Blue Dogs

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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).

Also Sherrod Brown.

[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.

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 don't like it. I am in the moderate hero camp so there you go!

[hopper]

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.

Like the Dems didn't want Reagan, and the 2 Bush's to be one-term? Well you guys got your wish on Bush I.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't get the anti-blue-dogness of some of the Democrats here.  Yes they are a pain in the rear sometimes, but our party should support the most liberal candidate who can win.  For example, I supported primarying Lieberman and I was happy to see Joe Baca lose to a more liberal Democrat.  I also hope that Juan Vargas gets taken out by a more liberal (and less corrupt) Democrat.  That said, I'll take Jim Matheson over an even slightly more progressive Utah Democrat any day.  And I don't have any problem with the fact that Manchin has a conservative voting record because he seems to have locked down a Senate seat that the Democratic Party "shouldn't" hold.  And no one else could do that in West Virginia (and before anyone mentions Rockefeller or Byrd, neither of them would win if their first Senate election had been in 2012 or 2014).  My problem with Manchin is that he is kind of obnoxious about how he distances himself from the national party, but honestly I can live with that.  Cliched as it sounds, the fact is that half a loaf (or even less than half a loaf) is still better than no bread.

[smoltchanov]

I don't get the anti-blue-dogness of some of the Democrats here.  Yes they are a pain in the rear sometimes, but our party should support the most liberal candidate who can win.  For example, I supported primarying Lieberman and I was happy to see Joe Baca lose to a more liberal Democrat.  I also hope that Juan Vargas gets taken out by a more liberal (and less corrupt) Democrat.  That said, I'll take Jim Matheson over an even slightly more progressive Utah Democrat any day.  And I don't have any problem with the fact that Manchin has a conservative voting record because he seems to have locked down a Senate seat that the Democratic Party "shouldn't" hold.  And no one else could do that in West Virginia (and before anyone mentions Rockefeller or Byrd, neither of them would win if their first Senate election had been in 2012 or 2014).  My problem with Manchin is that he is kind of obnoxious about how he distances himself from the national party, but honestly I can live with that.  Cliched as it sounds, the fact is that half a loaf (or even less than half a loaf) is still better than no bread.

You say exactly what i said many times both to my Democratic and Republican ( i am an Indie, so i am not limited by Democratic party only) friends with mixed success, and on many Democratic and Republican sites (usually - banning followed). Though it's so simple that it seemed a self-evident truth to me)))

[○∙◄☻¥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?

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.

Wow, just looked up his voting record, and he looks too conservative to qualify as moderate. The idea that Democrats have no non-liberals when they have Donnelly is ridiculous. And yet he only won because instead of Lugar, the Republicans decided to nominate some nut who talked about god's will for rape victims to get pregnant.

[smoltchanov]

Wow, just looked up his voting record, and he looks too conservative to qualify as moderate. The idea that Democrats have no non-liberals when they have Donnelly is ridiculous. And yet he only won because instead of Lugar, the Republicans decided to nominate some nut who talked about god's will for rape victims to get pregnant.

No one calls Donnelly a liberal - he is a centrist, which is quite good for conservative-leaning Indiana (still - he is more liberal even then Lugar, i will not even mention Mourdock). But no more "real conservatives" in Senate or House Democratic caucus - that's a fact. The same is true (even more) for republicans: 1 centrist in Senate (Collins) and at most couple - in House. I don't dare even to speak about "liberals" in that context.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Donnelly is conservative. Period.

[smoltchanov]

Donnelly is conservative. Period.

Donnelly is a centrist. Period. (take it!)

[Zioneer]

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.

Like the Dems didn't want Reagan, and the 2 Bush's to be one-term? Well you guys got your wish on Bush I.

Yes, but they didn't specifically mention that they would work to make Reagan or the Bush duo to be one-term presidents, and they didn't grind down the process of government to do so. The Republicans did just that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Donnelly is conservative. Period.

He voted for Obamacare.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't get the anti-blue-dogness of some of the Democrats here.  Yes they are a pain in the rear sometimes, but our party should support the most liberal candidate who can win.  For example, I supported primarying Lieberman and I was happy to see Joe Baca lose to a more liberal Democrat.  I also hope that Juan Vargas gets taken out by a more liberal (and less corrupt) Democrat.  That said, I'll take Jim Matheson over an even slightly more progressive Utah Democrat any day.  And I don't have any problem with the fact that Manchin has a conservative voting record because he seems to have locked down a Senate seat that the Democratic Party "shouldn't" hold.  And no one else could do that in West Virginia (and before anyone mentions Rockefeller or Byrd, neither of them would win if their first Senate election had been in 2012 or 2014).  My problem with Manchin is that he is kind of obnoxious about how he distances himself from the national party, but honestly I can live with that.  Cliched as it sounds, the fact is that half a loaf (or even less than half a loaf) is still better than no bread.

