Do you miss the Blue Dog/Moderate D Senate/House of Yesteryear?

[smoltchanov]

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Bill Pryor (D-Ark.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Joe Lieberman (D/I-Ct.)
John Breaux (D-La.)
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Zell Miller (D-Ga.)
and many more I can think of.

Yes because they're all* better than the Republicans they were replaced with.

*Not including Joe Lieberman

+101. An alternative to Blue Dogs in most cases were NOT "sterling progressives", but ultraconservative Republicans. And in almost all cases they were worse, frequently - MUCH worse. The only case, where i am sure of being vice versa - Larry McDonald in Georgia. There simply wasn't a place to the right of him..

Larry McDonald is definitely not what most would call a Blue Dog. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Dixiecrat who served about 30 years past when he should have.

Yes. But there wasn't such notion as "Blue Dog" then. There were "Boll Weevils". And they were usually far more conservative then present day "Blue Dogs". But here i use "Blue Dogs"as a synonym of "rather conservative Democrat", of which there are very few now even on state legislative level. May be - on local (sheriffs, district attorneys, assessors) only...

P.S. (About Larry). IMHO - he wasn't even typical Dixiecrat either. He was an ultrareactionary and pathologically anti-communist - first. Of course - he wasn't fan of Civil Rights either, but that was mostly because most of Blacks were not as reactionary and anti-communist as he was. In fact - by the time he was elected (1974) most Civil Rights laws were already in effect for years, and, in addition - his district in NW Georgia had few (about 10-15%) Blacks, so "Black vote" was not so serious "threat" for his constituents as it was, say, in Mississippi's Delta.

[smoltchanov]

bronz, lol.

Anyway, of course.  I usually didn't share their politics (especially the "populist" ones), but ideological diversity is important to get things done.  Things like the Civil Rights Act would not have happened if you did not have pro-civil rights conservatives and pro-civil rights liberals working together, and that goes for any issue.  There need to be Republicans and Democrats whose views span a spectrum ... we don't need Ted Cruz clones on one side of the aisle and Ed Markey on the other.

Parties should be big tent groups that are united under a basic philosophy, not necessarily an ideology.  Ideally, the distinction between a Republican and a Democrat should be about how each would START to approach a solution (say, free market vs. economic legislation), not necessarily the end result.  Similar policies should be able to be arrived at by both conservative and liberal thinking.

+101. That's what i said 1001 times. And polarization of BOTH US political parties is the main reason why US politics (which i follow for almost 50 years) became so uninteresting to me of late.

[smoltchanov]

Are you sure, bronz, that Claire McCaskill can be called a moderate Democrat? During her 12 years in the Senate, she averaged 79.2% from the Americans for Democratic Action and only 12.4% from the American Conservative Union.

And no, I don't miss Air Claire.

Everyone even slightly to the right of AOC or, at least, Nancy, is a "moderate" Democrat now))) Idiocy.

[Lechasseur]

Are you sure, bronz, that Claire McCaskill can be called a moderate Democrat? During her 12 years in the Senate, she averaged 79.2% from the Americans for Democratic Action and only 12.4% from the American Conservative Union.

And no, I don't miss Air Claire.

Yeah she wasn't by any means moderate.

And no I don't miss her either, nor do I miss Lieberman.

Hawley is much better than McCaskill.

For the most part the others on this list were at least decent.

[Continential]

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Bill Pryor (D-Ark.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Joe Lieberman (D/I-Ct.)
John Breaux (D-La.)
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Zell Miller (D-Ga.)
and many more I can think of.

Yes because they're all* better than the Republicans they were replaced with.

*Not including Joe Lieberman

+101. An alternative to Blue Dogs in most cases were NOT "sterling progressives", but ultraconservative Republicans. And in almost all cases they were worse, frequently - MUCH worse. The only case, where i am sure of being vice versa - Larry McDonald in Georgia. There simply wasn't a place to the right of him..

Larry McDonald is definitely not what most would call a Blue Dog. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Dixiecrat who served about 30 years past when he should have.

Yes. But there wasn't such notion as "Blue Dog" then. There were "Boll Weevils". And they were usually far more conservative then present day "Blue Dogs". But here i use "Blue Dogs"as a synonym of "rather conservative Democrat", of which there are very few now even on state legislative level. May be - on local (sheriffs, district attorneys, assessors) only...

P.S. (About Larry). IMHO - he wasn't even typical Dixiecrat either. He was an ultrareactionary and pathologically anti-communist - first. Of course - he wasn't fan of Civil Rights either, but that was mostly because most of Blacks were not as reactionary and anti-communist as he was. In fact - by the time he was elected (1974) most Civil Rights laws were already in effect for years, and, in addition - his district in NW Georgia had few (about 10-15%) Blacks, so "Black vote" was not so serious "threat" for his constituents as it was, say, in Mississippi's Delta.

McDonald was part of the John Birch Society and believed in the New World Order conspiracy theory.

