Blue Dogs

[politicallefty]

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...

I never said gerrymandering gives Republicans a permanent majority (which is a ridiculous concept anyway) or anything like that. I do agree with Frodo above that those two areas in the South are the most promising in the future and that the rural Southern seats are gone. Trends work in both directions though, which is why there are no New England Republicans left in the House. Are there exceptions to the trends? Of course, but exceptions are not the rule.

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.

[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...

[politicallefty]

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...

Yeah, I agree. I am a supporter of the 50-state strategy as far as party organization goes between elections. When it comes to elections themselves, resources are much more limited. Perhaps some 57-43 Republican districts (that's around R+9 or so) are winnable, but not many. Even some friendlier districts are actually deceptively so, since you also have to consider how many split-tickets voters there are. Some rather close districts can be extremely stubborn in that way. However, to get a majority, we really don't have to win districts quite that Republican. Ultimately though, a vast number of districts will be safe for either party (which I think is true in most countries with FPTP).

To answer your other point, we absolutely do need electoral and election reform, and I would have that start with nonpartisan redistricting commissions in all states.

[Panhandle Progressive]

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

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

[Zioneer]

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?

Don't forget Warner, Tester, Heitkamp (at least now), and etc.

[You kip if you want to...]

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?

Don't forget Warner, Tester, Heitkamp (at least now), and etc.

Senator-elect Donnelly, the guy who supports the Bush tax cuts, balanced budget amendment, etc.

[Incipimus iterum]

Donnellys also Pro-Life

[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)))

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[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.

[hopper]

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.

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

[hopper]

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?

Don't forget Warner, Tester, Heitkamp (at least now), and etc.

Senator-elect Donnelly, the guy who supports the Bush tax cuts, balanced budget amendment, etc.

Donelly is as conserative as a Dem could be and still be in the party!

[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.

[Frodo]

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.  

[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???

[Frodo]

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. 

       

[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...)))

[SPQR]

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.

[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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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?

[Hash]

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.