LA and NC 2016 Congressional Races

[Sol]

Just some general musings on the NCDP....

Blacks/latin@s and liberal whites are an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party in NC. Interestingly, these are also the two central demographics of the Obama coalition. Which is why all this talk of nominating blue dogs in NC is misguided--even if a blue dog gets through the primary, they'll not be very electable in a general due to base turnout failure.  So instead the best course for victory in a state like NC (tho this really applies in most atlas blue states) is nominating someone who is vaguely akin to a DLCer (albeit slightly more left-wing on economics). This is true even in VA--compare and contrast Warner, who ran as a blue dog, to T-Mac.

The key swing demographic in NC isn't old style D-voters anymore. It's the swingy, R-downballot (but maybe Obama? but we don't like the education cuts in the GA) suburbanites in places like South Charlotte and outer Wake County.

[IceSpear]

No thanks to McIntyre. Wasn't he the most right wing Democrat in the entire House? NC can do better.

He was one one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, yes. But in present days realities that means "slightly right of center" and "more liberal then any Republican". He ideally suited his district, and he was the only one who was able to hold it for Democrats for so long (look at 2014 results without him in the district). And North Carolina is NOT a very liberal state - in fact a median NC voter will be not far different from him.

Hagan was far more liberal than he was, and she won in 2008, and would've won in 2014 if the wave wasn't so huge. Obama also won in 2008. McIntyre would be a good candidate for South Carolina, maybe.

Forget about Obama. He was a "fashion" in 2008, that's why he won then. His loss in the state in 2012 has shown that even at highest possible minoruty turnout he was no more popular. And Hagan was more liberal then McIntyre, but not by so much. On social ussues - substantially, on economy - not by much. After all - Hagan lost to such flawed candidate as Tillis in 2014: yes, she gave campaign all she had, but even against him that wasn't enough.. And it was a "purple" North Carolina, not Louisiana or Arkansas.

P.S. IMHO - it's a big error to think that each North Carolina Democrat thinks and votes as people in Research Triangle....

I'm just saying, it seems silly to say Democrats NEED to nominate a very conservative candidate to win in NC when moderates/liberals have won there relatively recently. I mean jeez, McIntyre even supported the government shutdown. I wouldn't call that "barely" to the right of Hagan. It would be like telling Republicans that if Toomey loses, they'll need to nominate a Charlie Baker clone if they ever want to win PA again.

Barrow and Matheson were the only House Democrats who were more conservative than McIntyre in the ratings I looked at, and they'd both be good recruits in states where being a statewide Democrat tends to be a hopeless endeavor. That's not the case in NC.

[smoltchanov]

So, relatively conservative (relatively, because there are no REAL conservatives (like Larry McDonald, Bob Stump, John Rarick and David Satterfield were) in Democratic caucus now) are good for "suicidal missions" only, while all other seats "belong" to relative "progressives"?? Not the best fate, and i am sure they will object)))))

I tried to stress that North Carolina is NOT especially liberal state in federal elections, so rumming "non-progressive" makes a lot of sense. Hagan was typical "left of center" Senator (and - among more conservative Democratic senators, BTW). It's not always good to take into account "base" demands ONLY. It's this way (by catering to the "base" which doesn't represent majority view) that Republicans became almost non-competive, say, in California and Oregon, and Democrats - in many southern and border states

[smoltchanov]

It would be like telling Republicans that if Toomey loses, they'll need to nominate a Charlie Baker clone if they ever want to win PA again.

And, BTW, Charlie Baker clone would surely win general election in Pennsylvania. In fact - they elected a lot of similar Republicans (Specter, Scranton, Heinz) in this state for Senate and Governorships. At the same time we all know what happened when their candidates became Corbett and his like...

