CPRM, Pt 3: LA 11/6

[smoltchanov]

I voted for King but I'm not sad to see Marshall win. I'm happy to see Gerald Dial (been in the legislature since 1974) go down. I'm also very happy to see that Twinkle lost. I absolutely despise that woman.

What's so bad about Dial? I know he was a very conservative Democrat in the past (until he lost Democratic primary in 2006), but that can be said about lot of people in the state. I understand, that now Republicans have it's own big bench and doesn't need a conservative Democrats in their ranks, as in the past, when Republican party was much smaller and heavily recruited them. But, besides that, what else?

P.S. Would Bright run better in GE as a "conservative Indie" then in Republican primary?

[smoltchanov]

I voted for King but I'm not sad to see Marshall win. I'm happy to see Gerald Dial (been in the legislature since 1974) go down. I'm also very happy to see that Twinkle lost. I absolutely despise that woman.

What's so bad about Dial? I know he was a very conservative Democrat in the past (until he lost Democratic primary in 2006), but that can be said about lot of people in the state. I understand, that now Republicans have it's own big bench and doesn't need a conservative Democrats in their ranks, as in the past, when Republican party was much smaller and heavily recruited them. But, besides that, what else?

P.S. Would Bright run better in GE as a "conservative Indie" then in Republican primary?

Dial is quite corrupt. Also, I don't understand why he even ran for Ag. commissioner. He's 80 years old and has been in office for 44 years, so I don't understand why he would run for commissioner of all things.

Thanks! May be - he ran because he regularily had rather difficult primaries running for his state Senate seat (at least - it was so in 2006 (as Democrat) and 2014 (as Republican))?

[smoltchanov]

One more question: Pate comes from Lowdness county, which is 70+% Black and heavily Democratic. Typical for Black Belt situation with generally liberal and almost completely Democratic Blacks, and heavily conservative and almost exclusively Republican whites? In the past this area was Democratic, very conservative and segregationist. Whites are still very conservative, Republican, and, probably, still segregationst in their thoughts here...

[smoltchanov]

One more question: Pate comes from Lowdness county, which is 70+% Black and heavily Democratic. Typical for Black Belt situation with generally liberal and almost completely Democratic Blacks, and heavily conservative and almost exclusively Republican whites? In the past this area was Democratic, very conservative and segregationist. Whites are still very conservative, Republican, and, probably, still segregationst in their thoughts here...

I thought Republicans in majority-minority counties were more moderate even if voting is still polarized.

May be new generations. But initially these Republicans were recently converted ultrasegregationist and ultraconservative Democrats. That's why i ask - whether it's still so... I am reasonably sure about general conservatism of these people, not so sure - about "internal segregationism". But the neighboring Dallas county elected former leader of White Citizens Councils of Alabama (Walter Givhan) to state Senate long after Blacks began to vote - so strong was this tradition.

[smoltchanov]

Democrats again nominated more liberal candidates in swingish, and Tilt-R at least (especially on non-Presidential level) districts. Tilt-R, probably (may be - Lean R)....

[smoltchanov]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

[smoltchanov]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

[smoltchanov]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

True, but "stronger, grassroots-backed women" doesn't necessarily imply "bold progressives" (although in this case, it does.)

Agree, but, speaking about these particular districts and election results, i am reasonably sure, that results increased Republican chances of holding these districts. Exactly because in this case "stronger, grassroots-backed women" are "bold progressives" in non-progressive districts.

[smoltchanov]

Exactly because in this case "stronger, grassroots-backed women" are "bold progressives" in non-progressive districts.

Amy McGrath? M.J. Hegar?

Have very serious doubts about Hegar (difficult to see her playing well in Temple or Killeen). McGrath - may be, but we will see. It won't be easy in any case, despite long Democratic tradition of Bluegrass area.

[smoltchanov]

Exactly because in this case "stronger, grassroots-backed women" are "bold progressives" in non-progressive districts.

Amy McGrath? M.J. Hegar?

Have very serious doubts about Hegar. McGrath - may be, but we will see. It won't be easy in any case, despite long Democratic tradition of Bluegrass area.

All I'm saying is that the old conventional wisdom about who Democratic candidates are and what their gender signifies to voters has likely changed a lot since 2016 *because* of Donald Trump and the revulsion he evinces among a majority of American women—not just as voters but as candidates.

May be. But most of us thought that Trump had no chances in 2016, partially because of "revulsion he evinces among a majority of American women", who are majority of American voters, and especially - because Democrats ran woman as a candidate. We all know, how it turned THEN. We will see how it turns this year.

[smoltchanov]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

Riiiight.Its not like every GOP congressperson is exactly the same, and many Blue Dogs are in Safe Dem seats, and many Progressives are in tossup or lean R seats.

There is no conventional wisdom for this. In fact, the two women were better choices because of their more socially progressive values. Atlanta suburbs hate guns, as do most suburbs. Just because someone is more liberal doesnt make them weaker. The only people to have gotten close or won in Alabama state elections was Doug Jones(who was famously pro-choice) and Ron Sparks(who famously said he was as Liberal as the president).

