Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House- Progressive Caucus is now the plurality. How the Blue Dogs and New Dems did (badly)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 10:47 AM
Original message
House- Progressive Caucus is now the plurality. How the Blue Dogs and New Dems did (badly)
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 10:49 AM by underpants
Details on Blue Dogs here

Due to extensive losses by conservative and moderate Democrats, another shift in power occurred in the House last night besides Republicans taking the majority. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has replaced the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats as the plurality ideological caucus among House Democrats. For the first time ever, the CPC is larger than Blue Dogs and New Dems combined.

Here are the specifics, assuming every House candidate who is currently ahead stays ahead. That would mean a Republican majority of 243-192, for a net Republican gain of 64:








Here is a finer level of detail that separates out the duplicates, and looks at the five types of ideological caucus members among House Democrats with full voting rights:




http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/3/916876/-Pro...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Countdown to claims that the progressives caused the losses in...
10...9...8...7

Even though it is clear that the progressives came out to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. Excellent. This may make for more of a two party system the
way it used to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks for this..and the post on the blue Dogs.
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 11:13 AM by BrklynLiberal
Very, very interesting stats....

Looks like that "enthusiasm gap" did not affect the Progressives so much...
Progressives came out to support those they saw were supporting the Progressive ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. There was plenty of enthusiasm in the districts the blue dogs lost.
It was just for Republicans.

There are not legions of progressives hiding in MS-4, MO-4 or VA-9, but Gene Taylor, Ike Skelton, and Rick Boucher managed to hold those districts for decades. The price of that was they couldn't go very far to the left.

As stunningly inadequate as HCR, the stimulus, and financial reform seem to us here in the echo chamber, they were far enough to the left that those seats weren't tenable anymore.

And getting those seats back will require running candidates who are... wait for it... conservative enough to get elected in those districts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
37. Yes, we voted enthusiastically. the problem was that there just isn't enough of us.
We can't win elections on our own except in my darling New England (excepting New Hampshire just now)and the Left Coast. We simply don't have that big enough slice of the pie...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. That's the upside of this election. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
5. It is easy to have a vast majority progressive caucus if your caucus is a powerless minority.
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 11:24 AM by BzaDem
Then again, a powerless minority Democratic caucus can't even unlock the bathroom in the House, let alone pass legislation. So I'm not sure why anyone considers this state of affairs to be a good thing.

If you want a majority, you need significant numbers of blue dog seats. The next majority we get will have significant numbers of blue dog seats. Of course most of the seats we lost were blue dogs -- they are the ones that come from unsafe districts that we need to win to become a majority.

Progressives won because they came from safe districts. The few that were in unsafe districts (Grayson, Perriello, Feingold in the Senate) lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. I'd rather have a powerless minority than a powerless majority.
At least we can send out a unified message now.

Voters prefer clear choices.

And a united, progressive house will energize
both candidates AND voters
in areas that otherwise
wouldn't bother to put up a fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. What you are missing is that it is impossible to have a majority AT ALL without significant numbers
of blue dogs.

The average congressional district is R+3. There are many more congressional districts that are conservative than are liberal, even if you deny this fact or don't like this fact.

To the extent "voters like clear choices," on average they make their choice clear by voting Republican.

Sure, in a wave election like '06 and '08, where Republicans are unenthusiastic and Democrats are enthusiastic, we might be able to buck the tide and get independent voters to vote for Democrats if the Democrats in question agree with the independent voters on policy. But that won't happen if we nominate a candidate that disagrees with the Independent voters on every single policy, as you propose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. What you are missing is that it is possible to tackle the New Dems head on...
without their Blue Dog cover now.

Then we'll just have to wait until the next
"wave election" to attain an EFFECTIVE
majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. The next wave election will either elect lots of blue dogs/new dems, or will not elect a majority.
One or the other. Not both simultaneously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. How the hell do YOU know?
It could bring about a wave of Democrats like
Grayson in Florida.

The Republicans won't do anything to pull the
US out of this slump, and people will be desperate
for real progress and real representation.

It could energize Kansas.

No one can predict the future with certainty,
not even you!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. "and people will be desperate for real progress and real representation"
You are assuming that the people of conservative districts don't think of their Republicans as "real representation."

Even in 2006 and 2008, many seats we won were won by a few points, on the strength of centrist independent voters in those districts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I am assuming that the people of conservative districts won't continue...
to think of their Republicans as "real representation"
when they lose their homes and ability to support their
children with luxuries such as FOOD.