[Suburbia]

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Bill Pryor (D-Ark.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Joe Lieberman (D/I-Ct.)
John Breaux (D-La.)
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Zell Miller (D-Ga.)
and many more I can think of.

Yes because they're all* better than the Republicans they were replaced with.

*Not including Joe Lieberman

Yes. The Blue Dogs who were in between the Dixiecrat era (-early 1970sish) and the Obama era (all those who lost the 2014 wave) were some of the big reasons the Senate functioned so well in those decades. Especially in the South, they were Democrats who managed to create biracial coalitions on a scale that the South hasn't really seen before or since. Republicans in the South don't give a sh**t about the black vote, but people like Landrieu and Heflin definitely did.

Those Democrats can win in such places.

They are Blue Dog Democrats in big cities with ethnic immigrant Old World values (Diaz Sr., Addabbo, Lipiniski)

[UncleSam]

They were pretty annoying and didn't really deserve progressive support But in most cases their Republican replacements are far worse. So if I'd add on 13 Blue Dogs to the current 47 Senate Democrats to get 60 Senate Democrats-of course I would, but if I'd trade 13 current Dem Senators for 13 Blue Dogs with the total still being 47-of course not.

Well duh.

The real question is if you could replace four Republicans and six or seven Democrats with Manchins in order to get a majority, would you? Basically make it a true moderate Democratic majority vs a Republican majority with a more progressive Democratic minority.

[smoltchanov]

McDonald was part of the John Birch Society and believed in the New World Order conspiracy theory.

That's part of the reason why i called him ultrareactionary..

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Bill Pryor (D-Ark.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Joe Lieberman (D/I-Ct.)
John Breaux (D-La.)
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Zell Miller (D-Ga.)
and many more I can think of.

Yes because they're all* better than the Republicans they were replaced with.

*Not including Joe Lieberman

+101. An alternative to Blue Dogs in most cases were NOT "sterling progressives", but ultraconservative Republicans. And in almost all cases they were worse, frequently - MUCH worse. The only case, where i am sure of being vice versa - Larry McDonald in Georgia. There simply wasn't a place to the right of him..

Larry McDonald is definitely not what most would call a Blue Dog. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Dixiecrat who served about 30 years past when he should have.

Yes. But there wasn't such notion as "Blue Dog" then. There were "Boll Weevils". And they were usually far more conservative then present day "Blue Dogs". But here i use "Blue Dogs"as a synonym of "rather conservative Democrat", of which there are very few now even on state legislative level. May be - on local (sheriffs, district attorneys, assessors) only...

P.S. (About Larry). IMHO - he wasn't even typical Dixiecrat either. He was an ultrareactionary and pathologically anti-communist - first. Of course - he wasn't fan of Civil Rights either, but that was mostly because most of Blacks were not as reactionary and anti-communist as he was. In fact - by the time he was elected (1974) most Civil Rights laws were already in effect for years, and, in addition - his district in NW Georgia had few (about 10-15%) Blacks, so "Black vote" was not so serious "threat" for his constituents as it was, say, in Mississippi's Delta.

McDonald was part of the John Birch Society and believed in the New World Order conspiracy theory.

Ironically enough, McDonald was shot down by a Soviet fighter jet after his commercial airplane had mistakenly veered into Soviet airspace.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dixiecrats of Shelby and Phil Gramms and Strom Thurmond flipped R anyways. Landrieu, Breaux and Fritz Hollings were blue dogs but unlike Zell Miller, they were Dixiecrats not Republicans. That's why Landrieu lasted longer than the 2004 realignment

[Sumner 1868]

When Bush was in office every Democrat in the Senate voted for the EFCA (i.e., card check) in 2007, but when Obama took office Ben Nelson and the Wal-Mart duo from Arkansas suddenly made a complete 180 on the issue. This was one of the more obvious examples of why Blue Dogs are bad for progressive legislation, but it's hardly the only case.

And not to mention virtually all of them supported every aspect of Bush's foreign policy. In fact, Gene Taylor was bragging to a Tea Party audience that he voted for Iraq as late as 2009 (go to about 46:00 on the video below and see for yourself).

https://www.c-span.org/video/?288432-1/representative-gene-taylor-town-hall-meeting

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Bill Pryor (D-Ark.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Joe Lieberman (D/I-Ct.)
John Breaux (D-La.)
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Zell Miller (D-Ga.)
and many more I can think of.

Yes because they're all* better than the Republicans they were replaced with.

*Not including Joe Lieberman

+101. An alternative to Blue Dogs in most cases were NOT "sterling progressives", but ultraconservative Republicans. And in almost all cases they were worse, frequently - MUCH worse. The only case, where i am sure of being vice versa - Larry McDonald in Georgia. There simply wasn't a place to the right of him..

Larry McDonald is definitely not what most would call a Blue Dog. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Dixiecrat who served about 30 years past when he should have.