The myth about matching a district by being centrist has never worked for Democrats in the past, and is just an excuse for leadership to keep pushing centrist ideas.

In short - idiocy. Try to elect your "beloved progressives" in most southern districts. Many of them became solidly Republican exactly after such attempts. MS-03 happily elected Sonny Montgomery for many years, but switched immediately after his retirement. The same with AL-4 and Tom Bevill, with a lot of districts in fact. Or MS-02 in early 1980. After pragmatic moderate conservative white Democrat David Bowen retired in 1982, local and national liberals decided that district is ripe for liberal Black congressman, and ran Robert Clark. As a result - district, which didn't elect a Republican for many many years elected Republican (former conservative Democrat) Webb Franklin, and reelected him in 1984. Only after making district even more Black and running less "ideologically pure" Mike Espy in 1986 Democrats were able to get district back. You elected "progressive" Josh Newman to California state Senate and heralded it as a "new dawn in Orange county", where he is NOW??? And so on. Jones won mostly because of Moore, not because he was a "progressive and pro-choice", in fact - he won despite all this because his opponent turned to be Moore. Atlanta suburbs are "purple", not "solid Blue"......

[smoltchanov]

May be. But most of us thought that Trump had no chances in 2016, partially because of "revulsion he evinces among a majority of American women", who are majority of American voters, and especially - because Democrats ran woman as a candidate. We all know, how it turned THEN. We will see how it turns this year.

We are talking about today. 2018. What happened in 2016 happened in 2016. Just sit back and let these women run their races. If David Kim and Kevin Abel were so much better they would have won.

No. In present Democratic primaries (just as in Republican since at least 2010) wins not, who is better, but who is "most pure" and cries most loudly. "Activists" rule)))))

[smoltchanov]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

Riiiight.Its not like every GOP congressperson is exactly the same, and many Blue Dogs are in Safe Dem seats, and many Progressives are in tossup or lean R seats.

There is no conventional wisdom for this. In fact, the two women were better choices because of their more socially progressive values. Atlanta suburbs hate guns, as do most suburbs. Just because someone is more liberal doesnt make them weaker. The only people to have gotten close or won in Alabama state elections was Doug Jones(who was famously pro-choice) and Ron Sparks(who famously said he was as Liberal as the president).

The myth about matching a district by being centrist has never worked for Democrats in the past, and is just an excuse for leadership to keep pushing centrist ideas.

In short - idiocy. Try to elect your "beloved progressives" in most southern districts. Many of them became solidly Republican exactly after such attempts. MS-03 happily elected Sonny Montgomery for many years, but switched immediately after his retirement. The same with AL-4 and Tom Bevill, with a lot of districts in fact. You elected "progressive" Josh Newman to California state Senate and heralded it as a "new dawn in Orange county", where he is NOW??? And so on. Jones won mostly because of Moore, not because he was a "progressive and pro-choice", in fact - he won despite all this because his opponent turned to be Moore. Atlanta suburbs are "purple", not "solid Blue"......

1) Districts like MS-03 and AL-04 are rural white Southern districts which are dark red. Even a Blue Dog has zero chance of winning either. AL-04 was Moore's best CD (he won it 68-31 against a moderate Dem!)

2) Newman was recalled because it was seen as a way to punish the state legislature for a gas tax, not because he was too "progressive" for a 53-41 Clinton district.

3) There's no proof that purple areas will be turned off by liberal candidates. Again, a socialist won a VA House seat that voted for Mitt Romney literally within this decade.

1. Districts like MS-03 and AL-04 were solidly Democratic for decades. But they required non-liberal, or even conservatively inclined Democrats to be held, and Democrats simply don't run such candidates anymore (despite all talk about "big tent". It fact - it was much wider in 1960-1970th in both parties, while now only liberals are welcome in Democratic party, and only conservatives - in Republican). When Democrats had shown that they don't care about these conservative inclinations of district's population - people of these districts turned to Republicans, who readily presented such conservative-leaning candidates. As a result - districts were lost.

2. Even 53-41 Clinton district in Orange county is NOT really liberal. It's anti-Trump district, which is socially moderate or even somewhat liberal, but - not fiscally. Fiscal conservatism is still approved there. As one Republican politician from Maine has said "my heart is on the left, but my wallet is on the right". So, Newman's "punishment" served both purposes - to punish Legislature and personally him for this fiscal apostasy.

3. We speak here not about simple "purple" disitricts, but purple just recently (essentialy, percentages for Clinton are the first case of their "purple" leanings), with strong Republican tradition of previous decades, solid Republican incumbents, and so on. In very big wave everything is possible - you can elect your candidates in even "alien" districts. But i doubt, that wave will be so high this year.

