Blue Dogs

[smoltchanov]

Blue Dogs are resonable counterweight to far-far-left wing of Democratic party, which dominates now. So - no. I would like to see MORE of them (and their republican moderate counterparts) in Congress, no less. At least - to decrease the present astonishing level of political polarization and increase chances of compromise.

[smoltchanov]

Blue Dogs are resonable counterweight to far-far-left wing of Democratic party, which dominates now. So - no. I would like to see MORE of them (and their republican moderate counterparts) in Congress, no less. At least - to decrease the present astonishing level of political polarization and increase chances of compromise.

The far left doesn't dominate the Democrats; it doesn't even exist in the Democratic party.

It depends on definition. People like Maxine Waters and  Barbara Lee ARE "far left" for ME

[smoltchanov]

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).

Purple - yes. But not everywhere and not always. But to get a majority you need to win some RED areas too - and you can't do that with your beloved "progressives". So - either majority WITH Blue Dogs or a stable minority.

[smoltchanov]

This is absolute bullsh*t. There is a huge difference between kicking out Conservative with a maverick streak like Lugar, and kicking out people who vote with the right 80% of the time. While it's pretty obvious that republican have pushed ideological purity to insane levels, it's also pretty clear democrats err on the other side. If we want people to run under the (D) label, it would be nice that they didn't vote like Republicans.

There is a [inks]ing reason why Bush got everything he wanted passed with narrow GOP majorities and Obama barely could get anything done with a 60% democrat Congress.

Excuse me, but what YOU say is absolute bullsh**t. There are much more conservatively-inclined congressional districts then liberal-inclined: liberals are, generally, much more concentrated in big cities and few other really liberal areas, which may vote up to 90-95% Democratic, while conservatives control many more "about 60% coservative" districts, which will never elect your "beloved progressives" When i tried to count - how much congressional districts may elect liberals? - i never got number above 180-185. So - you need McIntyre's, Matheson's and even Bobby Bright's to have a majority. Yes they will not always vote with you - only 30-50% of all time. But that's much better then 0% from conservative Republicans, which are the only alternative in their districts. If you wnt to go "pure" - get 180 districts and sit in minority for 40 years, until demographic changes finally change situation!!!

[smoltchanov]

Michaud? The guy from Maine? Are you kidding me? Can we please get a real liberal to primary his ass

Try to do that. First - Michaud will tear your "real liberal" to small pieces in primary: his district is much less liberal then 1st, high on gun rights, and not especially social liberal (i am sure - it voted AGAINST "gay marriage" few days ago). But if you miraculously succeed - all you get will be LePage-style conservative populist Repulican as a congressman. Michaud fits his district as hand fits a glove....))))))

[smoltchanov]

This is absolute bullsh*t. There is a huge difference between kicking out Conservative with a maverick streak like Lugar, and kicking out people who vote with the right 80% of the time. While it's pretty obvious that republican have pushed ideological purity to insane levels, it's also pretty clear democrats err on the other side. If we want people to run under the (D) label, it would be nice that they didn't vote like Republicans.

There is a [inks]ing reason why Bush got everything he wanted passed with narrow GOP majorities and Obama barely could get anything done with a 60% democrat Congress.

Excuse me, but what YOU say is absolute bullsh**t. There are much more conservatively-inclined congressional districts then liberal-inclined: liberals are, generally, much more concentrated in big cities and few other really liberal areas, which may vote up to 90-95% Democratic, while conservatives control many more "about 60% coservative" districts, which will never elect your "beloved progressives" When i tried to count - how much congressional districts may elect liberals? - i never got number above 180-185. So - you need McIntyre's, Matheson's and even Bobby Bright's to have a majority. Yes they will not always vote with you - only 30-50% of all time. But that's much better then 0% from conservative Republicans, which are the only alternative in their districts. If you wnt to go "pure" - get 180 districts and sit in minority for 40 years, until demographic changes finally change situation!!!

QFT

Here's a newsflash for you Tony: Mike McIntyre will agree with you more often than David Rouzer, and Scott Matheson will agree with you more often than Mia Love, and every Blue Dog that loses is one more Republican-leaning district the Democrats have to win to regain a majority. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

I think - it simply requires more brains then Californian Tony has....

[smoltchanov]

As I said, until the House is so awfully gerrymandered, it's pretty obvious Conservatives will dominate it no matter what. So yeah, I've got nothing against Matheson or McIntyre being there since that's the best we can achieve.

