Rate MS-GOV

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Democrat will lose, whether it’s a gay black liberal greenie or Theodore Bilbo’s ghost. Pressley will decisively lose.

That's because Theodore Bilbo would be too economically liberal for Mississippi if he were alive today.

Bilbo was likely the most vile rascist ever in either House of Congress, but he was also an FDR Democrat and a down-the-line New Deal supporter.

That was exactly the reason i used James Eastland not Bilbo in my "mental exercise". Eastland was substantially more economically conservative while only slightly less racist. Even better example would be John Bell Williams, who was all around conservative: economically, socially and racially, but i think it would be extremely difficult to even find such Democrat today...

What would the point of being a Democrat even be then if they have to be as conservative as a Republican to win?

Beginning in 1930, the Democrats had a hammerlock on both Houses of Congress through 1980 with only 1946 and 1954 being exceptions.  The Congress (both House and Senate) was controlled by a Seniority System, whereby Committee Chairmanships were determined by seniority.  Until 1948 Southern Democrats faithfully supported the national ticket, and it was not until 1964 that there were significant defections. 

What this meant was that all one had to do to be a Committee Chair was to keep getting reelected.  That was the name of the game in Southern Politics through 1974.  During the first half of the 1960s, Northern Virginia was represented by Rep. Howard Smith (D) who was a segregationist and a conservative on just about everything else; the move to enlarge the Rules Committee in 1961 was due to Smith having enough Southern Democratic support to join with Republicans to bottle up lots of liberal legislation in the Rules Committee.  The adding of additional members to the Rules Committee was not a slam dunk; there was speculation that Speaker Sam Rayburn would have called a Binding Party Caucus, meaning that of 75% of the Democratic Caucus supported a bill, every Democrat would be obliged to vote for it on the floor or risk losing their seniority.

In the end, the House expanded the Rules Committee:

The House Democratic Committee on Committees Feb. 1 unanimously nominated Reps. B.F. Sisk (Calif.) and Carl Elliott (Ala.) to fill the two new Democratic seats on the Committee. Sisk had a liberal record and Elliott supported most welfare legislation, except where civil rights issues were involved.

House Republicans Feb. 6 chose three conservatives to fill the GOP vacancies on the Committee: Reps. Katharine St. George (N.Y.), H. Allen Smith (Calif.) and Elmer J. Hoffman (Ill.). Later, after B. Carroll Reece (R Tenn.)died, leaving a GOP vacancy, another conservative was named to his place on the Committee, William H, Avery (R Kan.).

This is from the Congressional Record.  It should be noted that Katherine St. George was not really a conservative, and that all three (3) Republicans had voted for the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.  Elliott was a mainstream Democrat except on segregation; he still lost in the Goldwater landslide in 1964.  The bottom line here was that the Rules Committee was no longer the place where Civil Rights Legislation went to die.

Even at that, Howard Smith remained the Rules Chairman.  He was a powerful man until he lost a primary to a liberal challenger in 1966 (who lost to Republican William Scott in the general election).  There was no reason for any Southern Democrat at this time to not make their goal being to rack up seniority and get good committee seats.  In 1970, conservative Democrat M. Dawson Mathis (D-GA) was asked what his goals were as a Congressman.  Mathis didn't hesitate:  "To represent the people of the 2nd district for as long as I can." was his immediate answer.

Up to 1974, Mathis (and other conservative Southerners) could count on this being a path to advancement.  But after the 1974 Democratic Congressional Landslide, Rep. Phil Burton (D-CA), the head of the Democratic Study Group (the organized body of Democratic liberals within the Democratic Caucus) advanced the issue of ensuring that committee chairs, and even plum committee seats, were apportioned out to members who would at least be loyal to the Democratic Caucus and not bottle up legislation a majority of caucus members opposed.  As a result, the Democratic Caucus ousted the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, F. Edward Hebert (D-LA), the Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Wright Patman (D-TX), and the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, W. Robert (Bob) Poage (D-TX).  What was remarkable was that only Hebert was the consummate Dixiecrat; Wright Patman was a Texas Populist who chaired the House Banking Committee who pushed to investigate Watergate BEFORE the 1972 election and Bob Poage once told a group of college students that he voted for McGovern, saying "I'm a good Democrat!".  Nonetheless, the point was made.  (M. Dawson Mathis quit GA-2 after 10 years of service by making a losing run for Herman Talmadge's Senate seat in the 1980 Democratic Primary when he could have continued to be re-elected.)

