Democrats See Conservative Blue Dogs as Key to Winning House

[yallerdawg]

(A number of facts to consider)

Source: Bloomberg, by Arit John

*****

Blue Dogs say the fate of House Democrats rises and falls on their success. The caucus grew to a high of 54 members in 2008 before they, and the Democratic majority, were wiped out two years later in a Republican wave. Of the 194 Democrats in the House, 18 are members of the Blue Dog group.

*****

The Blue Dogs were founded in 1995 when a faction of conservative Democrats formed a coalition in the House to focus on fiscal responsibility and national security. Its primary role has been to moderate more ambitious, liberal policies such as Obamacare from Democratic presidents. The caucus’s name was inspired in part by the idea that they were being "choked blue" by the left.

In the 2016 election, when the Democrats picked up six House seats, half of the newly elected lawmakers became Blue Dogs: Representatives Tom O’Halleran of Arizona, Stephanie Murphy of Florida and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey. The DCCC is working with the Blue Dogs to replicate that success on a wider scale next year, said DCCC spokesman Tyler Law.

*****

The DCCC has made a "robust and concerted" effort to include the Blue Dogs in recruiting candidates and let them take the lead in assisting potential candidates with messaging and finding consultants, said Representative Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, the chairwoman of the Blue Dog PAC.

*****

She said they are playing a role in lining up candidates in 50 to 70 districts. The Blue Dogs are also working on pairing potential candidates with the pollsters, advertisers and consultants that its members have worked with for years.

*****

"The Democrats have won every liberal seat in the country," Sinema said. "What the Democrats haven’t done is won all of the swing seats in the country."

Read it all at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-17/democrats-see-conservative-blue-dogs-as-key-to-winning-house

[atreides1]

1. Blue Dogs?

They're dogs alright...rabid curs!!!

[Demsrule86]

30. If we are getting back in the majority...we have to have a big tent...

[Blue_true]

123. I agree.

Only a bluedog can win in my district, unfortunately. But that bluedog would be worlds better than the republican rep that I have.

[Hekate]

167. Reality strikes again. Thanks.

[Demsrule86]

196. yes, so many say blue dogs cost us single payer...no.

We would have had no healthcare without them...and the ACA made people realize they want healthcare and it is a right. which is huge.

[Demsrule86]

197. Yes, I have a liberal senator Sherrod Brown...

but Tim Ryan whom I like was anti-choice until a couple of years ago...which bothered me, but he as the Democrat, and I voted for him in every election.

[NCDem777]

188. It's because of blue dogs that we don't have ACTUAL universal healthcare

Blue dogs will drag us into more stupid interventionist wars in countries whose people have no interest in forming functional nations.

Conservative Dems are just Republican-lites who happen to be not racist sexist douchenozzles. That's NOT enough. Did we not learn anything from 2016?

When a Republican running as a Dem runs against an actual Republican, the actual Republican wins every time.

[Demsrule86]

195. It is because of blue dogs that we actually have any healthcare...without them we would not have

had a majority in 2009. We would have nothing without them. I would rather have the ACA than nothing. Blue dogs were replaced by Republicans in 10...how's that working out?

[vi5]

2. Oh joy....

..then maybe we can put them in charge of the party, and give them the chairmanships of every committee and anything else they want.

And let me guess, then all of a sudden it will be o.k. for THEM to criticize the Democratic party.

[bottomofthehill]

75. Give them everything they want no

But the first vote they will cast every congress will be for a Democratic Speaker and that is where the ball starts rolling from.

Once elected, they have as much right to criticize the party as Saint Bernie. At least they will be members of the party

[yallerdawg]

86. My 'Blue Dog' in 2010 was crucified by Martha Roby (R) for voting for Pelosi as Speaker.

It was the only Democratic vote he ever made - and I'm sure enough local Democrats left his box blank because his record was so horrible - I know I did.

What has happened since then has made me reconsider what a Democratic majority means wherever we can find it!

It's not about the individual - it's about the Party!

[Hekate]

168. Thank you

[Gothmog]

178. Agreed

[vi5]

101. You mean like the IDC in deep, deep blue New York?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/27/1647843/-Independent-Democratic-Conference-Traitors-in-the-NY-State-Senate

Or maybe some of the traitorous Dems in my home state of also deep, deep blue New Jersey who spent most of their time in office licking Chris Christie's boots?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. These are the types of politicians for whom "some" is never enough.

[bottomofthehill]

142. So the question becomes

Are we better off with a Republican that we know we can never count on or a Democrat that may be able to count on...... Pretty easy to me

[vi5]

150. So I guess.....

...having good Democrats, who stand consistently for Democratic values and can actually sell Democratic policies to people who would benefit from them isn't an option?

[Demsrule86]

198. In order to have a majority, you must have blue dogs...and they are a millions times better than

Democrats.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. How about running economic populists in those areas?

'Cause you know that alleged ol' Truman saw...

[mythology]

8. Given that the parties are more polarized than ever

That really isn't a major concern. Objectively speaking the furthest right Democratic Senator votes with the party 75% of the time. The furthest left Republican Senator votes with Democrats 25% of the time. I'm not sure how that gap would leave anybody confused about which party a candidate is a member of.

[Demsrule86]

31. These are areas Trump did not do well in.

[Demsrule86]

70. I don't think a populist could win...Trump didn't win some of those districts.

Also, Quist was a populist, and he lost in Montana, but a centrist Democrat won the governor's race in 16.

[Gothmog]

179. If a pure polulist economic message had a chance of working it would be in all white Montana

Quist lost while a middle of the road Democrat won

[Bettie]

4. So, a shift hard Right is coming

because that always works out well for us. (Not)

[Demsrule86]

79. Actually it does...because I would not call it hard right and we get stuff done...

hard right is what we have now...sick of losing.

