Jim Cooper - victim of attempt to purge centrist Dems?

[Miles]

Yes, I don't understand why people want to remove Blue Dogs in unwinnable locations. Like it or not Barrow, McIntyre and Matheson are the best we can do in those districts.

That said, Cooper's made too many right-wing votes despite representing a Democratic district. I think primaring him shouldn't backfire.

The most similar district to TN-05 would be KY-03. Yarmuth voted the party line 95% of the time in the last Congress versus 80% for Cooper.

[osideguy92]

Yes, I don't understand why people want to remove Blue Dogs in unwinnable locations. Like it or not Barrow, McIntyre and Matheson are the best we can do in those districts.

That said, Cooper's made too many right-wing votes despite representing a Democratic district. I think primaring him shouldn't backfire.

The most similar district to TN-05 would be KY-03. Yarmuth voted the party line 95% of the time in the last Congress versus 80% for Cooper.

How about this: Pull out of the districts completely! Don't field ANY Candidates in these redneck, backwater districts! Save your money to compete against vulnerable GOP incumbents in friendly territory, instead of compiling a wide smorgasbord of milquetoast-to-right-wing Democrats who essentially have veto power over anything your caucus can do if it gains a majority?

Much better to just engage in a form of electoral trench warfare, picking off whatever Northern liberal and progressive districts you can until you're able to compile a working majority of actual progressives who can get sh**t done for a change.

[Miles]

How about this: Pull out of the districts completely! Don't field ANY Candidates in these redneck, backwater districts! Save your money to compete against vulnerable GOP incumbents in friendly territory, instead of compiling a wide smorgasbord of milquetoast-to-right-wing Democrats who essentially have veto power over anything your caucus can do if it gains a majority?

Much better to just engage in a form of electoral trench warfare, picking off whatever Northern liberal and progressive districts you can until you're able to compile a working majority of actual progressives who can get sh**t done for a change.

Both of those districts are almost entirely urban...

'Ya know, we're not entirely ignorant and backwards down here in the south.

I fail to see the downside in what you are describing. Republicans have already fully re-located to the South, and now Democrats are beginning to follow suit in re-locating to the North. You know, when you go against what the demographics are telling you is going to happen, you're going to lose. And not just lose, but get annihilated. Democrats went against the demographic grain in 2006 and 2008 by focusing on electing Blue Dogs throughout the South and Plains, and they paid for it dearly in 2010 when the vast majority of those candidates lost their seats.

Why do you want your party to continue this losing strategy of fielding candidates who are vastly out of step with the overwhelming majority of the party on a wide variety of issues from abortion, guns, LGBT rights, budgetary issues, and climate change? When you do that, your base will eventually become disaffected, believing (correctly) that the party leaders are not listening to their concerns. And, since the base is the most likely bloc of voters to actually go out and standing in line at a polling place, those voters are going to be extremely more inclined to simply stay home.

As the base moves left, the party and the candidates it fields must move with it, lest it risk losing their support. Not losing their support to their opponents at the other end of the spectrum, but losing their active, efficacious support. Your prescription of electing more conservative Democrats to southern states whose residents obviously don't want them to represent them is a failed strategy.

The pending realignment doesn't mean that Democrats should entirely eschew certain constituencies. Your solution seems too extreme: if we can'y elect a liberal, why even bother competing!?

There are plenty of conservative people down here who would vote for the right type of Democrat.

I'd say that Blue Dogs like McIntyre and Barrow have the similar position as the strong majority of their constituents on social issues. Those aren't the 'losing issues' that you're making out them to be, at least not in some regions. If Democrats can run on those issues like abortion and guns and win, why would the party want to cut them off?

[Incipimus iterum]

How about this: Pull out of the districts completely! Don't field ANY Candidates in these redneck, backwater districts! Save your money to compete against vulnerable GOP incumbents in friendly territory, instead of compiling a wide smorgasbord of milquetoast-to-right-wing Democrats who essentially have veto power over anything your caucus can do if it gains a majority?

Much better to just engage in a form of electoral trench warfare, picking off whatever Northern liberal and progressive districts you can until you're able to compile a working majority of actual progressives who can get sh**t done for a change.

Both of those districts are almost entirely urban...

'Ya know, we're not entirely ignorant and backwards down here in the south.

