Blue Dogs

[adma]

I really hope they die out. Blue Dogs are the reason Democrats never get to do anything even when they have majorities. When we retake the House, we should make sure to field relatively progressive candidates: it's been pretty clear they can win in purple areas (see Baldwin).

But can they win in *red* areas?  Because otherwise, you'd be assigning a permanent GOP state of affairs in much of the rural South and Midwest...

[adma]

Maybe if we mentally reconfigure things into "Clinton '08" vs "Obama '08", we can get a gist of how to conquer such districts (and HRC is far from a "Blue Dog", even if her de facto political roots are as a young Goldwater Republican)

[adma]

I don't that's true. First of all, in the South, Democrats are and will continually be shut out of virtually all of the non-VRA districts. The only white Democrat left in the Deep South is John Barrow, who I was actually surprised to see survive. As has been said already, gerrymandering has screwed the Democrats out of a majority in the House. It was just four years ago that Democrats won nearly 60% of House seats. It's absurd if anyone says that that result is due to a shift in political allegiances in that short amount of time. Democrats are only hurting in the Midwest due to redistricting. In Ohio, for example, Democrats are practically confined to four seats out of 16. That had nothing to do with how many Blue Dogs there are. Redistricting alone took the old, once Democratic-held, OH-01 from D+1 to R+6. That is a huge shift that is only the result of a vicious gerrymander.

To counter that, I'd say it's "only" R+6, as opposed to R+16.  It's not insurmountable--and you don't even have to be hardcore Blue Dog about it.  Just competent, and convincing.

So, w/that in mind, let me tell you that you're being a "oh, dear, woe is us, the GOP got us again, we'll never win" blubbering wimp about it.  Look: when it comes to US politics, practically speaking, move the "relatively progressive" needle too far and you'll be terminally in the McGovern '72 margins, gerrymander or no gerrymander.

And by way of consolation, keep this in mind: thanks to Blue Dog-ism among other things, I'll betcha that Democrat actually happens to be a latently less dicey option in an awful lot of seemingly terminal-Republican seats than you're bargaining on.  And whether you like it or not, Blue Dogs at this point actually happen to be a more "organic" extension of the Democratic big tent than the stunt-cast-Potemkin-freak "Tisei Republicans" are to the GOP...

[adma]

In the case of OH-01, I really doubt you'll see that contested in its current boundaries.

Why?  The broader issue of overall party resource-allocation aside, I'd still suggest that anything with Cincinnati at its core should and must be treated as latently/seriously Dem-competitive--GOP exurbs or no GOP exurbs.  And even w/said exurbs within present boundaries, overall demographic/cultural trends likely lean Dem-ward--at least, provided that the GOP shoves itself further and further into its particular present political-cultural cubbyhole.  What's presently R+6 might well be R+5, 4, 3 etc within a few years time--all the more so given it's an urban-suburban rather than rural-hinterland district.

It's definitely targetable.  Oh, not w/a Kucinich-wing Democrat; but...

[adma]

My main point that I'm trying to say here is that the days of even Blue Dogs winning heavily Republican districts is over, which was certainly apparent in their disastrous wipe-out in 2010. We're not going to get back those seats in the South, so there needs to a different path to the majority. And if Republican districts vote like their Democratic counterparts of a similar PVI, the House will be quite difficult to win back when the median district stands at R+3 (which, as I mentioned before, is up from R+2 during the 2000's and R+1 during the 1990's).

And I still say--Why.  Freaking.  Not.  If you're going to fall back on 2010 as an alibi to endorse a roll-over-play-dead-we'll-never-make-it-ever-again approach, then the political, electoral, and psephological culture in the U.S. of A. is truly effed.  Like, the Big Sort gone berzerk.  Compared to the dynamic shifting-in-all-directions electoral parliamentary democracy in the UK and Canada, you all are truly...retarded.  Stunted.  Like, lazily falling back upon or moaning about gerrymander rather than deftly strategizing around it with an eye to the longer term...