McDonald wasn't a "Dixiecrat".  He was a John Birch Society guy who would have been a Republican in other states.  He defeated incumbent Rep. John Davis (D-Rome) in 1974; he had run against Davis before and Davis had a known problem with alcohol.  Had McDonald not died in the crash of the KAL 007 jet that was shot down over Soviet Air Space, he'd have probably switched to the GOP at some point and been far less memorable.

[smoltchanov]

The Dixiecrats of Shelby and Phil Gramms and Strom Thurmond flipped R anyways. Landrieu, Breaux and Fritz Hollings were blue dogs but unlike Zell Miller, they were Dixiecrats not Republicans. That's why Landrieu lasted longer than the 2004 realignment

I surely wouldn't call Landrieu, Hollings (of 1990th, not 1950th) and Breaux (of 1990th) Dixiecrats. Nothing in common.

[smoltchanov]

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Bill Pryor (D-Ark.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Joe Lieberman (D/I-Ct.)
John Breaux (D-La.)
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Zell Miller (D-Ga.)
and many more I can think of.

Yes because they're all* better than the Republicans they were replaced with.

*Not including Joe Lieberman

+101. An alternative to Blue Dogs in most cases were NOT "sterling progressives", but ultraconservative Republicans. And in almost all cases they were worse, frequently - MUCH worse. The only case, where i am sure of being vice versa - Larry McDonald in Georgia. There simply wasn't a place to the right of him..

Larry McDonald is definitely not what most would call a Blue Dog. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Dixiecrat who served about 30 years past when he should have.

McDonald wasn't a "Dixiecrat".  He was a John Birch Society guy who would have been a Republican in other states.  He defeated incumbent Rep. John Davis (D-Rome) in 1974; he had run against Davis before and Davis had a known problem with alcohol.  Had McDonald not died in the crash of the KAL 007 jet that was shot down over Soviet Air Space, he'd have probably switched to the GOP at some point and been far less memorable.

Absolutely. IMHO - not later then 1994.

[Xing]

No, I like Democrats who don’t help McConnell steal a SC seat, vote/run against Obamacare, act as though the left is a bigger “threat” than Trump or the fringe right, and simply don’t have our backs. Sure, Democrats don’t have to vote in lockstep, and it’s fine if Democrats hace some issues where they’re more “moderate”, but if a Democrat is going to vote with Trump/against Obama more often than not, why should I shed tears when they lose, especially if they spend more time campaigning against Obama and “socialism” than against Republicans? Sure, the Republican who replaces them is worse, but it’s not like they would’ve won if Democrats moved to the right.

And it’s not like they lost because Sanders and AOC endorsed their opponent. They lost because the Republican Party is actually the ideologically rigid party which has actually shunned and kicked out all moderates, and will always vote for the Republican, no matter how extreme the Republican is or how “moderate” the Democrat is. I always have to wonder why Democrats are expected to be “moderate” and yet Republicans aren’t. No one here sheds tears for moderate Republicans of the past, or how many Republicans were primaried by someone way to their right. And don’t even get me started in the ways in which Republicans are “extreme” versus the ways in which progressives are “extreme” (no, they are not “practically the same” or “equally unreasonable.”)

[smoltchanov]

 "No one here sheds tears for moderate Republicans of the past"? Blatant lie, to put it mildly. I, for example, said 1001 times at least, that my interest in American politics began to wane and almost disappeared exactly since time when first - Republican, and then - Democratic party became rigidly ideological, forgetting their (real, despite all stipulations") "big tent" past. Right now - it (American politics) is ABSOLUTELY non-intersting and VERY boring, and i surely wouldn't spent my time on it if not for 45+ years of previous study. ... And i am sure - i am not alone. I don't think this is a good sign)))

[The Mikado]

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Bill Pryor (D-Ark.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Joe Lieberman (D/I-Ct.)
John Breaux (D-La.)
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Zell Miller (D-Ga.)
and many more I can think of.

You're really grouping together some very disparate people in that list. Jay Rockefeller was a pretty liberal Senator for his day who just was pretty anti-environmentalist for obvious reasons. Zell Miller was more right wing than many Republicans in the early 2000s. I don't think Jay Rockefeller and Zell Miller, who served in the Senate at the same time, would remotely appreciate being grouped together here.

[smoltchanov]

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Bill Pryor (D-Ark.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Joe Lieberman (D/I-Ct.)
John Breaux (D-La.)
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Zell Miller (D-Ga.)
and many more I can think of.

You're really grouping together some very disparate people in that list. Jay Rockefeller was a pretty liberal Senator for his day who just was pretty anti-environmentalist for obvious reasons. Zell Miller was more right wing than many Republicans in the early 2000s. I don't think Jay Rockefeller and Zell Miller, who served in the Senate at the same time, would remotely appreciate being grouped together here.

Zell Miller of late 1990th - early 2000th - yes. Before that he was considered a sort of "progressive" in Georgia.