What I'm saying is that our long-term strategy shouldn't be "let's nominate some moderate hero so that we're sure he will win", but rather, "let's nominate someone who has good chances to win and who will help us get a few things passed". What's the point of winning tons and tons of seats as we did in 2008, if the best we can do with that is pass a health care reform of the kind that Republicans used to champion a couple years ago? I might not be an expert of electoral politics, but it seems quite obvious to be that some districts could have been filled with more progressive candidates. Maybe instead of 260 Democrats of which 40 were right-wing and another 40 were centrists, we could have gotten 240 with 10 right-wingers and 30 centrists. We could have passed something along the lines of universal health care, passed a stronger stimulus, repealed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, done a bit more for the environment, passed the DREAM act, etc. We didn't because a bunch of people with a (D) next to their name did not agree with anything the party - and the people who vote for it - stood for. The same cannot be said of any of the so-called "moderate Republicans".

Again, Baldwin won in Wisconsin. According to the recent results, Wisconsin has a D+3 PVI. If we could fill all the D+3 districts with progressives (not necessarily as progressive as Baldwin, but true progressives) things would be a lot different. It's all good that we win elections, but we could finally start to, you know, enact policies. We would have a level playing field with the GOP, which, every time it's been in office, has been able to do roughly whatever it wanted. We would no longer be the useful idiots of the whole system. And, what's the most important, the American people would finally have a choice. We can't forever tell them to vote for us because our policies are good, and then never actually enact these policies. We can't keep misrepresenting people, having people who vote for center-left policies be represented by centrist or center-right politicians. This is not what democracy is for.

240 with 10 "right-wingers" and 30 centrists mean 200 "true liberals". That's absolutely unreal - first. Even some reliably Democratic districts in the North (like Lipinski's or Kaptur's or Viscloski's or Lynch's  and Michaud's for that matter) are not especially social liberal, while well-to-do suburbs, which ARE, and elect Democrats because of it (like Esty's, Schneider's and other) are not especially economical liberal.

Second - there are no more "right-wingers" in Democratic caucus anymore. Even most conservative - like McIntyre or Matheson - are, essentially, a centrists (in extreme case - somewhat to the right of center). No more John Rarick's, Phil Gramm's, Bob Stump's, Larry McDonald's (ALL of them were Democrats and not so long ago). The last, who could legitimately being called a "conservative" (and even so - not EXTREME conservative, whom we often see among Republicans) was Ralph Hall in Texas, IMHO (and that was 10 years ago).

[smoltchanov]

Michaud? The guy from Maine? Are you kidding me? Can we please get a real liberal to primary his ass

Try to do that. First - Michaud will tear your "real liberal" to small pieces in primary: his district is much less liberal then 1st, high on gun rights, and not especially social liberal (i am sure - it voted AGAINST "gay marriage" few days ago). But if you miraculously succeed - all you get will be LePage-style conservative populist Repulican as a congressman. Michaud fits his district as hand fits a glove....))))))

Kerry and Obama won his district easily. There is no reason to have a blue dog in Maine.

Again - bullsh**t. Many local Democrats are working-class types (economic populists, but pro-gun, pro-life, anti-"gay marriage" and so on) - former millworker Michaud fits them extremely well. There are few rich elitist liberals there, and very few minorities. Republicans always get decent percentage in 2nd (losing to Democrats only by few points) and 2nd was a "LePage country" during 2010 gubernatorial elections. It MAY elect liberal Democrat sometimes, but as frequently - conservative Republican. With Michaud it's rather safe Democratic (58% in 2012), with "flaming progressive" - it's not. So - no one in sane mind will primary him)))

[smoltchanov]

So the GOP could elect teabaggers in PA and WI, but we shouldn't be able to elect social and econ progressives in lean-D districts?

2010 was wave year. We shall see what will be there in 2016.

Democrats elected some progressives in even slightly Republican districts in wave 2006 and 2008 - but how long they lasted? You either want to win or want to stay "pure" anf "lose for principles". And it will be so for rather many years until demographic changes will make progressive majority feasible - only then will you get your dream.

[smoltchanov]

So the GOP could elect teabaggers in PA and WI, but we shouldn't be able to elect social and econ progressives in lean-D districts?

2010 was wave year. We shall see what will be there in 2016.

Democrats elected some progressives in even slightly Republican districts in wave 2006 and 2008 - but how long they lasted? You either want to win or want to stay "pure" anf "lose for principles". And it will be so for rather many years until demographic changes will make progressive majority feasible - only then will you get your dream.