[Gothmog]

181. Do you want Paul Ryan to be speaker in 2019?

We need to take back the House and that will involve running candidates who can win in red states

[Bettie]

182. I don't want Ryan as speaker again

but I also don't want his type of policies continued by Dems who think they need to do that to maintain power.

[Gothmog]

183. To beat Ryan, we will have to run Democrats who can win in red States

If you do not want Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker in 2019 then insist on purity and see what happens. Nancy Pelosi was great at getting the party to move in the right direction and I trust her.

[Bettie]

184. And by the right direction you mean RIGHT

so, to win, we need to have candidates who promise to be just like Republicans.

Sounds awesome.

Good bye to civil rights, reproductive freedom etc. Those are too "pure".

Look, I have zero influence over who runs and I'll vote for the Dem every time, but I'm allowed to be disappointed if the party I've been a part of for my entire adult life ends up turning into what I've voted against for my entire adult life.

I'm just one person and I see that there are many who advocate abandoning traditional Democratic ideals in favor of "winning". I'm simply not one of them.

And yet, I'll still vote for the Dem, so maybe I'm the same kind of fool as those who always vote for the guy with the R after his name.

[Gothmog]

185. I live in deep red Texas

The Texas Democrats who running are so far to the left of Texas republicans that it is not funny. Any of these Democrats will be far superior to the current GOP congresscritters. However to win, you cannot run on the Sanders platform but must run on issues like preserving the ACA and preserving the protection of pre-existing condition protections.

Again, you are welcome to insist on purity and we will have Paul Ryan as speaker yet again. I trust Nancy Pelosi to work to get the right thing done

[Bettie]

186. I said more than once I vote for the Dem

doesn't mean I can't wish that there were actual liberals running.

And Nancy Pelosi can't do much if a block of right-leaning Dems decide to side with Republicans.

[Demsrule86]

199. It is not hard right...we need to recruit candidate that have a chance to win in the states they run

in...if you lose you get nothing...if you don't have the majority, you don't get any legislation to the floor...it is reality.

[Me.]

5. This Again?

Wasn't Rahm's attempt at this a complete failure? Depleted the coffers for a mostly bunch of losers (as in didn't win an election or re-election). I smell Ryan's and Rice's hand in this.

As A Ps. When DEan refused to spend all the DNC money on Rahm's candidates and on his 50 state instead, Rahm swore he'd get even. Which he did by bad mouthing him to PBO who removed him as head of the DNC and replaced him with Kaine who was terrible at the job. In addition, the announcement of Kaine was a disgrace for not including DEan and thanking him for his service which was how it was usually done.

[brooklynite]

6. How do you imagine we won the House in 2006?

[Bad Thoughts]

9. Because W fucked up enough to expose his incompetence. eom.

[Demsrule86]

32. No, we ran moderates in districts moderates could win including Georgia.

[Gothmog]

42. You can only win some districts with moderates

[Demsrule86]

57. Usually...I remember in 06 we won several Georgia seats...

we ran the right candidates.

[Cosmocat]

149. This

Yep

[Blue_true]

124. Some on DU despise bluedogs, despite them having 70%+ of the same political DNA. nt

[Greybnk48]

7. We're back to this 1990's bullshit?

This is detached from reality. NOT what people want and really becoming tiresome.

[Demsrule86]

34. This is reality if you want a majority.

There have to be Blue dogs ...that is the way it is if we want a majority and while some of you may think losing is purifying, I don't.

[Greybnk48]

111. I'm not moving to the right one more inch. Canada will be my next move

if we can't win unless we go along with this worn out Neocon shit from the 90's. I won't support it because it's not the Democratic Party platform I was raised with since Kennedy. If it's a different party now, call it something else like the TeaParty did, and us Democrats will avoid your Republican Lite, right wing horse shit.

[rainy]

127. Right on graybnk!!!

[TooStrong]

203. Exactly.

The move to the right by too many Democrats is getting concerning.

[tenderfoot]

125. If that's the case, why do so many blue dogs get voted out of office in favor of Republicans.

Heath Shuler and Bart Stupak come to mind. Though Stupak chose not to run and his seat went to a republican.

I totally disagree with you here.

[Gothmog]

10. Winning back control of the House is critical to dealing with trump

[bettyellen]

81. And that is Job #1

[Aristus]

11. There's a name for conservative Democrats.

They're called 'Republicans'.

[yallerdawg]

12. I believe it's called the majority party.

"Blue Dogs say the fate of House Democrats rises and falls on their success. The caucus grew to a high of 54 members in 2008 before they, and the Democratic majority, were wiped out two years later in a Republican wave. Of the 194 Democrats in the House, 18 are members of the Blue Dog group."

54-18=36. We need 24 seats to take back the House in 2018?

Do we want to dream or win?

[Gothmog]

43. The math is clear here

[Demsrule86]

58. It is clear...you have to have moderates to have a majority.

[msongs]

13. at least they are real democratic party members unlike some lefties who pretend nt

[Hekate]

169. Zap!

[Me.]

14. Here's A Good Example Of A Blue Dog

“The Stupak–Pitts Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2010 (AHCAA). It was submitted by Representatives Bart Stupak (Democrat of Michigan) and Joseph R. Pitts (Republican of Pennsylvania). Its stated purpose was to prohibit the use of federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.[1] It was adopted by the House but not included in the Senate's version, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Many pro-choice representatives said they would oppose AHCAA with the Stupak-Pitts language, and proposed to adopt PPACA. Stupak and several supporters said they would oppose PPACA without the amendment, but withdrew their opposition after President Obama promised an executive order to bar such funding. Pro-life groups criticized this action, saying that the executive order would not be effective.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupak%E2%80%93Pitts_Amendment

[yallerdawg]

15. Yes - it is.

Stupak (D) was pilloried by pro-choice advocates (while Obama promised to do it anyway). Republicans have held that office since.