[Sol]

So, relatively conservative (relatively, because there are no REAL conservatives (like Larry McDonald, Bob Stump, John Rarick and David Satterfield were) in Democratic caucus now) are good for "suicidal missions" only, while all other seats "belong" to relative "progressives"?? Not the best fate, and i am sure they will object)))))

I tried to stress that North Carolina is NOT especially liberal state in federal elections, so rumming "non-progressive" makes a lot of sense. Hagan was typical "left of center" Senator (and - among more conservative Democratic senators, BTW). It's not always good to take into account "base" demands ONLY. It's this way (by catering to the "base" which doesn't represent majority view) that Republicans became almost non-competive, say, in California and Oregon, and Democrats - in many southern and border states

Oh, I wasn't saying that NCDP shouldn't run moderates. My point is that the old-style blue dog moderates are not the kind of moderates the NCDP should run--they'd be better off running someone more like McCauliffe than McIntyre.

[IceSpear]

So, relatively conservative (relatively, because there are no REAL conservatives (like Larry McDonald, Bob Stump, John Rarick and David Satterfield were) in Democratic caucus now) are good for "suicidal missions" only, while all other seats "belong" to relative "progressives"?? Not the best fate, and i am sure they will object)))))

I tried to stress that North Carolina is NOT especially liberal state in federal elections, so rumming "non-progressive" makes a lot of sense. Hagan was typical "left of center" Senator (and - among more conservative Democratic senators, BTW). It's not always good to take into account "base" demands ONLY. It's this way (by catering to the "base" which doesn't represent majority view) that Republicans became almost non-competive, say, in California and Oregon, and Democrats - in many southern and border states

No more of a suicide mission than running in their deep red districts to begin with.

[smoltchanov]

So, relatively conservative (relatively, because there are no REAL conservatives (like Larry McDonald, Bob Stump, John Rarick and David Satterfield were) in Democratic caucus now) are good for "suicidal missions" only, while all other seats "belong" to relative "progressives"?? Not the best fate, and i am sure they will object)))))

I tried to stress that North Carolina is NOT especially liberal state in federal elections, so rumming "non-progressive" makes a lot of sense. Hagan was typical "left of center" Senator (and - among more conservative Democratic senators, BTW). It's not always good to take into account "base" demands ONLY. It's this way (by catering to the "base" which doesn't represent majority view) that Republicans became almost non-competive, say, in California and Oregon, and Democrats - in many southern and border states

No more of a suicide mission than running in their deep red districts to begin with.

Frequently - more so. Matheson's disitrict, for example, was the most LIBERAL in Utah, despite being about R+16. Statewide it's even more difficult.

[smoltchanov]

So, relatively conservative (relatively, because there are no REAL conservatives (like Larry McDonald, Bob Stump, John Rarick and David Satterfield were) in Democratic caucus now) are good for "suicidal missions" only, while all other seats "belong" to relative "progressives"?? Not the best fate, and i am sure they will object)))))

I tried to stress that North Carolina is NOT especially liberal state in federal elections, so rumming "non-progressive" makes a lot of sense. Hagan was typical "left of center" Senator (and - among more conservative Democratic senators, BTW). It's not always good to take into account "base" demands ONLY. It's this way (by catering to the "base" which doesn't represent majority view) that Republicans became almost non-competive, say, in California and Oregon, and Democrats - in many southern and border states

Oh, I wasn't saying that NCDP shouldn't run moderates. My point is that the old-style blue dog moderates are not the kind of moderates the NCDP should run--they'd be better off running someone more like McCauliffe than McIntyre.

May be. IMHO - there are districts for all types of candidates: for example in McIntyre's NC-07 McCauliffe wouldn't have any chances even in 2012. Statewide - you can run Hagan's type (center-left) candidates in NC, but hardly - more liberal...

[IceSpear]

So, relatively conservative (relatively, because there are no REAL conservatives (like Larry McDonald, Bob Stump, John Rarick and David Satterfield were) in Democratic caucus now) are good for "suicidal missions" only, while all other seats "belong" to relative "progressives"?? Not the best fate, and i am sure they will object)))))

I tried to stress that North Carolina is NOT especially liberal state in federal elections, so rumming "non-progressive" makes a lot of sense. Hagan was typical "left of center" Senator (and - among more conservative Democratic senators, BTW). It's not always good to take into account "base" demands ONLY. It's this way (by catering to the "base" which doesn't represent majority view) that Republicans became almost non-competive, say, in California and Oregon, and Democrats - in many southern and border states

No more of a suicide mission than running in their deep red districts to begin with.