[adma]

The rural seats are probably gone forever (and it was probably inevitable anyway) -but the rising metropolises of the Research Triangle and Atlanta are gaining in population, and are more conducive to the type of Democrats who can win in the South.  We can certainly make a comeback in the region by focusing there.  

Plus, secondarily or tertially, even in some of the "conducive-esque" spots in select rural seats (campus towns, shreds of "evolving" exurbia, etc)--or perhaps in an echo of Team Obama, enacting an aggressive GOTV operation among Dem-friendly demos that've been suppressed/voter-booth-shy in the past, and giving them credible candidates and campaigns to GOTV on behalf of.

Such spots'll only be gone forever once Western Kansas-scaled GOP mandates become the terminal norm.

[adma]

Rather than resort to name-calling, I'll simply say that it's bad strategy to put any huge effort into getting those rural Southern seats back. We'll have to look at different areas to win. Now that we have the first election post-redistricting, we can get a better handle on which areas to target. Sure, I think we can run someone like Bill Halter in AR-02, but I don't believe for a second that we can get seats like AR-04 or TN-06 back (or the other two Tennessee seats we lost). Don't think I'm saying we should concede the entire non-VRA South to Republicans. However, we have to realistic about our targets.

Well--I'm not saying a *huge* effort, much less for immediate 2014 gain.  But it wouldn't hurt to set a foundation with longer-term "grand coalition" gains and goals in mind, rather than to let the South settle into an eternal counter-New England state of affairs.  And who knows--a lot of that could basically happen accidentally through Republican gaffes; in which case, it helps to have credible standard-bearers "just in case".  That is, be realistic: but don't be too timid, either, in case you're looking at gift horses in the mouth.  Letting the political landscape terminally balkanize through "gravity" is just about the worst strategy imaginable, especially when one treats 57-43 Republican districts like they're 77-23.

Unfortunately, I realize that the US is the way it is, gerrymandering, provisional balloting, and all.  Like, when it comes to creative, comprehensive electoral strategizing and deconstruction a la Brits and Canucks, Yankees can be like the proverbial dweeb whose conception of attractive femininity is overly skewed by silicone and Brazilians...

[adma]

For better or worse, moderates from both sides of the aisle are all but extinct now.

I dunno, I'd reckon there are more than a few left-Dems out there (not to mention those further out in Bernie Sanders field) who'd contend that point, esp. now that Kucinich is gone.  To them, President Obama in practice might as well be to the right of President Nixon--really.  Take my word for it.  (Though that's more a measure of politics-in-general c1970, than of Nixon in particular.)

Indeed, it's that inherent "moderation"/sanity within the present-day Dem flank--and the possible increasing unlikelihood of the same within the GOP flank--that explains my "big tent" reasoning.

[adma]

This idea that somehow democrats are just as extremist and partisan than republicans is one of the most blatantly false talking points spewed by the MSM. The choice in America today is basically between centrist Democrats and far-right Republicans.

And, again--that's why it might not be such a waste to invest in rather than write off big zones of the country.

That is, unless the GOP finds "centrist" religion--f'rinstance, in Oklahoma, someone like OK City mayor Mick Cornett running against a hardcore Blue Dog Dem might actually be out there in political-table-turning "Weld vs Silber" country.

[adma]

Centrist Dems? You think ObamaCare is good policy and an unpaid for stimulus? Cap and Tax that the Dems tried to push through?
[/quote]

By the standards of most elected democracies: yes, it's still pretty "centrist".  Or at least, not out on some lunatic fringe.

If the UK were like the US, the Dem-GOP dividing line would be increasingly like Tory/Labout/LibDem on one side, UKIP/BNP on the other.  Just to clarify.

[adma]

Democrats "barely tolerate" moderates and the most fierce critics of Democratic moderates like Bayh or Ben Nelson were not Republicans - it was Democratic "activists" for whom moderates were always "insufficiently liberal" - even when they represented moderate-to-conservative states like Indiana or Nebraska. I never saw so much hatred of democratic moderates on Republican sites as on Daily Kos, for example. To be true - the same (with obvious permutations) is true for republicans - many of the will rather tolerate Barbara Boxer in OTHER party, then Susan Collins in their own)))) "Activists" hate anyone who dares to disagree with them - in BOTH parties...