I fail to see the downside in what you are describing. Republicans have already fully re-located to the South, and now Democrats are beginning to follow suit in re-locating to the North. You know, when you go against what the demographics are telling you is going to happen, you're going to lose. And not just lose, but get annihilated. Democrats went against the demographic grain in 2006 and 2008 by focusing on electing Blue Dogs throughout the South and Plains, and they paid for it dearly in 2010 when the vast majority of those candidates lost their seats.

Why do you want your party to continue this losing strategy of fielding candidates who are vastly out of step with the overwhelming majority of the party on a wide variety of issues from abortion, guns, LGBT rights, budgetary issues, and climate change? When you do that, your base will eventually become disaffected, believing (correctly) that the party leaders are not listening to their concerns. And, since the base is the most likely bloc of voters to actually go out and standing in line at a polling place, those voters are going to be extremely more inclined to simply stay home.

As the base moves left, the party and the candidates it fields must move with it, lest it risk losing their support. Not losing their support to their opponents at the other end of the spectrum, but losing their active, efficacious support. Your prescription of electing more conservative Democrats to southern states whose residents obviously don't want them to represent them is a failed strategy.

The pending realignment doesn't mean that Democrats should entirely eschew certain constituencies. Your solution seems too extreme: if we can'y elect a liberal, why even bother competing!?

There are plenty of conservative people down here who would vote for the right type of Democrat.

I'd say that Blue Dogs like McIntyre and Barrow have the similar position as the strong majority of their constituents on social issues. Those aren't the 'losing issues' that you're making out them to be, at least not in some regions. If Democrats can run on those issues like abortion and guns and win, why would the party want to cut them off?

The reason the Democrats are so successful is because they have Members who have Different Views like Matheson, Barrow, McIntyre, and Cooper they represent there constituents

[Torie]

As others have noted, the seat is Dem enough, and liberal enough, that a purge of Cooper might well work. Cooper probably would have preferred my recent little gerrymander, where Obama and McCain ran about even, a Pub PVI of about 3-4%, down closer to 2% now. The figures below are from Daily Kos, and based on the new CD lines.

[Sbane]

Is mid decade redistricting possible in Tennessee? If so, Cooper should be left alone. If not, then it should be made clear to him what will happen if he keeps voting like he did on the Sandy bill. Even not supporting Pelosi is a little suspect.

[osideguy92]

How about this: Pull out of the districts completely! Don't field ANY Candidates in these redneck, backwater districts! Save your money to compete against vulnerable GOP incumbents in friendly territory, instead of compiling a wide smorgasbord of milquetoast-to-right-wing Democrats who essentially have veto power over anything your caucus can do if it gains a majority?

Much better to just engage in a form of electoral trench warfare, picking off whatever Northern liberal and progressive districts you can until you're able to compile a working majority of actual progressives who can get sh**t done for a change.

Both of those districts are almost entirely urban...

'Ya know, we're not entirely ignorant and backwards down here in the south.

I fail to see the downside in what you are describing. Republicans have already fully re-located to the South, and now Democrats are beginning to follow suit in re-locating to the North. You know, when you go against what the demographics are telling you is going to happen, you're going to lose. And not just lose, but get annihilated. Democrats went against the demographic grain in 2006 and 2008 by focusing on electing Blue Dogs throughout the South and Plains, and they paid for it dearly in 2010 when the vast majority of those candidates lost their seats.

Why do you want your party to continue this losing strategy of fielding candidates who are vastly out of step with the overwhelming majority of the party on a wide variety of issues from abortion, guns, LGBT rights, budgetary issues, and climate change? When you do that, your base will eventually become disaffected, believing (correctly) that the party leaders are not listening to their concerns. And, since the base is the most likely bloc of voters to actually go out and standing in line at a polling place, those voters are going to be extremely more inclined to simply stay home.

As the base moves left, the party and the candidates it fields must move with it, lest it risk losing their support. Not losing their support to their opponents at the other end of the spectrum, but losing their active, efficacious support. Your prescription of electing more conservative Democrats to southern states whose residents obviously don't want them to represent them is a failed strategy.

The pending realignment doesn't mean that Democrats should entirely eschew certain constituencies. Your solution seems too extreme: if we can'y elect a liberal, why even bother competing!?

There are plenty of conservative people down here who would vote for the right type of Democrat.