You say exactly what i said many times both to my Democratic and Republican ( i am an Indie, so i am not limited by Democratic party only) friends with mixed success, and on many Democratic and Republican sites (usually - banning followed). Though it's so simple that it seemed a self-evident truth to me)))

Except that I agree wholeheartedly with those who have argued that the idea that the Republican and Democratic Parties are anywhere near equally extreme is ridiculous.  Additionally, your claim that Donnelly is a centrist rather than a conservative Democrat simply suggests that you are well to the right of most Democrats (as does your claim that Pryor, Landrieu, etc are not conservative Democrats, but center-left ones).  With all due respect, it seems like you might be incorrectly assuming that your views represent the center (something many people do when discussing politics).  Lastly, I want to emphasize that there is a difference between supporting the most liberal candidate that can win and supporting conservative Democrats due to a "moderate hero" ideology (if such a thing exists).

[musictomyeyes]

I have to say that I'm horrified by the fatalism expressed in the US by Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) when it comes to "unwinnable" seats. Sure, there are some seats that will probably never be flipped back, but the political culture in America just seems so shockingly....defeatist....when it comes to winning difficult seats. As a Canadian, I find it really hard to wrap my head around the fact that some American political races can be written off to the point where a party opts to not even RUN a candidate in them. I mean, how can you expect to expand your electoral map when you aren't even willing to make a TOKEN effort?

An earlier commenter stated that the balkanization of the American political landscape is a result of the first-past-the-post system. Canada and the UK, with their FPTP systems, would disagree. In Canada, even the fifth-place Green Party ran candidates for 304 out of the 308 House seats in the last election. In that same national election, the formerly-third-place NDP had the foresight to run candidates in all 75 seats in Quebec, despite the fact that they had never held more than 1 seat there in Canadian history - as a result of an effective national campaign, they managed to win 60 of Quebec's 75 seats in the House, vaulting them to second-party status nationally for the first time ever.

Further, I doubt that there are more than a dozen seats that have voted for the same party in every election in the past 20 years in Canada.

No, the problem in America isn't its electoral system; it's the offensively dismissive attitude that its two major parties take toward the democratic nature of the process, turning elections into matters of minimizing battle fronts and allocating resources, rather than matters of competing ideas and expression of the public's will. What's worse, voters don't seem to be all that bothered by this reality, or all that willing to do anything about it. The reality SHOULD be that, when an incumbent is complacent, has no good ideas, or is just overall piss-poor, that there should be at least a reasonable challenger to articulate their party's positions as an alternative; and even if an incumbent looks unbeatable, parties should at least be willing to put a name on the ballot to show that they at least *nominally* oppose him, and to give their supporters an option to vote for.

Are things in America really so bad that each political party can't find ONE articulate, lucid person in each district to at least make an argument in favour of their party's vision? And if you aren't even willing to make the argument, can you blame them for mindlessly voting for the other party? Candidates aren't just ballot receptacles; they're ambassadors for their party's vision for the country.

As this relates to Blue-Dogs: I agree that Democrats should try to run the "most liberal candidate that can win," but that this should also include running relatively conservative candidates in district where doing so would be necessary to win. Even in those cases, the candidate should be able to articulate core democratic principles, while peppering their positions with the degree of pragmatism necessary to win their respective district. That's generally how democracy works. What's so hard to understand about that?

[adma]

Thumbs up to that last post.

[adma]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anglesey also works as a case in point; Labour lost it in '79 after Cledwyn Hughes (MP since 1951) retired, sunk to a dreadful - sub 20% - third in 1983, and seemed likely to be permanently eclipsed by close Tory/Plaid contests. Labour candidates tended to be at least semi-credible anyway, and after a surprisingly good result in 1997 it was seriously targeted in 2001; and gained.

Of course The Island is a (delightfully) bizarre place and personality politics has always mattered a great deal, but, you know.

[Benj]

I have to say that I'm horrified by the fatalism expressed in the US by Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) when it comes to "unwinnable" seats. Sure, there are some seats that will probably never be flipped back, but the political culture in America just seems so shockingly....defeatist....when it comes to winning difficult seats. As a Canadian, I find it really hard to wrap my head around the fact that some American political races can be written off to the point where a party opts to not even RUN a candidate in them. I mean, how can you expect to expand your electoral map when you aren't even willing to make a TOKEN effort?