By the late 1970s, the conservative Democrats who chose to stay Democrats (and I include in this list Rep. Jamie Whitten (D-MS), Sen. John Stennis (D-MS), and Sen. Howell Heflin (D-AL) all moderated their voting records.  The "Bourbon Democrat" was a thing of the past by then.  Democrats who would not moderate their voting records either quit or switched parties.  But there were still clearly moderate conservatives who were Democrats that played key roles in the Congress.  There were no more mossback conservatives, however, as Committee Chairs in both Houses of Congress progressively required reliability as a prerequisite to becoming a Committee Chair.

This is to answer the question of why one would be a Southern conservative, yet also be a Democrat.  The other reason, of course, is that the Democrats and Republicans of old were not the ideological entities we have now.  Ideolgy-based parties are a very new thing for America.  Frankly, I liked the old way better.

[smoltchanov]

Well, me too..... Especially - as a foreigner. For me - US election is a very big game (naturally, almost all decisons made here can't influence my everyday life in Moscow), which used (in the past) to be interesting. When you couldn't predict with 99% probability a positions of candidate on all important issues solely on a basis of his/her party membership. When you couldn't predict "ab initio" results in vast majority of districts, again - solely on party membership (conservative Democrat in the South could easily get elected in a district voting heavily Republican in Presidential election, and vice versa, say, in New England). And so on. Now US politics became boring and even primitive: 99+% Democratic candidates take more or less "standard" positions on global issues, differing only on some local, which are of interest to local denizens only (whether particular road will go here or there, or whether a trade and entertainment center will be built in this or that part of the city) and the same - among Republican candidates. Even monkey can predict results in about 95% of districts before election day. All suspense and intrigue is gone.

I was lucky to begin my study of US politics in 1972 (though the first thing i remember about US politics is Kennedy murder in 1963, but it was extremely difficult to get detailed and honest info about US politics then) , when both conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans still existed, though even then there was less of them then in 1960th. They brought unpredictability to electoral "sport". Now it's all gone, and i simply continue because it's difficult to throw away habits of 50+ years. But it's really boring, guys!!!!!

[Sol]

The intensity of polarization isn't a good thing for the country, but I think we're better off with each party having a fairly clear ideological bent. It's unrealistic to expect voters to deeply research every single candidate up and down the ballot; frankly that information is often less accessible than you'd expect.

If party is a reasonable heuristic for ideology, then it makes voting more accessible to people out of the loop.

[smoltchanov]

The intensity of polarization isn't a good thing for the country, but I think we're better off with each party having a fairly clear ideological bent. It's unrealistic to expect voters to deeply research every single candidate up and down the ballot; if the party is a reasonable heuristic for ideology, then it makes voting more accessible to people out of the loop.

I would absolutely agree if US would have 4-5 really BIG parties, as most of European countries do (say, 1 - socialist left, 1 - left-of-center, 1 - strickly centrist, 1 - moderate conservative, and 1 - far right). Practice shows, that 2 is "too little", many voters, who doesn't "belong" to any of them, are, essentially, disenfranchised and denied real "choice". They simply vote for "lesser evil" - the candidate they hate less. In the past there was a considerable "center" in US politics, now about 35% of people, who call themselves "moderates" or "centrists", are, essentially, "partyless".....

P.S. And yes - i am aware about FPTP, and problems with parlamentary democracy (including - frequent falls of the government and elections). But millions of disenfranchised voters are worse IMHO.....

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's a Tossup and so is NC and KY it's only 3 pts and LA G is going to a Runoff

[Zedonathin2020]

Likely R, closer to Safe than Lean

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Likely R, closer to Safe than Lean

Lol Presley is down 3 just like Stein is in the Last Impact poll Provisions ballots that's why I have OH, TX, NC, MS and KY Lean D we aren't gonna get calls right away because it's VBM and LA G is a Runoff

Rs are supposed to be running away with all 3 they arent, they may win LA but we aren't gonna get shutout either

[BigZuck08]

Lean R