Frequently - more so. Matheson's disitrict, for example, was the most LIBERAL in Utah, despite being about R+16. Statewide it's even more difficult.

True for Matheson, but Barrow's district was actually more Republican than Georgia as a whole is.

[smoltchanov]

So, relatively conservative (relatively, because there are no REAL conservatives (like Larry McDonald, Bob Stump, John Rarick and David Satterfield were) in Democratic caucus now) are good for "suicidal missions" only, while all other seats "belong" to relative "progressives"?? Not the best fate, and i am sure they will object)))))

I tried to stress that North Carolina is NOT especially liberal state in federal elections, so rumming "non-progressive" makes a lot of sense. Hagan was typical "left of center" Senator (and - among more conservative Democratic senators, BTW). It's not always good to take into account "base" demands ONLY. It's this way (by catering to the "base" which doesn't represent majority view) that Republicans became almost non-competive, say, in California and Oregon, and Democrats - in many southern and border states

No more of a suicide mission than running in their deep red districts to begin with.

Frequently - more so. Matheson's disitrict, for example, was the most LIBERAL in Utah, despite being about R+16. Statewide it's even more difficult.

True for Matheson, but Barrow's district was actually more Republican than Georgia as a whole is.

True. That's why Barrow is considered a future statewide candidate in Georgia. It will be easier for him to have chances in such race then (especially - in midterms) in his House districts.

[RogueBeaver]

LA-1: Scalise spoke to a David Duke front organization in 2002, his aides say he spoke only about state politics and didn't know the group's ideology or associations.

[Miles]

^ I saw that yesterday and waited to see how big a story it became before posting; I wanted to make sure it wasn't a questionable hit piece or anything. Its getting a lot more traction that I expected.

[RogueBeaver]

Here's what Scalise told Roll Call about Duke in 1999.

[RogueBeaver]

Duke speaks to WaPo: says he knows "very nice guy" Scalise, that 2 of his longtime associates invited Scalise, and he knew of Scalise's invitation.

[Miles]

I listened to Duke's radio show to see if he had anything to say about this, but nothing today. His shows are tapped in the morning, while most of this broke out in the afternoon; I guess he'll be talking about it tomorrow. I doubt he'll be very sympathetic to Scalise, given how they disagree strongly on Duke's #1 issue, Israel/Zionism.

[RogueBeaver]

He defended Scalise to WaPo, essentially saying it was a hit job.

[Miles]

Well, we'll see if he elaborates any tomorrow on his own terms.

[RogueBeaver]

Duke threatened to reveal the names of all pols in both parties associated with him if Scalise isn't treated fairly.

[Miles]

Yep, Burr is definitely running again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Miles]

NC State Rep. Paul Tine, who holds a mildly R-leaning Outer Banks seat, is switching from Democrat to Independent and will caucus with Republicans.

Electorally, its not like he needed to switch; he was reeleted pretty comfortably (by about 7%) as a Democrat last year. Whats even wackier is that when they ask him what his top issues are, he says Medicaid expansion and public education. Something seems kinda off about this.

In any case, I thought he'd be a top-tier Democratic recruit if NC-03 became open, as Jones should be on retirement watch. Damn.

[Miles]

Fleming will 'absolutely' run for Senate if Vitter becomes Governor.

More importantly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RogueBeaver]

Hagan to Harvard IOP this spring along with Coakley and Quinn.

[Miles]

NC-04: If David Price, who's on retirement watch as it is, actually ends up not running, one prospect may be that Clay Akin tries to make an, er, encore. Still, I think an open NC-04 would be Brad Miller's if he wanted it.

[RogueBeaver]

NC-2: Chatham County GOP Chairman Jim Duncan is seriously considering primarying Ellmers.

[Miles]

I'm not sure where this is from:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

North Star did a Governor poll last week, so I'm assuming this is from that.