Pitts (R) stayed in office until this year and was replaced by (R).

Now we have a Supreme Court and a Congress and a president moving towards making abortion illegal.

To be elected, you have to represent your constituents.

Liberal Democrats run all the time in conservative districts - and get their asses handed to them. To the point where the R runs unopposed.

It is what it is.

[Me.]

16. So...What?

We jettison women's reproductive rights?

[yallerdawg]

17. It's looking like we have!

This was an issue in the 2016 election.

The same everywhere as it was in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania!

[Me.]

18. First Off...I Think You Overstate Your Case On The 2016 Election

and as I understand it, the major factor was white man money. And the same everywhere? Seriously?

[yallerdawg]

21. Voters in California gave Hillary the popular vote victory.

In the 49 other states, the man who pledged to nominate conservative justices - immediately - won the majority of the popular vote when totaled.

We live in a Red America. We truly are the Democratic underground.

We can get rid of blues and yellows - and just go with "Underdogs." I'm suggesting we fix this, by any means necessary.

[Me.]

25. "To Fix This"

I suggest we figure out the real reason HRC is not in the WH...and it's not women's reproductive rights.

[yallerdawg]

29. We didn't pay attention?

McConnell held up Obama's rightful pick for the Supreme Court for a year, the R candidate promised and posted a list of rightwing judges, there may be two more picks in the next 3 1/2 years - and this drives the Republican base to select a candidate we find unimaginable!

Meanwhile, Democrats across the nation stayed home or made a protest vote.

But "polls" show we really care.

[Me.]

47. Your Point?

Women's rights will drive Dem Voters away?

[yallerdawg]

51. Most centrist Democrats will say they personally are pro-life...

oppose spending Federal funds on abortion services, but believe the constitutionality of abortion is settled law.

There aren't enough Democratic voters in conservative districts to support much more than this. But there are a number of swing districts where a centrist Democrat could take this wedge issue off the table.

This is the only way we get to majority in the House - win the swing districts.

[Me.]

20. In Addition...

New Kaiser Poll Shows 75% of Americans Support Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood
Including majority of Republicans

“FACT: Support for Roe v. Wade is at the highest it’s ever been, with7 out of 10 Americans saying they believe a woman should have the right to safe, legal abortion.

FACT: Legislation denying access to care at Planned Parenthood was a health disaster in Texas. Two Texas public health investigators wrote in the Washington Post that when Texas passed legislation it was devastating – and shouldn't be repeated in the rest of the country. A significant number of women also lost or had reduced access to primary care providers as a consequence of limiting patient options.

FACT: When lawmakers in Louisiana, Ohio, and Florida tried to block access to Planned Parenthood in the past, they suggested women could go to “alternative” providers for reproductive health care, including dentists, food banks, nursing homes, ENTs, elementary schools, rehabs, and retirement homes.”

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/new-kaiser-poll-shows-75-of-americans-support-federal-funding-for-planned-parenthood

[ck4829]

160. It's quite clear the tainted election system is out of touch with the People.

[Demsrule86]

35. Yes, that is true but Perriello who signed the Stupak amendment voted for

the ACA...without blue dogs elected in 2006 and 2008, there would have been no ACA...and Bernie Sanders endorsed Perriello this year in the governor's race. Perriello lost his seat in 10. He knew he would lose when he voted for the ACA.

[Me.]

46. Not Quite The Whole Story

“the stimulus, health care, the energy bill known as "cap and trade" — Perriello was there for his party and his president. And with those votes he may have stamped himself more as Obama's man than as a Blue Dog”

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2010/10/28/130885804/we-re-down-to-the-last-days-of-the-campaign-so-wherever-president-obama-goes-is-going-to-be-read-as-a-metaphor-that-s-why-people-are-scratching-their-heads-about-the-first-stop-on-the-president-s-last-itinerary-o

[Demsrule86]

61. I was actually showing how useful Blue dogs are in terms of being in a majority...I didn't think

of your example (health care was the issue of 10 not cap and trade though)...but noted without blue dogs like Perriello...we would not have had the ACA. He was a blue dog with his stance on abortion...he also voted against single payer, but we couldn't get it in the Senate anyway...didn't have a real 60 vote majority once Kennedy got sick (and Brown won) and with Lieberman...and we had consider we had conservadems at that time in the senate as well and without them we would not have gotten any health care. The ACA has save thousands of lives. Some may not want to hear this but without conservadems, there is no Democratic majority in a center left country.

[Me.]

71. However Part Of Your Point Was He Lost Because Of The ACA

I contend that is not the stand alone answer and there were other factors which contributed, racism being one likely component as he was considered more of an Obama man than anything else.

[Demsrule86]

80. Oh he did...the ACA was the issue in 2010...not the cap and trade.

He lost because he signed the ACA...his opponent ran multiple ads stating that.

[inwiththenew]

19. In order to defeat the Republicans we must become the Republicans

Or at least what they used to be

[Demsrule86]

37. A blue dog is not a Republican. There is no doubt that Joe Manchin will not vote for

Trumpcare...I would take a bluedog over any Republican...and you want a majority, you need them.

[Luciferous]

22. I'm so sick of this moving to the right BS!

[yallerdawg]

24. Have you been repeating this since 2010?

'Cause we can keep doing this in 2018 and 2020 and 2022.

When you are on the left in a conservative district, moving to the right makes you a centrist.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

55. I'm sick of losing

and losing repeatedly do some of the weakest Republicans holding office.

[Demsrule86]

59. I am so sick of losing BS.

[Luciferous]

120. So we should basically become Republicans to win?

What we need is Democrats who have spines- too many try to be civil and play nice with the other side and it always comes back to bite us in the ass. Maybe it's time to fight dirty...

