative Democrats to southern states whose residents obviously don't want them to represent them is a failed strategy.