I'd say that Blue Dogs like McIntyre and Barrow have the similar position as the strong majority of their constituents on social issues. Those aren't the 'losing issues' that you're making out them to be, at least not in some regions. If Democrats can run on those issues like abortion and guns and win, why would the party want to cut them off?

The reason the Democrats are so Successful is because they have Members who have Different Views like Matheson, Barrow, McIntyre, and Cooper they Represent there Constituents

What's with the random capitalization?

[traininthedistance]

How about this: Pull out of the districts completely! Don't field ANY Candidates in these redneck, backwater districts! Save your money to compete against vulnerable GOP incumbents in friendly territory, instead of compiling a wide smorgasbord of milquetoast-to-right-wing Democrats who essentially have veto power over anything your caucus can do if it gains a majority?

Much better to just engage in a form of electoral trench warfare, picking off whatever Northern liberal and progressive districts you can until you're able to compile a working majority of actual progressives who can get sh**t done for a change.

This is just horribly misguided at every level.  If the Dems pull out of the quote-unquote "redneck backwater" districts, that just means the Republicans don't need to even pretend to play defense there anymore and can shift resources into Dem districts instead.  There's a reason that Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was so successful, while his predecessors and successor at the DNC couldn't get over the hump in the House.  With statehouses so gerrymandered as it is, the Dems have no choice but to fight on unfriendly turf, combine that with the fact that there are (sadly) more conservatives than liberals in this country, and we're not getting to any sort of majority anytime soon without being a "big tent" that's more welcoming to moderates than the other side (not hard these days).  And, of course, since we need to be that big tent, it's just horrible messaging to officially write off large swaths of the country as redneck backwaters.  Hopefully in a couple decades people's views will change for the better; in the meantime I'm not willing to consign myself to permanent minority status for the sake of ideological purity.

None of this should excuse Cooper, however.  His district is D+3 or so, strong enough to elect a mainstream Dem (perhaps not a staunch progressive, but someone much better than him).  And voting against Sandy relief is just such a HP thing to do regardless of ideology.  So, even as I strive to be pragmatic and inclusive, I have to conclude he deserves a challenge.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Phil's desperate attempts to create a false equivalency are embarrassing.

[Mr.Phips]

Is it even possible to reduce TN Dems to one seat? With Memphis and Nashville being so far from each other, this would require a gerrymander of Ohio levels...

It's certainly doable. All the districts surrounding Nashville are at least R+6, and with one exception R+13 or higher. They could probably absorb much of Nashville into their districts without losing their R advantage. Just split up Nashville into parts of Nashville+R suburbia.

An R+6 district in Tennessee would be very winnable for a Democrat like Cooper. 

[Fascism Must Be Defeated]

Is it even possible to reduce TN Dems to one seat? With Memphis and Nashville being so far from each other, this would require a gerrymander of Ohio levels...

It's certainly doable. All the districts surrounding Nashville are at least R+6, and with one exception R+13 or higher. They could probably absorb much of Nashville into their districts without losing their R advantage. Just split up Nashville into parts of Nashville+R suburbia.

An R+6 district in Tennessee would be very winnable for a Democrat like Cooper. 

In most places, yes, but the republican areas around Nashville are less blue-dog and more conservative suburbs.

[Torie]

Is it even possible to reduce TN Dems to one seat? With Memphis and Nashville being so far from each other, this would require a gerrymander of Ohio levels...

Oh, one could have blown Cooper away without breaking a sweat, and without much erosity or county splits either.  TN-05 in the map below has a Pub PVI of 7.5%. One could push it up to about 9.0% Pub PVI by slicing out from TN-05 the county seat in Rutherford County, but that gets kind of ugly. The Pubs were kind in TN.

[Sbane]

I think there is a good chance Cooper could hold on to the 5th district you drew, Torie. Indeed, his current voting record indicates he thinks he is running in that sort of a district.

[Frodo]

How about this: Pull out of the districts completely! Don't field ANY Candidates in these redneck, backwater districts! Save your money to compete against vulnerable GOP incumbents in friendly territory, instead of compiling a wide smorgasbord of milquetoast-to-right-wing Democrats who essentially have veto power over anything your caucus can do if it gains a majority?

Much better to just engage in a form of electoral trench warfare, picking off whatever Northern liberal and progressive districts you can until you're able to compile a working majority of actual progressives who can get sh**t done for a change.

Both of those districts are almost entirely urban...