[Demsrule86]

156. Nope...I don't consider Manchin a Republican ...and from states like WVA that is the sort of Senator

we can elect. In the days, when Democrats had power, we always had moderate to conservative Democrats. The country is not liberal and never was. I think we have moved to the right (sad to say this) and we are now center left.

[zipplewrath]

23. Does this work?

That's the real question. These kinds of alliances seem to be relatively fleeting and ultimately counter productive. The democrats allied with the segregationist Dixiecrats for a long time before it ultimately lead to a major showdown because it was holding back the progressive efforts. The conservative democrats have held back the will of the party on issues like universal healthcare and the use of military force. The problem with this is that it produces a tendency towards apparent hypocrisy where the party advocates for major issues, only to be unable to actually deliver. To a great degree it causes them to advocate positions directly in opposition to the larger party stances. It held back the party on issues like gay rights for a long time. We now see diminishing support for labor unions. And we see efforts to undermine movement on universal health CARE.

We've seen this conflict on issues like trade as well. And it hurts the party because they are seen as "flip flopping" or candidates getting the reputation of "saying anything to get elected". It makes it hard to take clear stands when you're in essence "trying to play both sides of the aisle". You might get away with it for an election cycle or two, but it puts you at a long term risk.

The GOP around the time of Reagan, and beyond, didn't get to where they are by moving left, they strongly worked to move right. This movement towards Blue Dogs is a movement to pull in people that would have otherwise been moderate republicans but no longer are welcome there. We actually want those people to BE republicans. We want to debate the issues with them, not the reality deprived whack jobs of the Alt-right and Tea Party. If they are democrats, then we can't debate with them because we end up being the ones "arguing with themselves".

At the end of the day states should choose their own representatives. If that means they choose democrats that don't agree with the larger agenda, so be it. I just don't think we should go looking for these people, much less giving them national support during primaries.

[Me.]

26. Agree

[yallerdawg]

27. It won in answer to Gingrich's "Contract on America."

It won after Bush took us into Iraq.

We were able to stop further losses with a party that had some power, just like the Republicans do when they have some power.

Now - the Republicans have all the power - and we lost Blue Dogs in the swing districts they now have.

This is what we have to consider.

What does it take to get and hold political power in America - and will we do it?

[zipplewrath]

28. Not so sure

As you suggest, the "wins" came because of what the other party was doing while in power. I'm not sure that's a ringing endorsement of pursuing blue dogs. At the end of the day the problem is once we are in power, it becomes what WE do that matters, and the Blue Dogs pull us away from what we said we'd do, and what we know has to be done.

[yallerdawg]

36. The Affordable Care Act.

We did what we said we would do.

And America has responded.

Sure, now the R's have to answer for what they did - but a pure leftwing liberal is not going to take back a conservative district. We have just had several special elections that point this out as undeniable fact.

But they also point out a more centrist candidate in a swing district has and can take that district back.

[Demsrule86]

38. In Montana a centrist candidate won the governor's race in 16 ....while

Rob Quist lost the race...bad candidate for the state...had a moderate run, we might have won.

[zipplewrath]

40. Well, we did something

We instituted a mandate after saying that mandates were dumb and like solving homelessness by requiring people to buy a house. It was far from universal coverage, and it kept the prohibition on medicare drug price negotiation after we spent years complaining about it. We arrested single payer advocates at a congressional hearing, and we had to do all of these deals with individual states which severely undermined the credibility of the process, not to mention the outcome. We spent months saying we had to have a public option, only to declare "never mind". Leiberman opposed a feature that would have allowed people to buy into medicare, after running on just such a thing as a VP candidate. Oh, and the result was the Tea Party and the loss of the House.

We really wanna repeat all that?

[yallerdawg]

49. This is our response. "We weren't liberal enough."

The American people have one thing in common politically - we hate having something shoved down our throats.

We're a little partisan and tribal now. No one will crossover to make things happen. Bipartisan is a bad word.

I believe we have always been pretty partisan.

What we lost was that thing that makes the political world go 'round - filthy dirty 'pork!' Earmarks! Money to take home to your constituents!

THAT'S how we got things done!

[zipplewrath]

52. We weren't consistent

I think the point is about consistency. You can run on a set of positions, only to abandon them for "expediency". It just turns off the very people you're trying to attract. Don't run on a "liberal" platform if you intend on abandoning those positions.

Quite honestly I think that we would do better to admit that we are unwillingly abandoning efforts to do what we know is right, in order to get other things passed. I wish Obama had admitted that problems with the exchanges were because of the lack of a PO, and under funding of nonprofits. I wish he had openly admitted that the reason the stimulus wasn't nearly as effective as it needed to be was because it was too small by half. I think we would do better admitting openly that the things we aren't able to get passed, in part because of our own conservative members, causes problems and undermines individual Americans. Way too many victory laps over things that aren't really victories.

[Demsrule86]

65. it is not about that; what it is about is getting what you can...not always exactly

what you want...Some on the left abandoned Pres. Obama because he couldn't get single payer in 10 giving the GOP state governments and the house...we got nothing after that. The thing is your expectations have to be grounded in reality. With conservadems, we might not get a $15.00 minimum or free tuition ...but we could end up with a $12.00 minimum and something done to help young people with student loan debt... we might not get full on single payer, but a public option is possible. Consider, we get nothing when the GOP is in the majority.

[zipplewrath]

73. It's about consistency

I understand the pragmatism. It is when we don't get "what we want", we need to be honest that we "fell short". Trying to pretend that it "doesn't matter" or "it was a win" really just works against us in the long run. And to the topic of the OP, trying to pretend that a certain portion of your caucus isn't the primary reason you're not getting these things done doesn't help either. In the end it just makes you look hypocritical.

In sports it's known as a "sloppy win". It's when you executed badly but pulled out a victory anyway. The coaches are gonna work ya hard during the next practices, even though you won. In business, it's not just about making a profit, but it is about keeping your goals/benchmarks/commitments. It's nice that you made a profit, but could/should you have made more?