You still failed to address this basic fact: Republicans can implement right-wing policies when they have narrow majorities, Democrats can't even when they win supermajorities.

And please, spare me the "America is a center-right country" thing. Opinion polls show that on several issues the US people is closer to Democrats than to Republicans (single-payer health care, for one, was pretty popular).

Please spare me "America is a center-left" bullsh**t too)))).

And - yes, when you have enough reliable districs (as republicans have now) - you have enough "reliable foot soldiers" to implement corresponding policy. Republicans now have enough "slightly Republican or better" districts to implement their policy, while Democrats waste their vote power in relatively few minority-majority districts (getting 80-90% there, but what it gives???) and thus - don't have required number of reliable districts. Whrn they have a majority - it's because they manage to win a Republican-leaning districts. Obviously - Democratic congressmen from such districts are NOT progressives and very cautious about "liberal reforms"

[smoltchanov]

i don't see why the left is so goddam whiny. There are a hell of a lot more hard core liberals in congress then there were 50 years ago.

In the 88th congress (1963-1964) I calculated that there were only about 21 house democrats who voted liberal more than 90% of the time and only about eight senate democrats that voted liberal more than 90%.

House:
Farbstein; New York
Gill; Hawaii
Shelley; California
Sickles; Maryland
Ryan; New York
Edwards; California
Kastenmeier; Wisconsin
Gilbert; New York
Roosevelt; California
Cohelan; California
Burton; California
Roybal; California
Fraser; Minnesota
Reuss; Wisconsin
Rosenthal; New York
Libonati; Illinois
Stabler; Michigan
Toll; Pennsylvania
O’Hara; Illinois
William Green III; Pennsylvania
William Green Jr; Pennsylvania

Senate:
Salinger; California
McNamara; Michigan
Clark; Pennsylvania
Humphrey; Minnesota
Douglas; Illinois
Neuberger; Oregon
Hart; Michigan
Nelson; Wisconsin

Exactly what i said. And there was a lot of conservatives in democratic ranks then. REAL conservatives, like Tuck ar Williams, not what's called "conservatives" today)))

[smoltchanov]

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...

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.

Yes and NO. R+6 is a "forbidden" district for "progressive", but not for Blue Dog.. Redistricting is an  important thing, but not all. After all Gene Taylor won a R+15 (or so) district for many years, and Bobby Bright won similar district in 2008 and almost won it in uberrepublican 2010... If i would "call the shots" i would implement the rule: D+2 district or more: - run progressive!!, R+2 district or more - run Blue Dog!!, in between - let primary decide!!! The same for Republicans. I don't care about DINO's or RINO's, the only thing i care about is winning. And i would win most of the time)))

[smoltchanov]

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

For worse, of course. When you see a bunch of right-wing idiots haggling with similar bunch of left-wing ones  (in Congress or elsewhere) - it's a disgusting sight....

[smoltchanov]

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

Are you claiming that Manchin, Baucus, Landreiu, Pryor, McCaskill, Carper, and Hagan are liberal?

Not liberal, but, surely, not conservative either. Most take "somewhat left-of-center" position. None of Republicans can boast even that. Sigh)))

[smoltchanov]

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

For worse, of course. When you see a bunch of right-wing idiots haggling with similar bunch of left-wing ones  (in Congress or elsewhere) - it's a disgusting sight....

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.

False. Between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans. Almost equally "radical". Center is basically ignored by both parties (especially - "activists-purists"). Yes - slightly more by Rerpublicans, but only slightly..

[smoltchanov]

And to respond to the original post, yes, I think the Blue Dog Coalition should officially disband at this point.  They will never again regain the power they had at their height during the 111th Congress, and I see no purpose in continuing to hold on to a relic of a bygone era when Southern white rural Democrats were a significant (even dominating) force in the party.  

Members left adrift always have the option of joining the ascending New Democrat Coalition instead.  

It's for them to decide, not for you - isn't it???

[smoltchanov]

And to respond to the original post, yes, I think the Blue Dog Coalition should officially disband at this point.  They will never again regain the power they had at their height during the 111th Congress, and I see no purpose in continuing to hold on to a relic of a bygone era when Southern white rural Democrats were a significant (even dominating) force in the party.  

Members left adrift always have the option of joining the ascending New Democrat Coalition instead.  

It's for them to decide, not for you - isn't it???

...

Last I checked, giving an opinion on a topic is not tantamount to giving a command. 

       

To balance - i will express my opinion, which is (of course) just opposite of yours...)))