An earlier commenter stated that the balkanization of the American political landscape is a result of the first-past-the-post system. Canada and the UK, with their FPTP systems, would disagree. In Canada, even the fifth-place Green Party ran candidates for 304 out of the 308 House seats in the last election. In that same national election, the formerly-third-place NDP had the foresight to run candidates in all 75 seats in Quebec, despite the fact that they had never held more than 1 seat there in Canadian history - as a result of an effective national campaign, they managed to win 60 of Quebec's 75 seats in the House, vaulting them to second-party status nationally for the first time ever.

Further, I doubt that there are more than a dozen seats that have voted for the same party in every election in the past 20 years in Canada.

No, the problem in America isn't its electoral system; it's the offensively dismissive attitude that its two major parties take toward the democratic nature of the process, turning elections into matters of minimizing battle fronts and allocating resources, rather than matters of competing ideas and expression of the public's will. What's worse, voters don't seem to be all that bothered by this reality, or all that willing to do anything about it. The reality SHOULD be that, when an incumbent is complacent, has no good ideas, or is just overall piss-poor, that there should be at least a reasonable challenger to articulate their party's positions as an alternative; and even if an incumbent looks unbeatable, parties should at least be willing to put a name on the ballot to show that they at least *nominally* oppose him, and to give their supporters an option to vote for.

Are things in America really so bad that each political party can't find ONE articulate, lucid person in each district to at least make an argument in favour of their party's vision? And if you aren't even willing to make the argument, can you blame them for mindlessly voting for the other party? Candidates aren't just ballot receptacles; they're ambassadors for their party's vision for the country.

As this relates to Blue-Dogs: I agree that Democrats should try to run the "most liberal candidate that can win," but that this should also include running relatively conservative candidates in district where doing so would be necessary to win. Even in those cases, the candidate should be able to articulate core democratic principles, while peppering their positions with the degree of pragmatism necessary to win their respective district. That's generally how democracy works. What's so hard to understand about that?

"Parties" as such are far weaker in the US than in Canada or the UK or elsewhere. The Democrats and Republicans have very little to no ability to impose internal discipline on their caucuses, or to propose grand strategies for the future of each party. Instead, the parties are mere coalitions of shifting individual interests of Congressmen, Senators, Governors, and Presidents, many of whom have little loyalty to other members of their party or interest in promoting the party's prospects.

This dramatically weakens the incentive for the party to run candidates in "safe" seats of the opposing party. After all, the party itself is not really trying to win power. It's the squabbling internal masses that want power, and they would rather the party not be expending resources contesting difficult seats because they have a vested interest in that effort being expended in their own seats, no matter how safe. (That's hardly the worst problem with the weak US party system, but it is one of the problems.)

There is, of course, only one thing to blame: Primaries. Other countries would do well not to imitate the US model there, though it has come very much in vogue to do so. Primaries weaken the strength of the party leadership in favor of individual politicians, who frequently have nothing but their own interests--not ideology, not party, not the public or the country--at heart. When parties select their own candidates internally, the party remains cohesive and able to control its membership, but when the public selects candidates, the party becomes all but irrelevant and politics becomes far more about money and the ability of individual politicians to buy votes through massive expenditure.

[Rural Radical2]

Anglesey also works as a case in point; Labour lost it in '79 after Cledwyn Hughes (MP since 1951) retired, sunk to a dreadful - sub 20% - third in 1983, and seemed likely to be permanently eclipsed by close Tory/Plaid contests. Labour candidates tended to be at least semi-credible anyway, and after a surprisingly good result in 1997 it was seriously targeted in 2001; and gained.

Of course The Island is a (delightfully) bizarre place and personality politics has always mattered a great deal, but, you know.

Anglesey tends to love imcumbents as well. I reckon it will be Labour for as long as the current MP wants to run.

[smoltchanov]

I don't get the anti-blue-dogness of some of the Democrats here.  Yes they are a pain in the rear sometimes, but our party should support the most liberal candidate who can win.  For example, I supported primarying Lieberman and I was happy to see Joe Baca lose to a more liberal Democrat.  I also hope that Juan Vargas gets taken out by a more liberal (and less corrupt) Democrat.  That said, I'll take Jim Matheson over an even slightly more progressive Utah Democrat any day.  And I don't have any problem with the fact that Manchin has a conservative voting record because he seems to have locked down a Senate seat that the Democratic Party "shouldn't" hold.  And no one else could do that in West Virginia (and before anyone mentions Rockefeller or Byrd, neither of them would win if their first Senate election had been in 2012 or 2014).  My problem with Manchin is that he is kind of obnoxious about how he distances himself from the national party, but honestly I can live with that.  Cliched as it sounds, the fact is that half a loaf (or even less than half a loaf) is still better than no bread.