The idiots in those districts don't "get it"
until "it" happens to them.

And it WILL happen to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. That is kind of a false assumption though. If they lose their homes, they will blame it on liberals
regardless of who is in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Then I guess there is nothing we can do for them.
You're right.

Let's nuke them....

Even if they need to bite the hand
that feeds them, we still need to
try and provide for all.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Yes, we do need to try to provide for all. To do that, we need a majority, and to get that, we need
some conservative Democrats in districts that won't elect liberal ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Jeebus, it's the conservative DEMS who stop us from putting the case to the people!
Voters will FLUSH this watered-down
crap EVERY TIME.

These rednecks will turn into economic populists
soon enough, but they need to have
an alternative.

Hopefully we will be able draw some lines now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. Yeah, like they flushed down Alan Grayson, and Russ Feingold, and Tom Perriello.
Those were "watered-down crap" to you. If only they were "economic populists," they would have won. Got it.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. TWO Progressives lost.
Grayson WON his initial election for speaking straight
and promising change. He LOST this election because
the Democrats, watered down as they are
could NOT DELIVER.

Rinse, repeat.

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Umm, bullshit. You said people were looking for a choice. Grayson was a choice. He lost. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. He also WON.
Until "Center-Left" dems took over the
face of the party.

64 seats were lost to the Pukes in this cycle.
TWO of them were Progressives.


Obama won in a landslide when people thought he was
a Progressive.

Now....not so much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. He won before he cast votes. As soon as he was actually a Congressperson and cast votes, he lost.
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 05:33 PM by BzaDem
What does that tell you, that people will only vote for him before they see what he actually does in office?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Bull. He never hid who he was.
Obama won the election on a wave of
Progressive Populism.

He will LOSE the next one, like
Grayson just did, if he continues
to let centrists sabotage the party
for corporate gain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #52
64. He won on coattails and lost on a wave. That's how those districts work.
He was "too liberal" for his district, but he would have probably lost as a blue dog, too; that's how the waves work.

The difference is, a blue dog could win that district back without having a massive Presidential coattail to ride on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #52
74. And this is what is not being tried. The knee jerk reaction is "move right."
We might try "moving left" for a change. We might lose but we lost as "centrists who are 'reasonable.'"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
72. "These rednecks will turn economic populists soon enough"
Yeah, the narrative that says Democrats are arrogant and out of touch has no basis in reality...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
33. I think these center-right Dem coalitions are dead or dying.
There won't be a next time for them. They're taking the dirt nap. That said, I don't think we'll see a Dem House again in this decade.

Perhaps there will be a different iteration thereof (a Center/Moderate/Right coalition within the Democratic Party) but I doubt it will look like these groups. For one thing the lines of demarcation are changing too much for this iteration to be viable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Then there won't be a next time for a Dem House. Once center-right-Dems are revived, then we might
have a shot at having a Dem House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. You need to lay-off the acid koolaid.
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 04:56 PM by Chan790
And if you want my opinion truly, I think the term center-right Democrat will ring as funny in 20 years as liberal Republican does now. I was born in an era where if you wanted to win in my home state as a Republican, you had to be a liberal Republican. Republicans still win in my home state but they're not liberal...things change. This change is the end of this iteration (or form, if you prefer form) of moderate Democratic politics.

These sea-changes happen...the conditions that made this iteration viable no longer exist. The very premise you're pushing is a dinosaur...it's time has passed and something else will evolve to replace it. It's happened before and will happen again...and we'll be viable throughout. The moderates of tomorrow will not look like the ones you supported.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. You are correct that the type of Democrat needed to win in some districts might no longer be
"center right." Now, it might just be "right." So to the extent that the premise I am pushing is a "dinosaur," that may be true, but if it is true, it is because these districts are so far right that they won't even elect center-right Democrats anymore (not because they are about to elect liberals).

Can there be a sea change in 20 years? Sure there can be. But that would redefine what the center is, so what I am saying is generally true regardless of the era. It could be that a center-right Democrat in the future is much more progressive than a center-right Democrat is today. Or it could be the case that a center-right Democrat in the future is much more conservative than a center-right Democrat is today.