[smoltchanov]

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

For worse, of course. When you see a bunch of right-wing idiots haggling with similar bunch of left-wing ones  (in Congress or elsewhere) - it's a disgusting sight....

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.

False. Between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans. Almost equally "radical". Center is basically ignored by both parties (especially - "activists-purists"). Yes - slightly more by Rerpublicans, but only slightly..

Your passion for moderates and "mavericks" is really disturbing.

It's your problem, not my. So - it's you, who will have to deal with it.

[smoltchanov]

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

For worse, of course. When you see a bunch of right-wing idiots haggling with similar bunch of left-wing ones  (in Congress or elsewhere) - it's a disgusting sight....

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.

False. Between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans. Almost equally "radical". Center is basically ignored by both parties (especially - "activists-purists"). Yes - slightly more by Rerpublicans, but only slightly..

Evan Bayh, is that you?

Why not? A successfull politician i respect

[smoltchanov]

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

For worse, of course. When you see a bunch of right-wing idiots haggling with similar bunch of left-wing ones  (in Congress or elsewhere) - it's a disgusting sight....

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.

False. Between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans. Almost equally "radical". Center is basically ignored by both parties (especially - "activists-purists"). Yes - slightly more by Rerpublicans, but only slightly..

Could you calm down on the Moderate Heroism a bit? Moderate Heroes are horrible.

Again - that's YOUR opinion, which i am not obliged to follow. I don't ask you to stop praise Greens after all.

[smoltchanov]

False. Between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans. Almost equally "radical". Center is basically ignored by both parties (especially - "activists-purists"). Yes - slightly more by Rerpublicans, but only slightly..

You are what is wrong with everything.

You hope to convince me with SUCH logic??? It's not even funny))))

[smoltchanov]

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

For worse, of course. When you see a bunch of right-wing idiots haggling with similar bunch of left-wing ones  (in Congress or elsewhere) - it's a disgusting sight....

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.

False. Between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans. Almost equally "radical". Center is basically ignored by both parties (especially - "activists-purists"). Yes - slightly more by Rerpublicans, but only slightly..

Sure...

Obviously not by the standards of France (or any other Euro country), but this is basically how it's viewed in the US, which is why the Democrats won in 2012. When Democrats were viewed as being slightly more radical (like in say 2004), Republicans won. It can important thing to keep in mind.

Democrats are BY FAR closer to the US political center than Republicans. Just look at opinion polls on issues like deficit reduction, social programs, gay rights... or even health care: public option was more popular than Obamacare, remember.

Moderate heroes and republicans might not like this, but it's a fact.

Looked And didn't saw that. You give no OTHER arguments. And say "a fact"? Funny. If you would say "slightly closer" - i would agree. But even that - excluding "activists". Democratic "activists" are as left as Republican - right. I had ample possibilities to talk to both and always thought "the mirror image" And i was as "successfully" banned for disagreements on Democratic sites as on Republican. Even "petty tactics" is the same)))

[smoltchanov]

False. Between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans. Almost equally "radical". Center is basically ignored by both parties (especially - "activists-purists"). Yes - slightly more by Rerpublicans, but only slightly..

Considering that Democrats were very conciliatory to Bush on a number of things they should not have been (Iraq authorization, tax cuts) and Republicans made it a goal to assure that Obama was a one term President, your statement is very wrong. The proof is also in the fact that Democrats preserve a Senate majority with moderates, while Republicans lost a chance at a majority by purging moderates.

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...

P.S. (to all) Guys, let's stop this. Don't try to "convince" me that i am all wrong. My ample personal experience is a greater argument for me. Simply accept the fact, that there is somebody, who thinks and feels that way.. And move along..

[smoltchanov]

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?

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..

[smoltchanov]

I don't care about the Greens, dude. My avatars don't mean anything.

Do you actually care about policies and implementing a political platform, or do you only care about being "centrist" and "moderate" and "compromising" to act all "bipartisan" and whatnot? Because it seems like the only thing you care about is some vague brand of empty centrism which doesn't care about policy and only cares about pleasing everybody and making us all sing Kumbaya around the bonfire.

Yes, i care about platform. Reasonable, realistic centrist and moderate platform))). As a result of negotiation and compromise. And never subscribe under "i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" approach. Which became prevalent in American politics of late: democrats gain majority and pass laws, then republicans gain a majority and pass laws cancelling democratic ones, then democrats regain a majority and... (until infinity). And i like "to please everybody"))))) Is it a crime?)))