Jim Cooper - victim of attempt to purge centrist Dems?

[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. 

[Mr.Phips]

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.

An R+6 district in Tennessee would be very winnable for a Democrat like Cooper. 

[Mr.Phips]

How about this: Pull out of the districts completely! Don't field ANY Candidates in these redneck, backwater districts! Save your money to compete against vulnerable GOP incumbents in friendly territory, instead of compiling a wide smorgasbord of milquetoast-to-right-wing Democrats who essentially have veto power over anything your caucus can do if it gains a majority?

Much better to just engage in a form of electoral trench warfare, picking off whatever Northern liberal and progressive districts you can until you're able to compile a working majority of actual progressives who can get sh**t done for a change.

Both of those districts are almost entirely urban...

'Ya know, we're not entirely ignorant and backwards down here in the south.

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.

The pending realignment doesn't mean that Democrats should entirely eschew certain constituencies. Your solution seems too extreme: if we can'y elect a liberal, why even bother competing!?

There are plenty of conservative people down here who would vote for the right type of Democrat.

I'd say that Blue Dogs like McIntyre and Barrow have the similar position as the strong majority of their constituents on social issues. Those aren't the 'losing issues' that you're making out them to be, at least not in some regions. If Democrats can run on those issues like abortion and guns and win, why would the party want to cut them off?

The reason the Democrats are so successful is because they have Members who have Different Views like Matheson, Barrow, McIntyre, and Cooper they represent there constituents

-----------------------------------------

This debate is moot -as a direct result of President Obama focusing on gun control (and not even with any real hope of passing legislation), we are even more likely to lose those seats (including Rahall's) in the next election anyway whether we pour resources into them or not.  

The South (and I am including West Virginia) is arguably the most hostile region to gun control in the Union -we should expect continued losses in 2014 and in the remainder of this decade here as the remaining Democratic-controlled state chambers turn Republican.    

The only two House Democrats left in the south where the gun control issue would hurt are Barrow and McINtrye.