have southern democrats become, by default

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.