It all depends on where the people move (and therefore where the center moves).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #42
57. We keep losing the argument and the right keeps moving us more to the right.
Look at 30 years ago where we were with Republicans such as Bob Dole. They seem so "left" now!

this is not getting any better, folks...it's getting worse...why can't we "win" these arguments with the American electorate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #57
67. The whole world is moving to the right. Look at europe.
People respond to different circumstances with different political attitudes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
31. Thankfully you state your basic assumption upfront.
Because it's the crux of the problem...if progressives cannot win in those districts, then the solution has to be to fix our message so we can be competitive in those district. The solution can't be to continue to be pulled farther right and/or to continue to send purplish-red Democrats to office.

You solution is not a solution, if that's the best we can do then we need to do better or don't bother contesting those districts.

Blue-dogging is a terminal strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Have you ever considered that the only way to "fix our message so we can be competitive in those
districts" is to move to the right (only in those districts)?

In other words, have you ever considered that people in those districts do not want very progressive policies, and will ONLY elect a representative that fits their views?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Have you considered that people in those districts are rarely offered a choice?
Tell Alan Grayson you can't win in
a conservative district.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. Alan Grayson just found out that he can't continue to win in a conservative district.
So I don't need to tell him anything.

The people in these districts are offered a choice every 4 years for President. And every 4 years, they vote massively against Democrats. Including very liberal Democrats like McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #39
76. He just did a pretty good job of proving that himself (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. No, that's the problem and not the solution.
You're hog-tied to a dead goat of a political-identity. It's not viable in those districts clearly anymore than it is anywhere else.

You're in Bohemia. Pull out your modern atlas and find Bohemia for me. You can't because it stopped existing as a country during WW I. It, like the current iteration of the center-right coalition, is a relic of the past.

The question is do you want to be part of the next moderate coalition of the Democratic Party which is viable in those districts or do you want to be irrelevant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. I think the problem with your Bohemia-analogy is that it is false.
Just because this particular year was bad for moderate Democrats doesn't mean every year in the future will be. Just because an identity was perfectly valid in '06 and '08, but not in '10, doesn't mean it won't be in '12 or '14. If you were talking about an identity that hasn't been valid for 30 years, you might have a point, but conservative and moderate Democrats have been elected on and off for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. Okay, now I see our communication breakdown.
You're very tied to a specific axis by which you're defining the lines of demarcation. Things only move in one dimension, along that line. All positions fall along that line from right to left. (Note that these terms are meaningless. They merely act to denote shades of gray between two absolute POVs. Change the two end points and we still define positions along the line from right to left.) You're arguing for one position on that line, saying other positions along that line are not viable in some districts.

I'm not arguing for abandonment of that position, I'm arguing for an abandonment of that line of demarcation entirely. We've waged war with the GOP on social issues and in a large part of the country, we've lost and it's killing our agenda on other fronts. Let's wage war on another front as the key dividing point.

For an example:
Someone suggested in another thread that we refuse to address the GOP on the Bush tax-cuts and push a payroll tax holiday instead for small business hiring. It's brilliant because it puts us on the side of small businesses and workers. The GOP will have to oppose it because it would be disastrous for large corporations that give them lots of money in a post-Citizens United landscape. Consistently make those sorts of plays (which would be popular in ever district in the US) and you redraw the front-lines of the political battlefield right through their base. Of course, it means abandoning our own Wall St. friends.

The old moderate is dead, all hail the new moderate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. "..abandoning our own Wall St. friends". Now you've done it!
Not fair, the DLC NEEDS those friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Hence, why I say the DLC is dead. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Hence, why I hope you are right.
But they're not dead yet.



They just smell that way.

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. Mikulski, Reid, Feinstein, Nelson, Landrieu, Kerry, Stabenow...
Johnson, Cantwell, and Kohl are all still in the Senate. The only New Democrat Coalition Senator who lost was Lincoln.

DLCers did a lot better than blue dogs. Those two groups are different; as far as I can remember the only member of both caucuses is Jane Harman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. We were talking about the House.
We know there are still New Dems in the Senate,
why else would our legislation be so watered down?
Why else would sound House legislation be stymied
when we had a "bullet-proof majority of 60" in the Senate.

Nelson will turn Republican in the next election,
because that's about what he is, and I don't think
Kerry would like being identified as a DLC member.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. If Kerry doesn't want to be identified as a DLC member he should leave that caucus
The New Dems lost 10% of their caucus in the House; the blue dogs lost 50%. My still-valid point is that DLC and BDC are two different caucuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. He's not "in" that caucus. He's a Senator n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Yes, he is in the Senate New Democrat Coalition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition#Sen...

