Potential primary targets for a Democratic/leftist Tea Party

[Tayya]

I've been wondering for a while which Democratic congressmen that would be vulnerable to challenges by Tea Party-ish challengers from the left, both successful (Ted Cruz) and unsuccessful (Mourdock, O'Donnell...). For successful challenges, the targets should be at least two of three: a) in safe D states or districts, b) not progressive enough (New Democrats or Blue Dogs) and c) somewhat useless, where useless means ineffective, lacking seniority and without special appeal among the electorate.

One that comes to mind is Chris Coons, though I don't know how big the bench is in Delaware (it's still better than the Republican one). Sheldon Whitehouse and David Ciciline should also be in line. (Reed has seniority) Maybe Maria Cantwell as well?

[justfollowingtheelections]

Cantwell is very popular.  Coons isn't vulnerable at all unless Beau Biden runs.

Democrats in general are more reasonable than Republicans.  They would of course want to replace Baucus or Landrieu with a more reliable Democratic vote, but they know that's the best they know that's the best they can get in those states.

The only Democrat right now in danger of losing a primary is Lautenberg and that's only because of his age.

Edit:  I'm obviously talking about the Senate, because in the House things are totally different.  California's jungle primaries will give the opportunity to new candidates to rise (see what happened in Stark's district).

[Donerail]

Florida analysis (taking Florida Dems and subtracting those in the CPC)

Kathy Castor: Very safe D seat, voted against the stimulus, and not a good match to the district. Decent target.
Patrick Murphy: Leave him alone. If you replace him with anyone further to the left, you get Allen West back again.
Alcee Hastings: Guy used to be a judge, got impeached, and made a comeback as a Rep. Notable for calling Palin a racist anti-Semite, blowing taxpayer money on a Lexus, and making unwanted sexual advances on a staffer. Don't care what he says, he's nothing but damaging to the Dems' image.
Ted Deutch: Safe seat, moderate D.
Lois Frankel: Not enough information.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Far too entrenched (being DNC chair) to be challenged. Safe district though, and it could be worth a shot.
Joe Garcia: Not enough information.

[Talleyrand]

Two often-mentioned targets are Stephen Lynch and Dan Lipinski for their targets. While their blue-collar conservatism and pro-life views fit their districts well, there was really no reason for those two to vote against the final version of Health Care Reform in 2010. While both, especially the former, are popular among voters in their districts, their constituencies are probably Democratic enough to support more progressive Representatives, although I don't expect either of them to receive serious challenges.

[Tayya]

Cantwell is very popular.  Coons isn't vulnerable at all unless Beau Biden runs.

Democrats in general are more reasonable than Republicans.  They would of course want to replace Baucus or Landrieu with a more reliable Democratic vote, but they know that's the best they know that's the best they can get in those states.

The only Democrat right now in danger of losing a primary is Lautenberg and that's only because of his age.

Edit:  I'm obviously talking about the Senate, because in the House things are totally different.  California's jungle primaries will give the opportunity to new candidates to rise (see what happened in Stark's district).

Well, yes, but we're talking about a purely hypothetical Tea Party analogy here. Dick Lugar should by all accounts have been safe as well.

Looking through the Senate lists, I find Menendez and Casey to be the other most likely targets, especially Casey considering his last campaign. Thing is, most of the Democrats that I think of as mediocre and vulnerable to a Kos-backed challenger, such as Klobuchar, end up winning by over 60%. I'm of course an outsider who can't see all facts on the ground, but a lot of these people overperform their on-paper strength, and if they shouldn't be considered, this thought experiment stops short quite quickly.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Two often-mentioned targets are Stephen Lynch and Dan Lipinski for their targets. While their blue-collar conservatism and pro-life views fit their districts well, there was really no reason for those two to vote against the final version of Health Care Reform in 2010. While both, especially the former, are popular among voters in their districts, their constituencies are probably Democratic enough to support more progressive Representatives, although I don't expect either of them to receive serious challenges.

I was watching an interview with Lynch recently and he said he was in favor of single payer system.  Could that be why he voted against the bill (I don't know, I'm just asking)?

[Talleyrand]

Two often-mentioned targets are Stephen Lynch and Dan Lipinski for their targets. While their blue-collar conservatism and pro-life views fit their districts well, there was really no reason for those two to vote against the final version of Health Care Reform in 2010. While both, especially the former, are popular among voters in their districts, their constituencies are probably Democratic enough to support more progressive Representatives, although I don't expect either of them to receive serious challenges.