We need to be more honest and admit when we don't achieve what we advocated, and admit that members of our own party were the primary obstacle. (And actually, we might actually help blue dogs in their own states by admitting this openly). And it doesn't have to be in a "primary that sucker" way. More of a "we'll keep working to convince them otherwise" sense.

[Demsrule86]

82. It really was a win after more than 100 years to get health care.

I was thrilled although I would prefer some form of single payer...I have never believed the UK system will work here...we will end up with one similar to Switzerland and there will never be a stand along bill...it will be added to the ACA. Thus if we lose the ACA, there will be no health care of any sort. ... and if you are always down in the mouth about any accomplishment, you won't win elections...better to celebrate that you accomplished something positive.

[zipplewrath]

128. It turns off other voters

While you're celebrating your accomplishment, there is a significant portion of the voters who see that you didn't accomplish what you advocated and instead did something else.

We enacted a mandate after campaigning against it.
We extended the ban on Medicare Drug Price negotiations after running against it for years.
We dumped the public option after declaring it to be necessary "to keep the insurance companies honest".

When you do those things, and then celebrate, you communicate that you don't do what you say and say what you mean.

[Demsrule86]

152. Not that many or Trumpcare would be law...I am sure that those whining are really 'entitiled'

(check your privilege) and didn't need health care of any sort...sometimes you get what you can...let me just say we will never have a stand alone single payer bill. Let that sink in...we may with a super majority at some point get Medicare for those over 55 and a public option...that is called reality.

Also, let me say that with all the crying about single payer and health care...the alt-left changed no minds...but the ACA did...now a majority of Americans deem health care a right...I call that impressive...Again, I am proud to be a Democrat on the right side of history.

[zipplewrath]

162. To what end?

We saw people screaming "I don't want government health care, and keep your hands off my Medicare". The support to which you refer is fleeting, and often poorly attributed or understood. The point is that we gave up the House after only 2 years to get 7% more people insured, half of which were already qualified for federal government assistance. All of this "support" you see got Trump elected. It gave the Senate to the GOP, and it is filling the states with GOP control. Oh, and Trump got to appoint an SC justice. The party is in the worst shape it's been since reconstruction. This didn't all happen in a single election cycle.

But you don't care, cause you got a "win". You're "impressed". Unfortunately, that's not translating into votes. That's not translating into lower health care costs. The vast majority wasn't impressed and didn't find it to be a BFD. And we are no closer to any sort of single payer/nationalized health CARE than we've been since medicaid was past 60+ years ago.

Like I say, it's about consistency. It's about doing what you said you'd do, or admitting that you fell short. Beating your chest and announcing how impressed you are with yourself is a sure fire way to turn off a HUGE portion of the electorate.

[Demsrule86]

163. Now we see them screaming don't touch the ACA...I would say we won the debate...

so no we have no way to pass single payer should the ACA fail...not for years and years probably...and those who call for this are just as entitled, cruel and wrong as any Republican.

[Demsrule86]

102. That is completely true...you need pork to make congress function.

[Demsrule86]

62. Yes, we were able to get something good done...the ACA has save thousands of lives

and convinced millions that health care is a right...yes...I want that again...because if we are not in the majority we lose and we need the courts too.

[zipplewrath]

74. And we lost the House, the Senate, and a bunch of states

We got 5 - 7 % more people health insurance (half of whom already qualified for some sort of government assistance) and lost the House, and ultimately the Senate. The democratic party is now in the worst shape it's been since reconstruction. And there is a real risk that the ACA will be significantly watered down, if not basically destroyed. Oh, and we lost the chance to put a Supreme Court justice on the bench.

It isn't clear this was a "good deal". There were more than a few voices at the time advocating for a more "incremental" approach, to get most of this accomplished over a 6 - 8 year period.

[Demsrule86]

83. I call it worth it...because we saved thousands of lives...I am proud to be in party that did the

right thing. And had the alt-left (need a better term) stuck by the president instead of crying about single payer, we would not have lost the House.

[zipplewrath]

129. History doesn't support your conclusion

It isn't clear how many it "saved". We know it saved people, but there is really no way to know how many. Not everyone that got insurance would have died without it.

And you can try to blame the House loss on "the left", but all the data indicates it was the "center" or "Reagan Democrat" type voter that shifted the House. People who voted for Obama in '08, voted out the democrats from the House.

[Demsrule86]

153. I completely disagree...thousand of lives have been saved. I know

people who have never had insurance in their adult lives here in Ohio...and they have used the ACA to seek treatment from illnesses that would have killed them without treatment.

[zipplewrath]

161. Millions were skipped

Thousands is probably about the order of magnitude. On the other hand, millions of people were skipped, or otherwise unable to access health care because of the expense. We're at about 93% covered. Look at how many that left out. Even if all of the medicaid states expanded, there'd still be millions without help. Thousands, millions, see what I'm getting at? And now a SC Justice has been appointed by Trump. How many lives will that cost?

[Demsrule86]

164. It is still way better than before and we could not force medicaid coverage after the SCOTUS vote...

or even make the states do their own websites...many folks don't make $12,000 and live in red states that didn't pass the medicaid expansion...that will change now...as Medicaid was slowly accepted so the Medicaid expansion will be accepted and then we have universal coverage really...we need to tighten up the mandates and add cost controls as soon as we can.

[zipplewrath]

165. We can't

We can't tighten up anything right now. We may not be able to for a couple of election cycles either. And the expansion may go away sooner than you think. The GOP wants to stop that first and foremost. They just can't yet figure out how to ultimately take it away from the states that already have it. But they'll keep working on it.

And this situation isn't "way better" than other options that we passed upon. Many democrats were advising that we do many different things, and I don't mean single payer. We could have federalized health insurance regulation without forcing any real immediate changes in the plans. That could have followed with a "stream lining" of regulations which standardized plans across the country. In there we could have eliminated both the pre-existing clauses and lifetime out of pocket limits. Mind you, this could have played out over the same 6 years that the ACA was phased in. "Minimum benefit" standards could have been invoked as well. The vast majority of this stuff would have been tacked on to other legislation and avoided all the long term attention that the ACA got. "Repeal and Replace" wouldn't even be understood.

There were other ways proposed as well. We could have created the "small business insurance cooperative" that would have provided a context for businesses with fewer than 100 employees to buy insurance at group rates (and possibly through medicare/caid channels). Business owners have long wanted such a thing. Republicans may have been hard pressed to oppose it. Lowering the age for people to buy into medicare down to 60 or 55 could have been phased in as well. All of these things could have achieved very similar, if not superior results to what the ACA has achieved.

[pirateshipdude]

33. Anarchists! Green! No, Blue Dogs!!!

Oh ya, and our Socialist/Independent factor.

The only answer. I tell you!

[Demsrule86]

39. I know ...that is true...if you never tire of losing losing and more losing.

[Demsrule86]

66. Who never votes with us when the chips are down...but runs to Stein.

[pirateshipdude]

77. Yup... gotta be, until it isn't. Eom

[DonCoquixote]

41. about Blue Dogs

Yes, i realize that the hard blues, like the Joe Manchins, can be sometimes dependent to vote our way. However, that does not stop them from trying to undermine everything we do that is slightly to the right of Ronnie Ray gun, the ACA being a prime example. Do I trust them more than the Greens?, well, they are about 20 percent less likely to backstab in the short run. Do I prefer the Bernie End of the party, mostly, but I am not naive enough to think that large blocks like good old Dixie will even flirt with him (though the midwest might.)

My point is, Blue dogs may have a place, but NOT at the wheel. They need to show they want to be part of a TEAM, and that means give and take, not act like they must be the captain. If their idea of give and take is that the rest of the party gives and they take, then that cannot be allowed to continue, because we will have everything we work for traded away in smoke filled rooms where the gop "friends" offer them expensive cigars!

[yallerdawg]

44. They will be a minority in the Democratic Party...

while allowing us a majority power in the House - and a moderating force for skeptical constituents who do not support liberal social and fiscal issues, the alternative being Republican power.

Nancy Pelosi gives them cover - she knows better than anyone 'all politics is local.'

[DonCoquixote]

45. well, are they?

I mean, who gets the megaphone, and who gets the stuff passed? I am sorry, but I have not seen many liberals get what they want, whereas Max baucus pretty much gutted the ACA.

[Me.]

48. But Isn't Your Point

that you don't want them to be a minority?

[yallerdawg]

54. Of course not!

I want US to be the majority party everywhere!

We have a place for Nancy Pelosi, just as we have a place for Debbie Wasserman Schultz!

Democrats have to BE what their constituents want, and then we lead them to what WE want.

[bettyellen]

88. Not at all. On the food chain they are better than a Repbulican, and that matters now

[50 Shades Of Blue]

50. Don't call me for a contribution, DCCC!

[Demsrule86]

67. The Republicans would probably send people who won't give to the DCCC a

thank you card if they knew the addresses.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

72. No, they'll send thank you cards to the DCCC for trying to elect D's who vote like R's.

[Demsrule86]

84. No refusing to back the Democrats helps the Republicans in all things ...

[50 Shades Of Blue]

113. I contribute to Democrats who ALWAYS vote like Democrats!

[Demsrule86]

154. You were the one who said the DCCC should not call you.

[Demsrule86]

95. Manchin is voting against Trump care...and we are struggling to peal off GOP

so called moderates so figure it out. If we had a few more 'Manchins' , the ACA would not be in danger and thousand of people would not be at risk to lose their lives...reality is a bummer sometimes.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

53. Blue Dogs are the key to winning in certain areas (Red States)

Getting too pissed off at them to vote for them cost us big in 2010 and 2014. Let's hope that that doesn't cost us seats we can't afford to lose in 2018 if we want to retake the Senate (most likely) in 2020. Blue Dogs may only be good for numbers (if nothing else) but at least it's something.

[yallerdawg]

56. Blue Dogs try to keep us honest, too.

If you want "Medicare for All," Blue Dogs back 'pay as you go' - tell us how much it will cost and how much we will have to pay.

Then pass whatever makes it so.

That's called fiscal conservatism. There's your centrism.

It's not, "Let's pass it and see what happens." So two years the House flips.

[dsc]

60. A large problem is that the districts have changed in many cases

In NC we lost only one of the blue dogs (Bob Etheridge) but then the GOP drew the lines and in 2012 we lost all but one of them (McIntyre) who won the closest race in the nation that year. I don't see us winning no matter who we run in the districts as they exist now.

[yallerdawg]

64. Yeah, the problem is national at every level.

That's why pundits are warning us about 2018 and the House.

We could sweep in a wave election in 2018 if things get bad enough for the Republicans, like what happened to Obama.

I think we are well on our way to being just as freaked as the 'Tea Party' was!

[Demsrule86]

69. There is a court case that could really help with gerrymanders at SCOTUS right now.

It has a method for determining political gerrymandering...Kennedy is on record as saying if there was a way to know if a district was gerrymandered politically, he would support a bill that stopped it.

[yallerdawg]

97. Could you imagine if every district every ten years was drawn up...

to be politically impartial and contested? Except state-wide districts (but are low-population state elections inherently unfair then, too? Like 2 senators for each state?)

Does the Constitution imply that every vote should have equal weight in an election? That districts cannot be drawn up so your vote can have no impact?

Christ, what a quandary.

[Demsrule86]

157. We would win the majority in the House for sure.

[yallerdawg]

158. Then after we consistently win the districts for ten years...

would they then have to be redrawn after the census to take away the Democratic advantage?