(The actual DLC is just From and the Clintons.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. You're right...I had no idea he'd become so "out" about it.
I recall him rowing away from the DLC
as fast as he could in '04.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Sure, in the primaries. He was trying to capitalize on Dean's momentum
Edited on Sun Nov-07-10 12:49 PM by Recursion
Remember, when the 2004 primaries started out, it still looked like Gephardt was the "establishment" pick, and Clark was eating up a lot of Kerry's DLC base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. DLC=Democrats Lose Congress
Hopefully working Americans can have our Party back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
7. 95% of the Progressive Caucus won reelection, eh?
This little fact sheet should be distributed to every Democrat in the House right now so that they know where their goddamn bread is buttered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. It's now buttered in a much smaller part of the country
That's the price of having a more progressive caucus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. And what does that prove? That if you draw a district so that the Democrat can't lose
They won't?

Blue Dogs were in the front line districts, many of which were Republican turf before 2006 and 2008. The majority of the progressive caucus are in comfy districts built to suite, and have never faced a legitimate Republican challenge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. That's a new euphemisim..'front line districts'
But no matter how you put it, the losing Blue Dogs lost their own districts, districts previously won, be they front line, back line, squiggly line, you name it. They lost the districts they had won, their own damn turf. Won it, then lost it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
70. Yep. And progressives would never have won those districts in the first place. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
59. Yes there is that
and the Repubs hit right at the "soft targets" - conservative districts that went Dem in 06 and 08. Smart move by them. Easy win or not a win is a win.

Now since the census was last year I think that the house gets to redistrict--well actually it has been taken out of their hands and done by a more impartial committee or team in the FEC (I think)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
9. Good data. Now find a progressive that can win in the districts the blue dogs lost
Any ideas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Clone Rep. DeFazio?
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 02:35 PM by 0rganism
He's been carrying a republican-advantage district (OR-4) for decades without hiding his solidly progressive positions.

http://defazio.house.gov
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Coastal Oregon?
That district had also elected a Democrat for the 12 years preceding him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. 'Costal Oregon' is a terrible descriptor for the 4th
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 04:15 PM by Bluenorthwest
as it is not accurate, as the 4th represents part of the coast, but not all, and has much far inland area, I'm in the middle of it, 60 miles from the coast. It is one of the geographically largest districts. We have liberals, conservatives, radicals, anarchists, you name it. Peter wins the votes of liberal urban people as well as farmers, ranchers, retirees, students.
Anyone running for office of any sort would do well to watch Peter in action at a rural town hall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
73. who says that OR-4 is a "republican advantage district"?
Charlie Cook, who is generally the source for such matters, characterizes the fourth district as Democratic +2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Or-4#1996
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Yeah, I still don't get that. They elected a Democrat for the 12 years before DeFazio (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countrydad58 Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. New Deal
Economic populism circa 1930s-1960s! Case closed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
38. This is the rub
that so many refuse to see!

Exactly. To some, it's great to be in a minority because it is more purely progressive!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
de novo Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #38
71. The American voters, even in conservative leaning districts would not
have a problem with progressives if the result of electing progressives was meaningful and beneficial legislation. Saying that only conservatives can get elected is admitting defeat before trying.

Failing to enact progressives legislation by capitulating to conservatives is another way to accept defeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
46. I expect it will be:
Someone who is a populist barnstormer. Someone who talks like those constituents. Someone who can connect and talk honestly about their faith. Someone who can connect their values clearly and concisely to liberal ideals. Let's be honest, we've sucked at choosing those people for a while.

The problem is in media, not message. We've ceded a lot of ground to the GOP on things that have f*ck-all to do with actual content of the agenda, liberal or moderate. It's time liberals running for office shut up about ideals until after they've stooped to eating crappy pie and kissing babies and connected to the constituents. Nobody trusts politicians, but they trust people they genuinely connect to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
11. Good riddance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
12. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
22. Kick. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
27. You can only sell Blue Dog bullshit for so long, then it catches up with you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
49. It's still a 64 seat deficit.
No matter which way you cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
58. "Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"


friend walks into kitchen , sees the red-faced crying child & asks Mommy "what's all the ruckus in here"..

Mommy stops texting & hands the baby a cookie & says "There you are..now go play..Mommy's busy"..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
62. There you have it. The silver lining in the 2010 election debacle. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC