Blue Dogs

[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.

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...

[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.

[Vosem]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[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.

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[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..

[Vosem]

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.

I'm discussing perception, not reality. Note the phrasing I have bolded.

[Franzl]

The fact that Democrats have, until possibly this time around...POSSIBLY...not even been able to push tax rates back to Clinton levels....kind of shows which party in America is the "moderate" one.

[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?

[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..

[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.

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

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.

[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?)))

[Franzl]

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?)))

So what purpose do elections really have if we need to focus on making sure everyone is satisfied with policy results?

[smoltchanov]

So what purpose do elections really have if we need to focus on making sure everyone is satisfied with policy results?

One purpose - election of reasonable and working Congress and state legislatures. Surely - not under anybody's dictate - neither right, nor left. After all - there is an old saying: "politics is an act of compromise."

P.S. As i early said - i am solid opponent of absolute dominance of ANY ideology or party - either right or left. We had it for many years in former Soviet Union, and i don't want to see it in US. Don't say that it's impossible - somewhat similar situation already exist im many "one-party states" on state level. It's because of it that i frequently root for Republicans in Vermont, Massachusetts, Delaware or Connecticut and for Democrats - in Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma or Alabama.

[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"....

[nolesfan2011]

The DLC and the corporate Dem appeasing crowd are why the Dems don't get much

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).

[smoltchanov]

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"....

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, even Massachusetts and California are not so monolitic, but Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma??? Right now it's very difficult to nake a successfull career in the party if you are, say, support some limitation on abortions or support civil unions only. Liberalism of the party THEN was mainly "bread and butter liberalism" of FDR-stripe (who, BTW, paid much more attention to economics, and much less - to "potentially divisive social issues": even Civil Rights issues were mostly "delayed" in his time and it's took Humphrey's speach in 1948 for situation to change). That's gone now. 40 years ago party had solid moderate or even conservative (in the South) wing, which was a minority, but a sizeable and influential minority, and which provided an "intraparty competition of ideas and approaches". Now there is no intraparty freedom - if you disagree on something substantial you are simply branded DINO or RINO and scolded! It's not freedom, guys!  You are "free" to espouse a prevalent in the party views and ONLY that??!! And so on. The same in Republican party. Now you can almost ignore primaries - all candidates say the same. What i extremely dislike is a fact, that US political parties become mostly ideologically driven - just as in Europe (but in Europe you usually, have many parties and parliamentary system), and thus an election more and more becomes "the war of clones" (it's even more true for Republican party, which 40 years ago had a healthy and influential moderate-liberal wing). You can see debates in Texas - and they and candidates's positions are almost the same as in New York, Illinois and California. It's boring after all!!! 40 years ago you had James Eastland as Democratic candidate for Senate in Mississippi (and, with all his shortcomings, he genuinly reflected the feelings of many (may be - even majority) Mississipians of his time) AND Clifford Case as Republican candidate in New Jersey, who also adequately reflected much more progressive character of the state. Now if you ask even me: where positions of Paul Sadler in Texas were different, say, from Feinstein's in California - i will not answer (again - even more so among Republicans). But it must be wrong! At least - because Texas and California are very different and have a different problems. But you will not say that looking at candidates and "solutions" they offer. Party candidates more and more take "obligatory positions", the feelings in their districts notwithstanding. Democratic candidates  even in conservative districts are, mostly, moderate-liberals (and that's nonsense to me), Republican (even in North-East) espose standard conservative "principles" (equal nonsense). I couldn't predict political position of candidate  based on his party label 40 years ago, but i can in 95-97% of cases NOW. And it's so boring... That's why i stand for alternative views and positions in the party (ANY party) - relatively conservative in generally liberal Democratic and rather liberal - in now extremely conservative Republican. After all - candidates are responsible before their voters first, and party - second, they are nominated and voted vor by districts, not the party. So - it's only natural for me that Democratic candidate in white-majority district in the South (wheere only 20-25% voters support even moderate-liberal approach usually) MUST be at least somewhat conservative (and, again, the same with Republicans, say, in North-East, as it was in the past). In this (and only this) sense i am deeply conservative))))) In addition - greater variety of views would simply make elections and coalitions in Congress much less predictable and more interesting and (i repeat) what i see in the last years is simple application of old principle: if i am a boss - i do what i want, if you are a boss - you do what you want. Again - boring!!! FDR had great majorities in Congress, but that didn't mean that he achieved everything he wanted. And that's GOOD, despite all my love of FDR. Now - i fear to think what would happen if any MODERN party (Democratic or Republican) would have similar majority....

[Antonio the Sixth]

You "love FDR" and think modern Democrats are partisan? Now, that makes sense!

[smoltchanov]

You "love FDR" and think modern Democrats are partisan? Now, that makes sense!

Yes. Much more. Roosevelt had a "conservative coalition" to deal with, with about 100 relatively conservative (may be not in 1933-34, but by 1937-38 - sure) Democrats as it's part. Now you don't have even 5, even if you consider people like McIntyre or Barrow or Peterson or Matheson as conservatives (by my standards they are "somewhat right of center" and vastly different from real conservatives of the past). All other are more or less "in line". If it's not partisanship - i don't know the meaning of the term. In my favorite 1960-1970 there were at least 50 conservative Democrats and at least 30 moderate  (in some cases - openly liberal) Republicans. THAT's what i like most)))))

P.S. Show me the present day equivalent of Sen. Harry Byrd Sr., or at least - Sen. Donahey, or Sen McCarran, or Sen. O'Daniel - and i will immediately confess that it's you, who is correct. I can give dozens names of House members too)))). FDR had a LOT of opponents in his party, which was much less cohesive and partisan then, Obama - much fewer.....

[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.

[smoltchanov]

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.

The most distressing thing for me is not evolution, it's polarization. As i explained - 40 years ago elections were big interesting and rather unpredictable puzzle for me: you got every imaginable sort of combinations. Now they are SO boring and predictive (and shallow in most cases, again because of this predictability) that i barely "force" myself to follow them. Along the "i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" line i also mentioned. That's, probably, what may be attributed to "evolution" you mentioned.

P.S. Please understand - American politics is simply a sort of very big "game" to me. Especially NOW, when i live in Moscow and what Mr. Putin says and does is much more important for my day-to-day life here, then what Obama or Romney says and does. And a "game", where you can predict almost every next step based only on minimal information (and i can correctly describe positions of 95% Democratic and of 98% Republican candidates on almost all MAJOR political issues now (contrary to what was 30-40 years ago),  based simply on "D" or "R" letter after their name (local issues - another matter, but they are, obviously, of not so great interest to me in my present situation)) - the "game" simply stops to be interesting. Predictability dooms it))). Hence - i am a sort of "connoisseur of rarities" now: what really interests me are exceptions from rules, not rules itself. Say, Tim Sheldon is an interesting person for me because he is an "atypical Democrat" (much more conservative then most), especially - for generally liberal state of Washington. Dianne Snelling  and Phil Scott (and New England politics as a whole) - because they are far more moderate then most Republicans even in Vermont and because New England still has a share of politically active moderate Republicans, Deep South politics - because of "Demosaurs", which still exist in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, and, again, are far different from "party norm". On the contrary - California's politics before "top 2" was absolutely  uninteresting to me: it was zero interest to observe "two big armies" - of extremely liberal Democrats and extremely conservative Republicans (and only such people usually won corresponding primaries) - fighting each other. "Top 2" in California (and Washington) made things at least "somewhat more interesting". And it was VERY interesting for me to know that ultraliberal San Francisco still has one elected Republican official (BART director), while details of everyday's fight between "moderates" (in fact - very liberals, because they include Pelosi) and "progressives" ("crazies" in my parlance) there are of only very modest interest to me. And so on.

P. S. 2 I hope we can end our discussion on that))))