And - I can't even imagine what Election Night would be like if every 2 years all 435 districts were in contention.

And every 2 years, the House could flip and spend the next 2 years undoing what had been done the previous 2 years and investigating the crap out of the opposition party's leadership.

Do we agree with the Founding Fathers - a little democracy is OK, but can be a really dangerous thing as the basis of a government?

[Blue_true]

126. You have a Dem governor now.

That makes a difference. Also, I have found that economic growth in a region causes it to become more blue. An example is the seats that Charlie Crist and Stephanie Murphy hold in my state of Florida. Both seat as little as 8 years ago were rock rib republican, no Democrat had a chance there.

[leon8822]

63. blue dogs

I didn't know they still existed

[Demsrule86]

68. Did you ever hear of a Senator called Joe Manchin?

[Turbineguy]

76. Language

The word "conservative" no longer means what it used to. Under the current definition, the Visigoths were conservatives.

[Tiggeroshii]

78. If they were so key then why did they lose in the first place.

Seems to me a Sanders brand of Democrat would be just as successful or more in this political environment than a blue dog.

[Demsrule86]

85. No the Sanders brand of Democrat has never won in sufficient numbers to get stuff done...

we have always needed blue dogs...they lost because of the health care shit storm... but not before they did something no Democrat had done in 100 years...pass a healthcare bill! It was worth it.

[Tiggeroshii]

87. They lost in their individual districts by constituents who didn't see value in them anymore

If a candidate can let themselves be defined on one issue then they probably shouldn't be in office in the first place.

[leftstreet]

96. +1

[Demsrule86]

98. Oh please, historically the president's Party loses seats in the

House at the first and often the second midterm... Clinton got decimated in 94 because it was a midterm and he tried to pass a health care bill even though, he failed in the end to pass anything but CHIP which did save thousand of Kid's lives (thanks Hillary).Well we did it;we passed health care and lost the next election...that's how Democrats role...people over politics. We saved thousands of lives. We convinced the majority of Americans that health care is a right. That was something new. I am proud to be a member of a party like that. The Democratic Party rocks!

[rainy]

133. This country has moved so far to the

right because corporations write the laws and fund democrats' campaigns. We can't move any more to the right. It's time to fight. Women are on the move and will bring fresh, unafraid, un-beholden new blood to the Democratic Party and guess what, as progressives we will win for the people. Now is the time for brave and bold not old blue dogs!

[Me.]

143. Not Actually So

Graph On Thread Linked Below

"This chart indicates that Democrats have not moved right since the New Deal era at all. Indeed, the party has moved somewhat to the left, largely because its conservative Southern wing has disappeared”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029337059

[JHan]

144. we've had increased regulations as a result of Democratic backed legislation

Corporate welfare and capitalistic austerity are GOP policies.

We have to get control of the Supreme Court so cit united and fec vs mccutcheon can be reversed and work on implementing publicly funded elections. Until such time we have an imperfect system but we have to USE that system to GET POWER to CHANGE IT.

[nini]

89. Depends on the district and there's more that'll go Blue Dog than for Sanders...

... in the south and rural America.

That's something Bernie fans simply cannot accept but need to. The 'country' simply will not make a 180 in one election cycle.

[Tiggeroshii]

90. It isn't a 180 cycle. It's voting in ones interests. Iff

There is nobody to represent their interests then they won't be strongly drawn towards one candidate over another

[nini]

92. You'll never get YOUR interests addressed unless we get a majority back

It's that simple. Deny all you want.. it's reality.

[Tiggeroshii]

94. The definition of insanity:

Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results, no?

[Demsrule86]

103. if you mean running candidates who are not suited for the districts and states they run in, I agree.

If you mean tacking left when the country is center left, I agree. If you mean running Sanders type candidates in every state regardless of it politics...I agree. Sander support Mello who could be described as a conservadem by the way.

[Tiggeroshii]

110. Actually I mean running candidates that don't represent

The interests of their constituents expecting them to last longer than 4 years in office. Successful candidates offer solutions to the issues that trouble their constituents -where they fall on the political spectrum has proven to have little to do with their long term success. And if they could be defined by one vote, it's likely they didn't have much to offer in the first place.

[nini]

117. Come back and talk when you start to understand the big picture

Until then there's no reason to continue the discussion.

[Tiggeroshii]

121. I might say the same for you

The guy we have now as head of state is pretty extreme but won in some very moderate/ left states. Maybe the "big picture" can't be boxed into neat little categories of left and right and people are a little more complex than they are given credit?

[nini]

134. Look..

It's a fact the elections were most likely hacked in those areas 45 unexpectedly won. The Russians most likely affect the primaries for the Republicans in addition to the National elections which gave us that yoyo in the first place as Hillary's opponent. If you think he really 'won'...well again nothing to discuss here.

Even liberal states have red areas so you're going to have republican House seats from even Blue states.

A Bernie type candidate would do ok in most parts of California.. Most parts of hard core red states or even all districts in blue states - no. A Blue dog could pull it off at this point in time.

AGAIN - you have to pull them back with the Blue Dogs..then continue to pull them even further left and AGAIN I am talking about the hardcore red areas we need to turn. So yes the Big Picture includes accepting you can't run the same candidate in every district.
You have to target your audience so to speak.

[Demsrule86]

100. well put...thanks. nt

[Demsrule86]

99. No they won't be drawn to a Sanders type candidate in red states...that is just the facts.

They may however, vote for a moderate Democrat.

[bettyellen]

91. The ACA vote killed them with both the GOP and extreme lefties

Now it's incredibly popular. Candidates have to suit their constituencies- not us as individuals.

[Demsrule86]

201. It was a joint effort to in 10 the alt-left (Green riffraf) and the right united

against President Obama, we lost and got very little from a two term president. Always,the same story, then the alt-left cries about all the bad legislation they helped create by spoiling the election and blames the Democratic Party.