You say exactly what i said many times both to my Democratic and Republican ( i am an Indie, so i am not limited by Democratic party only) friends with mixed success, and on many Democratic and Republican sites (usually - banning followed). Though it's so simple that it seemed a self-evident truth to me)))

Except that I agree wholeheartedly with those who have argued that the idea that the Republican and Democratic Parties are anywhere near equally extreme is ridiculous.  Additionally, your claim that Donnelly is a centrist rather than a conservative Democrat simply suggests that you are well to the right of most Democrats (as does your claim that Pryor, Landrieu, etc are not conservative Democrats, but center-left ones).  With all due respect, it seems like you might be incorrectly assuming that your views represent the center (something many people do when discussing politics).  Lastly, I want to emphasize that there is a difference between supporting the most liberal candidate that can win and supporting conservative Democrats due to a "moderate hero" ideology (if such a thing exists).

As i said many times - i don't care about ideology. At least - in a sense of "ideological purity". Russian history shows very clearly what happens when 2 "pure" political camps collide - it's enough to look at Russian civil war of 1917-20 with it's "reds" (bolsheviks) and "whites" (monarchists mostly). And i don't care about parties too  - neither Democratic, nor Republican (the same is even more truer in Russia, but it's completely another subject). I care about WINNING and ONLY about that. As i wrote above - it's a one very big game to me, and i like to WIN games. I always told your phrase: "The Democrats must run the most liberal candidate who can win, the Republicans -  the most conservative who can win". What's a difference with what you told? But i always added: "if a district is such, that the most liberal Democratic candidate, who CAN win, is to the righgt of Phil Gramm - run him!!!!" And i told to my republican friends: "if the only one Republican candidate, who can win given district, is to the left of Jacob Javits - run him"! I am absolutely "dstrict-centered", not "party- and ideology- centered". Is it so difficult to grasp??? It's so simple)))

About Donnelly - look at his ADA, ACU and National Journal ratings. A person with 60-80 ratings from ADA and much lower then that from ACU, is a conservative only in far-left eyes (the last one for Donnelly: 60 from ADA for 2010 and 28 from ACU for 2011). Landrieu is absolutely liberal by Louisiana's standards - surely, the most liberal politician this state may elect statewide (it's a very conservative state now) and centrist by above mentioned ratings too. If you want to see a really conservative (until recently) Louisiana's Democrat  - look at state Attorney General Caldwell - HE was REALLY a conservative, when elected (as Democrat) in 2007 or at number of state legislators, who have 80-100 ratings from business and social conservative organizations. Me? My politcal  matrix numbers put me slightly left-of-center. But, of course, i am a "conservative" from point of view of "democratic party activists". If you mean THAT - you are more then correct. But - once again - i don't take "Democratic activist's" (or even officials) opinions as a yardstick for determining - who is who..". It's them (and their Republican counterparts) who are the reason i never wanted to join either party))

Guys, if you don't forget to add words "by my criteria" when you call politicians liberal and conservative - all will be fine. As was correctly stated by someone here - even Obama is DINO in somebody's eyes.. But don't forget, that different people have a different set of criterias, and yours is ONLY one of them. So - don't  pretend please, that your opinion is absolute truth, while other people's - pure "bullsh**t". It's no worse then yours...

[adma]

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

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

[smoltchanov]

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

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

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

[adma]

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

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

[smoltchanov]

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

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

Communism continues in Russia. With some elements of that oligarchic capitalism you mentioned, but - nevertheless. The ruling party ("United Russia") is essentially communist by nature and approach - it consisits of former party "apparatchiks", who forfeited former "principles" for good amount of hard cash, but preserved past methods and approaches - both to power and "ordinary people". Even such parties as "Yabloko (Apple)", which are considered "right" in Russia, are, essentially social-democratic. So, it's not surprising, that those, who are strongly opposed  to "powers that be" (and that "were" before) in Russia are, usually, extremely anti-communist (and anti-socialist) as well. That's absolutely true for me, and in that aspect i am really very far right. On the other hand - generelly "pro-choice", "pro-environment" and for "civil unions" (at least) - "normal "set" of moderate social beliefs))). A sort of "Angus King", who is a sort of my political "hero" now (but, surely, no Cynthia Dill)))))) That's what i mean when call myself a "moderate". But i am more conservative economically))

P.S. But we didn't came here to discuss ME - didn't we??? I don't have anything against anyone to be whatever he/she pleases, and completely satisfied to be who i am)))

[Frodo]

It looks like the Blue Dogs will not ride off silently into the night:

Blue Dog Democrats fight for relevance

By Mario Trujillo   
- 11/25/12 06:00 AM ET

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[smoltchanov]

It looks like the Blue Dogs will not ride off silently into the night:

Blue Dog Democrats fight for relevance

By Mario Trujillo   
- 11/25/12 06:00 AM ET

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My forecast (i said they will continue) seems to be closer to reality)))