'Ya know, we're not entirely ignorant and backwards down here in the south.

I fail to see the downside in what you are describing. Republicans have already fully re-located to the South, and now Democrats are beginning to follow suit in re-locating to the North. You know, when you go against what the demographics are telling you is going to happen, you're going to lose. And not just lose, but get annihilated. Democrats went against the demographic grain in 2006 and 2008 by focusing on electing Blue Dogs throughout the South and Plains, and they paid for it dearly in 2010 when the vast majority of those candidates lost their seats.

Why do you want your party to continue this losing strategy of fielding candidates who are vastly out of step with the overwhelming majority of the party on a wide variety of issues from abortion, guns, LGBT rights, budgetary issues, and climate change? When you do that, your base will eventually become disaffected, believing (correctly) that the party leaders are not listening to their concerns. And, since the base is the most likely bloc of voters to actually go out and standing in line at a polling place, those voters are going to be extremely more inclined to simply stay home.

As the base moves left, the party and the candidates it fields must move with it, lest it risk losing their support. Not losing their support to their opponents at the other end of the spectrum, but losing their active, efficacious support. Your prescription of electing more conservative Democrats to southern states whose residents obviously don't want them to represent them is a failed strategy.

The pending realignment doesn't mean that Democrats should entirely eschew certain constituencies. Your solution seems too extreme: if we can'y elect a liberal, why even bother competing!?

There are plenty of conservative people down here who would vote for the right type of Democrat.

I'd say that Blue Dogs like McIntyre and Barrow have the similar position as the strong majority of their constituents on social issues. Those aren't the 'losing issues' that you're making out them to be, at least not in some regions. If Democrats can run on those issues like abortion and guns and win, why would the party want to cut them off?

The reason the Democrats are so successful is because they have Members who have Different Views like Matheson, Barrow, McIntyre, and Cooper they represent there constituents

-----------------------------------------

This debate is moot -as a direct result of President Obama focusing on gun control (and not even with any real hope of passing legislation), we are even more likely to lose those seats (including Rahall's) in the next election anyway whether we pour resources into them or not.  

The South (and I am including West Virginia) is arguably the most hostile region to gun control in the Union -we should expect continued losses in 2014 and in the remainder of this decade here as the remaining Democratic-controlled state chambers turn Republican.    

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I really like the term Daily Kos used for this guy: Deficit Peacock. What else would you call a Democrat who voted against Hurricane Sandy relief but for hurricane relief for his own district?

[Keystone Phil]

Phil's desperate attempts to create a false equivalency are embarrassing.

Of course. We learned there's no comparison because purging by the left is acceptable when their candidate can still win. Never mind when a "Teabagger" or even mainstream conservative wants to take on a more liberal Republican and can still win the General. No, no. That's still bad. That's still a hatred for the "rational center."

[Sbane]

Voting against Sandy aid is not rational.

[krazen1211]

Haha. If they come up with a liberal Republicans should use a vicious gerrymander to throw the liberal out in the next election.

[Gass3268]

If they didn't split up Nashville the first time around, why they would during the middle of the decade?

[Skill and Chance]

The governor has no veto power in TN, so this seat is 100% assured to be gone as soon as R's think they can win it.  Cooper can handle a rural seat, generic D can't.  Unless of course Nashville gets so D by 2022 that they have to draw a 2X Obama district, but I wouldn't count on that.

[Miles]

The governor has no veto power in TN, so this seat is 100% assured to be gone as soon as R's think they can win it.  Cooper can handle a rural seat, generic D can't.  Unless of course Nashville gets so D by 2022 that they have to draw a 2X Obama district, but I wouldn't count on that.

NC is the only state where the Governor can't veto redistricting.

[Skill and Chance]

The governor has no veto power in TN, so this seat is 100% assured to be gone as soon as R's think they can win it.  Cooper can handle a rural seat, generic D can't.  Unless of course Nashville gets so D by 2022 that they have to draw a 2X Obama district, but I wouldn't count on that.

NC is the only state where the Governor can't veto redistricting.

Well, technically the TN governor can veto, but a veto override requires only a simple majority vote in both houses, so it has no teeth.  In other words, a D governor can't block an 8-1 map in 2022.  The TN legislature is like 75% R right now anyway.   