You have to remember that it's hazardous to view central party culture via the so-called "activist" prism of such discussion forums.  Remember that to said hardcore Daily Kos discussioneers, even Obama is a DINO.  Then once you get back into the real world, you'll notice that the Kucinich-wing-and-beyond holds a lot less sway over the Dems than its GOP equivalent would over the GOP.  Okay?

[adma]

OK. That's sure. But still it holds a considerable (and, what bothers me - greater in the last years) sway in the party. As i said many times - i am a big believer in "big tent" principle. Republican tent is now pitifully "small", and i don't want to see Democratic shrinking too))). Elections will be absolutely uninteresting in such case..

If "greater in the last years" truly were the case, then Obama wouldn't be president--indeed, he'd have lost by a McGovern/Mondale-worthy margin.  The only thing that makes it seem greater to, well, certain folk out there is (I regret to say) the fact that Obama's black.  But otherwise, the fact that the Kucinichs and Graysons are presently at the edge or out of sight, and that the Al Sharpton wing is thoroughly neutralized compared to a decade or so ago, works against the "greater" prognosis.  And what is the "greater in the last years" based upon?  Obamacare?  Same-sex marriage?  That's more like "evolution" or parity w/other elected democracies than "extremism taking over"....

[adma]

If "greater in the last years" truly were the case, then Obama wouldn't be president--indeed, he'd have lost by a McGovern/Mondale-worthy margin.  The only thing that makes it seem greater to, well, certain folk out there is (I regret to say) the fact that Obama's black.  But otherwise, the fact that the Kucinichs and Graysons are presently at the edge or out of sight, and that the Al Sharpton wing is thoroughly neutralized compared to a decade or so ago, works against the "greater" prognosis.  And what is the "greater in the last years" based upon?  Obamacare?  Same-sex marriage?  That's more like "evolution" or parity w/other elected democracies than "extremism taking over"....

Exactly. That's too. 40 years ago a Massachusetts democratic delegation was mostly pro-life and .. i will not even speak about "gay marriage" - no one was really concerned about such "foolish thing". Now, with exception of "Demosaurus" like Mike McIntyre and few other - "pro-choice" is your "almost "obligatory" position as Democratic candidate (and "pro-life" IS your obligatory position as Republican - in about 180 districts, which may be called "somewhat or pure liberal" i found only about 10-12 "pro-choice" Republican candidates) - otherwise you are scolded and branded correspondingly.

Well, as I said--that's "evolution".  The "extremism" of yesteryear may well be the "moderation" of today and tomorrow; or by extension, vice versa.   And if you, as a self-declared "moderate", find it distressing, maybe your form of "moderation" is on the wrong side of history.  Sorry.

Though I can understand re this thread; that is, for the Dems to hang too much of their political stock upon such hot-button (for certain voting demos) issues is counter-productive.  But the ideal solution might not, in fact, be to turn their backs on said positions or to defer to "Blue Dogs" to take the electoral slack; rather, it's to look beyond said positions.  Because to make those positions the be-all and end-all, whether in embrace or in opposition, is a cheap distraction.  There are other ways of earning voter trust and respect...maybe, in the case of the Dems in the South, it's a matter of re-channeling the progressive-minded positivism that marked "New South" politics in the 70s and 80s (y'know, that which produced Carter, Clinton, Gore, etc).  Is it really *that* extinct?  What happened?  The eclipse of newspapers and network television by the entropic dogwhistle realm of talk radio and Fox News?

Maybe the Dems should stop being haunted by the spirit of Governor George Wallace in the 1960s, and chart channelling (to whatever constructive degree) the spirit of Governor George Wallace in the 1980s.

[adma]

Thumbs up to that last post.