I was watching an interview with Lynch recently and he said he was in favor of single payer system.  Could that be why he voted against the bill (I don't know, I'm just asking)?

Well, I'm guessing it could, but I still don't think that's a good excuse because this was as good as we were going to get at that point, and even rabid Liberal Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who had initially opposed the bill, came around and voted for it in the end because it needed all the votes it could get, considering the unanimous opposition from Republicans and lack of support from many conservative Democrats.

The reasoning I saw from him when I looked it up just now was something about how such a vote and the subsequent reconciliation process in the Senate would "ruin the credibility of the House", but I'm not buying it.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Cantwell is very popular.  Coons isn't vulnerable at all unless Beau Biden runs.

Democrats in general are more reasonable than Republicans.  They would of course want to replace Baucus or Landrieu with a more reliable Democratic vote, but they know that's the best they know that's the best they can get in those states.

The only Democrat right now in danger of losing a primary is Lautenberg and that's only because of his age.

Edit:  I'm obviously talking about the Senate, because in the House things are totally different.  California's jungle primaries will give the opportunity to new candidates to rise (see what happened in Stark's district).

Well, yes, but we're talking about a purely hypothetical Tea Party analogy here. Dick Lugar should by all accounts have been safe as well.

Looking through the Senate lists, I find Menendez and Casey to be the other most likely targets, especially Casey considering his last campaign. Thing is, most of the Democrats that I think of as mediocre and vulnerable to a Kos-backed challenger, such as Klobuchar, end up winning by over 60%. I'm of course an outsider who can't see all facts on the ground, but a lot of these people overperform their on-paper strength, and if they shouldn't be considered, this thought experiment stops short quite quickly.

Menendez has never really been challenged and I doubt he will.  I've never been given the impression the far left wants to replace him.  Casey as far as I know is very powerful in Pennsylvania and as long as he's a reliable Democratic vote he won't be in danger.  Pennsylvania afterall is the state where a great candidate such as Sestak lost to a far-right guy such as Toomey.  Casey would only be primaried if he's in danger of losing the seat.

[adma]

In practice, I think such Dem challenges tend to be *counter*-Tea Party, i.e. more about flushing out the Cynthia McKinney types on behalf of greater apparent gravitas...

[Landslide Lyndon]

The left almost always primaries people who are hopelessly out of step with their district/state (Joe Lieberman, Al Wynn) or electoral dead meat (Blanche Lincoln).
They aren't going to primary a moderate just because he votes Democratic "only" 80% of the time.

[Maxwell]

If Schweitzer runs, Baucus is toast, but I think he might get primaried by someone else if he still is very unpopular by the time 2014 rolls around.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lipinski is some seriously low hanging fruit.

[Where's the Epstein Client List?]

The left almost always primaries people who are hopelessly out of step with their district/state (Joe Lieberman, Al Wynn) or electoral dead meat (Blanche Lincoln).
They aren't going to primary a moderate just because he votes Democratic "only" 80% of the time.

And that's why they still control the Senate.

I didn't really understand why Bill Halter ran against Blanche Lincoln, though. Either of them was going to lose anyway, so it seemed like a waste of time and money.

[justfollowingtheelections]

If you're gonna lose, at least lose with dignity

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

3 of the 5 Pennsylvania Democrats are in the CPC, and the fourth (Doyle) is very liberal anyway. The one who would certainly be on the crosshairs is Allyson Schwartz. She represents the more liberal parts of suburban Philly. She's fairly powerful in the House (and in the New Democratic Coalition), which could either help her or make her an even more tempting target.

[Zioneer]

The left almost always primaries people who are hopelessly out of step with their district/state (Joe Lieberman, Al Wynn) or electoral dead meat (Blanche Lincoln).
They aren't going to primary a moderate just because he votes Democratic "only" 80% of the time.

Yeah, in the district that I live in, my congressman literally votes with the Democrats about 50%, maybe less, but they don't dare to primary him because he's the best they can get here.

[Brittain33]

I was watching an interview with Lynch recently and he said he was in favor of single payer system.  Could that be why he voted against the bill (I don't know, I'm just asking)?

Lynch wanted a spot as an anti-Obamacare vote because the bill was becoming so unpopular and he has always had his eye on running statewide. Because he is in a safe seat, the party was not inclined to let him make someone else take one for the team - they were counting on his vote. He pissed off unions and others, some of which he knew disliked him, but some he does rely on. It was a political calculation entirely.