[Torie]

I think there is a good chance Cooper could hold on to the 5th district you drew, Torie. Indeed, his current voting record indicates he thinks he is running in that sort of a district.

Maybe, but Cooper would have to go pretty rogue to survive. It didn't work for Davis or whatever is name was in the Mid TN rural CD, TN-04. He was blown out in 2010. He would certainly survive in my more "responsible" gerrymander, which was about Pub PVI 3% or so. I like marginal to tilt CD's with Dems in them. The Dems need more outspoken centrists, and it is good to have some bipartisan support for controversial issues. Ditto for the Pubs of course in swing CD's and tilt Dem CD's.

[Sbane]

I think there is a good chance Cooper could hold on to the 5th district you drew, Torie. Indeed, his current voting record indicates he thinks he is running in that sort of a district.

Maybe, but Cooper would have to go pretty rogue to survive. It didn't work for Davis or whatever is name was in the Mid TN rural CD, TN-04. He was blown out in 2010. He would certainly survive in my more "responsible" gerrymander, which was about Pub PVI 3% or so. I like marginal to tilt CD's with Dems in them. The Dems need more outspoken centrists, and it is good to have some bipartisan support for controversial issues. Ditto for the Pubs of course in swing CD's and tilt Dem CD's.

Look at how much better Cooper did than Obama in his district. I think he would do fairly well in Rutherford County and the race would be decided by what the people in the Mount Juliet area as well as the more rural areas of the south feel like (I think that's Tullahoma?).

[Mr.Phips]

How about this: Pull out of the districts completely! Don't field ANY Candidates in these redneck, backwater districts! Save your money to compete against vulnerable GOP incumbents in friendly territory, instead of compiling a wide smorgasbord of milquetoast-to-right-wing Democrats who essentially have veto power over anything your caucus can do if it gains a majority?

Much better to just engage in a form of electoral trench warfare, picking off whatever Northern liberal and progressive districts you can until you're able to compile a working majority of actual progressives who can get sh**t done for a change.

Both of those districts are almost entirely urban...

'Ya know, we're not entirely ignorant and backwards down here in the south.

I fail to see the downside in what you are describing. Republicans have already fully re-located to the South, and now Democrats are beginning to follow suit in re-locating to the North. You know, when you go against what the demographics are telling you is going to happen, you're going to lose. And not just lose, but get annihilated. Democrats went against the demographic grain in 2006 and 2008 by focusing on electing Blue Dogs throughout the South and Plains, and they paid for it dearly in 2010 when the vast majority of those candidates lost their seats.

Why do you want your party to continue this losing strategy of fielding candidates who are vastly out of step with the overwhelming majority of the party on a wide variety of issues from abortion, guns, LGBT rights, budgetary issues, and climate change? When you do that, your base will eventually become disaffected, believing (correctly) that the party leaders are not listening to their concerns. And, since the base is the most likely bloc of voters to actually go out and standing in line at a polling place, those voters are going to be extremely more inclined to simply stay home.

As the base moves left, the party and the candidates it fields must move with it, lest it risk losing their support. Not losing their support to their opponents at the other end of the spectrum, but losing their active, efficacious support. Your prescription of electing more conservative Democrats to southern states whose residents obviously don't want them to represent them is a failed strategy.

The pending realignment doesn't mean that Democrats should entirely eschew certain constituencies. Your solution seems too extreme: if we can'y elect a liberal, why even bother competing!?

There are plenty of conservative people down here who would vote for the right type of Democrat.

I'd say that Blue Dogs like McIntyre and Barrow have the similar position as the strong majority of their constituents on social issues. Those aren't the 'losing issues' that you're making out them to be, at least not in some regions. If Democrats can run on those issues like abortion and guns and win, why would the party want to cut them off?

The reason the Democrats are so successful is because they have Members who have Different Views like Matheson, Barrow, McIntyre, and Cooper they represent there constituents

-----------------------------------------

This debate is moot -as a direct result of President Obama focusing on gun control (and not even with any real hope of passing legislation), we are even more likely to lose those seats (including Rahall's) in the next election anyway whether we pour resources into them or not.  

The South (and I am including West Virginia) is arguably the most hostile region to gun control in the Union -we should expect continued losses in 2014 and in the remainder of this decade here as the remaining Democratic-controlled state chambers turn Republican.    

The only two House Democrats left in the south where the gun control issue would hurt are Barrow and McINtrye.