[adma]

Oh, and incidentally, even Canada has its parallels to the Dixiecrat-gone-Republican South--most notably, the seemingly terminal sway against the NDP within non-urban Manitoba and Saskatchewan.  But that doesn't prevent them from running--maybe not to win in those incidences, but at least to gauge barometers of support and plot future strategies on various political levels (a failed federal campaign could be a good practice run for a successful municipal campaign, etc).  And who knows; as in Quebec (or even the rise of Reform in the West in '93), weird things happen...

[adma]

Me? My politcal  matrix numbers put me slightly left-of-center. But, of course, i am a "conservative" from point of view of "democratic party activists". If you mean THAT - you are more then correct. But - once again - i don't take "Democratic activist's" (or even officials) opinions as a yardstick for determining - who is who..". It's them (and their Republican counterparts) who are the reason i never wanted to join either party))

 May I reccomend that you stop using "political matrix numbers" that are designed for the Tea-Party-Republican-skewed US context and start being more cosmopolitan in your political outlook.

[adma]

Why not? I always say that i am slightly left-of-center by US standards, somewhat right-of-center - by European and "very far-right conservative" by very left-skewed Russian standards))))

Whatever Russia's current political issues, to frame them as "very left-skewed" (esp. in light of the post-Communist culture of cartoon-capitalist vulgar tinpot oligarchs) seems, well, fairly far-right conservative (or at least, extreme-free-market-libertarian) by *any* standard.

[adma]

Even such parties as "Yabloko (Apple)", which are considered "right" in Russia, are, essentially social-democratic. So, it's not surprising, that those, who are strongly opposed  to "powers that be" (and that "were" before) in Russia are, usually, extremely anti-communist (and anti-socialist) as well. That's absolutely true for me, and in that aspect i am really very far right.

Actually, from a Western perspective, to categorize Yabloko or figureheads like Havel in Czechoslovakia as "right" simply because they were anti-Communist/Soviet/whatever is a little farfetched--indeed, it simply points out the absurdity of using such Soviet-conditioned political infrastructures to frame the left vs right argument...

[adma]

I will not dispute that. but everyone is based on his experience, isn't he? So, i, for example, is absolutely not surprised, that "Russian Jews" in US vote the way more similar to older Cubans, then any other groups. Religion plays it's part (especially - among Orthodox Jews, who are almost always more conservative then other), but common strong anti-communism and anti-socialism is based in common past)))

Frankly, I find that to be a cartoon "anti-communism/anti-socialism".  And to frame it as "moderation" is like some Russian tycoon investor emigre framing his grossly overdecorated McMansion as an emblem of his "sophistication and good taste".

Though to get back on-topic re the US and "moderation", Blue Dogs or whatever: of course, one can hark back to that underrated moment in US politics that was the Ross Perot presidential campaign in 1992 (and to a lesser degree, 1996)...

[adma]

Whether you find it cartoonish or not, that's actually how we vote, buddy.

I'm speaking more of the Russian/Cuban cases in point, which are borderline "we won't vote Obama because he's a communist and a socialist and we came to America to escape communism and socialism".  And even if it's the way *they* vote, it's scarcely "moderate", as per this thread.

[adma]

If you're "far right" by Russian standards, then I don't know where that puts the Vladimir Zhirinovsky types.

[adma]

Which leaves me wondering whether we should be using a different framework than "left vs right"--after all, Zhirinovsky's US equivalents tend to distinctly *not* be in the Dem/left realm (except, maybe, in the race-based populism of Marion Barry, Al Sharpton, etc).

Anyway, in the midst of this diversion, my invocation of Perot's "radical middle" populism has been lost in the shuffle--indeed, I find the wild-card Perot factor is what made 1992 the most fascinating presidential election in the past quarter century.  (Though 1992's Perot pull was more t/w what I'd call "Obama Republicans", i.e. those in the Midwest and West that swung Dem-ward in 2008--in 1996, though, it was more Blue-Doggy, w/some of his biggest numbers being in heretofore-Perot-fallow West Virginia...)