P.S. Let's return to beginning. THEN i said only that running very liberl candidates in purple districts instead of moderate liberals , IMHO (and i am entitled to such opinion, and explained why) decreases Democratic chances to flip it. You disagree? Your right. But chances that you will be able to shake my convictions are almost zero. Just as it's a sort of axiom to me that candidates must reflect preferences of their districts (so, i am for progressives in progressive districts, centrists - in purple, and yes, conservatives - in conservative one's), not impose their views on district. Seldom something good comes from it. We spoke about Mississippi, so i will remind that John Stennis held a Senate Seat from it rather easily, but more liberal Wayne Dowdy, who ran for his seat later - couldn't even get elected (partially because he was somewhat too liberal for the state)

[smoltchanov]

^ I wouldn't call people of districts in question "inelastic". They had shown this by switching in droves from Romney to Clinton. And if so - there must be substantial number of centrists (the type i described - fiscally conservative, but socially - moderate, to even liberal) in these districts, which Democrats must attract if they want to flip these districts. And if a base wouldn't vote for moderate liberal because he/she is "not progressive enough" - it's base's problem: they may have their present Republican congressmen for few more years and be proud of their "purity"....

[smoltchanov]

But I still wont concede that many of these voters are centrist, and that the centrist voter actually exists in large numbers. But that was mostly with Smoltchanov, not you.

Let's honestly disagree, and see the reuslts. Both - congressional elections in GA-06 and GA-07 this November, and Senate elections in Alabama in November of 2020. Then we can return to this discussion with new data.

[smoltchanov]

https://twitter.com/BrentWelder/status/1025908868864528386

Looks like this race is going to be thrown away by dumb primary voters.

A guy from St. Louis, Missouri who only came into the district a few months before his campaign has zero chance in hell of winning a district in Kansas.

+100

[smoltchanov]

Bit disappointing that Davids won, but progressives had some good wins in other areas, and she seems to be just a tad right of Welder.

Very glad, that Davids won, and progressives generally had unspectacular today (thanks God!)....

[smoltchanov]

I take solace that in 2020, after Dems win the house and possibly the senate, that the message of Dem Unity will be ineffective, and Dems will finally start to support the candidates that they actually like, instead of "muh electoral strength"

The goal of the party is to win elections, not "purity of views" of it's members and candidates. Of course - if a party is NOT of Bolshevick's type, which you seem to admire.

[smoltchanov]

I take solace that in 2020, after Dems win the house and possibly the senate, that the message of Dem Unity will be ineffective, and Dems will finally start to support the candidates that they actually like, instead of "muh electoral strength"

The goal of the party is to win elections, not "purity of views" of it's members and candidates. Of course - if a party is NOT of Bolshevick's type, which you seem to admire.

All I said is that the idea of winning the election and elect-ability will be less important than actually supporting a candidate you like. And if you are really chiding the D party for ideological purity, then I really have nothing to say.

Yes, i chide it. Less, then Republicans, but "ideological purity" became an obsession of considerable part of it. And surely, party is much less resembling a "big tent" now, then it was when i began to study US politics.

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Anyone to the right of Joseph Stalin or Fidel Castro is "conservative."  Hell, to some of these people, Nicolas Maduro is probably "conservative."

In such case - one short word is very applicable: idiots.

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Joe Donnelly
Heidi Heitkamp
Joe Manchin

Nothing conservative. Center to Left-of-center people. I would understand if someone would call Boren or McIntyre or Matheson "a conservative", but only barely with adjective "moderate" before this word. The last Democrat i could simply call a "conservative" was, probably, Ralph Hall

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

There used to be much more, but people such as Lamb, Chist, David Scott, Lipinski, Manchin, Donnelly. Moderate/Conservative on both groups(economic/social). Dianne Feinstein would have been a left liberal, but now she is a conservative/moderate progressive. I have a system.

Conservative-Liberal-Progressive-DS

and each category has three sections, left, moderate, conservative.

None of them is really conservative to me. All are center to left-of-center type. I can't call even one Democratic member of Congress even "moderate conservative", even less - without "moderate". There are still some in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi state legislatures, and that's - all...

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Joe Donnelly
Heidi Heitkamp
Joe Manchin

Nothing conservative. Center to Left-of-center people. I would understand if someone would call Boren or McIntyre or Matheson "a conservative", but only barely with adjective "moderate" before this word. The last Democrat i could simply call a "conservative" was, probably, Ralph Hall

Then it may be your definition of "Conservative" that is messed up, because these guys are not center-left, they are center/center-tilt-right, which is the Conservative faction of the Dems.

Among "Present day Democrats" that may be "right", but only among "present day". On a general common idrological scale they are not "conservative" at all...

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

There used to be much more, but people such as Lamb, Chist, David Scott, Lipinski, Manchin, Donnelly. Moderate/Conservative on both groups(economic/social). Dianne Feinstein would have been a left liberal, but now she is a conservative/moderate progressive. I have a system.

Conservative-Liberal-Progressive-DS

and each category has three sections, left, moderate, conservative.

None of them is really conservative to me. All are center to left-of-center type. I can't call even one Democratic member of Congress even "moderate conservative", even less - without "moderate". There are still some in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi state legislatures, and that's - all...

....What is a conservative Democrat to you?

Now?? People like John Milkovich, Francis Thompson, Mike Danahay and Major Thibaut from Louisiana legislature, or J.P. Wilemon, Bob Dearing or Nick Bain from Mississippi's. 20 years ago i wuld call almost all of them "moderate conservatives" as then there were much more conservative types - really conservative.