[bettyellen]

206. Yes. I saw some amazing Joy Reid tweets trying to explain this to a young lefty ...

I should find and post. She was saying you gotta turn out, donate and be part of it to actually have influence. If you're throwing rocks from the sidelines you're being counterproductive- a pest- and nothing more.

[rainy]

132. I agree!!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

171. How is mayor Heath Mello these days? How about Russ feingold and zephyr teachout?

Congressman quist?

Doing well I hope

[Demsrule86]

93. That is not really true...there were always conservadems in congress going back to Roosevelt's time.

They may have named themselves, but they were already there...and we had the majority when we had them.

[yallerdawg]

104. They had different names.

The Solid South.

Dixiecrats.

Boll Weevils.

Third Way, of course!

Gave us Democratic majorities for decades! All from conservative constituencies - what don't people get?

[Demsrule86]

106. That is true and we had solid Democratic Majorities for decades.

[Voltaire2]

116. And for quite a few of those decades that "solid majority" supported segregation.

[Chasstev365]

105. They will vote NOT to impeach Trump when the truth comes out

[Samantha]

145. They will if the charges are serious enough that their constituents will rebel if they do not

No Republican will risk his seat to save Trump's flank.

A fly in the soup however could be that there are others in Congress who have taken Russian money that have not been named publicly.

Sam

[Chasstev365]

151. You're right about the money!

[Bradical79]

107. I hate it

But we kind of need them, especially with the way districts are drawn right now. There's not really any hope of driving the country to the left unless we figure out the demographic problem and gerrymandering. Need local and state level domination to make a truly liberal Democratic party a thing.

[Freethinker65]

108. It all depends on the particular house district.

I actually have some friends in Utah that have switched to the Republican Party solely to help chose what will be their forgone conclusion Republican representative. They will support the most moderate candidate of those running. In the past, the Democratic Party has often chosen to run someone with no chance of winning the district.

In other, more "purple" voting areas, running a moderate Democratic candidate makes sense.

Unfortunately not all house districts are ready for a progressive Democratic candidate to represent them. However, we do have an opportunity to pick up seats from ultra right wing Republican incumbents if we nominate the best candidates for the district (and if votes and voter rolls are not tampered with).

[rainy]

109. That's why hardly anyone puts

their heart and passion in fighting to get them elected. There's no fire for change with blue dogs!!!

[yallerdawg]

119. Here's my 2010 'Blue Dog' district. From Wiki!

Standard conservative district.

[img][/img]


Yeah, still conservative.

[img][/img]



Incumbent retires. Unaffiliated Montgomery mayor runs as Democrat (The Blue Dog)!

MOST VOTES ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE GETS IN THIS DISTRICT! IS THAT EXCITING ENOUGH?

[img][/img]



Democrat voted for Pelosi to be Speaker. Obama president. That's all the Republican candidate had to campaign on!

[img][/img]



Standard Democratic liberal challenger.

[img][/img]



Standard Democratic liberal challenger.

[img][/img]



Roby challenged on the right for not being Trumpian enough. Standard Democratic liberal challenger.

[img][/img]

[GaryCnf]

173. I'm not sure

if I agree with everything you draw from these numbers, but even if I did, I still have a question.

If we elect a person who is not going to vote to advance important portions of our platform - which I think you may have already said about Bobby Bright = and we need that vote to pass that legislation, what do we get as a party other than a the title of Senate Majority Leader or Speaker.

Along those lines, after Bobby Bright won by running away from our platform, what did he accomplish during his term?

[yallerdawg]

175. During his one term...

the Democratic Party accomplished everything Obama did in his first two years, including the Affordable Care Act.

Speaker Pelosi asked the members of the Democratic caucus to pass legislation - and once they got that number, Democrats were free to vote as they needed to with respect to their constituencies.

She gave them cover to keep the critical, necessary majority in place. A lot of us didn't 'get it' at the time.

[GaryCnf]

176. I am so inattentive

I thought he was elected in 2010, after all that happened.

My apologies!

[GaryCnf]

187. That does leave open the question

Whether his win in 2008 was because he ran as a Blue Dog, or whether he was swept into office because Obama inspired our base with his liberal campaign.

I don't know the answer, of course, but these are tougher questions than many want to believe.

[yallerdawg]

189. Until 2010, our state regularly elected Democrats...

locally, statewide, and to send to Washington.

In 2010, for the first time since Reconstruction, Alabama has both houses of state legislature, every statewide office and 6 out of 7 Congressional districts and both Senators ALL held by Republicans.

Democrats turned out for the 2008 presidential race - and you can bet that helped!

But before and since, we have Democrats getting trounced every 2 years.

Bright campaigned as a fiscal and social conservative. He won on the strength of being a D when D's turned out. He didn't alarm rural voters and he didn't bother city voters too much.

Not until he had a two-year record. When he alarmed enough of both.

[GaryCnf]

190. No doubt 2010 was a disaster

Your observations are spot on.

I happen to believe that it was as much if not more due to Obama confronting white folks about the continuing scourge of racism when they were feeling all good about themselves for voting for him as it was the ACA.

Call me cynical, but I don't think any move to the right will change that reality short of a candidate going all the way back to the days of the Dixiecrats and abandoning everything we stand for.

I just can't condone that regardless of the ends. There just has to be another way.

[yallerdawg]

191. We have had that other way since 2010.

It has gotten worse.

We have all moved to the left - less tolerant and more ideological - and the results are plain as the nose on our faces.

You know what they about those who we do the same thing over and over expecting a different result?

I just see a need to expand the tent, and give everyone cover!

Or we are limiting our opportunities for idealism and wishful thinking.

[GaryCnf]

192. Good points

[yallerdawg]

193. Trumpism is rubbing off on me!

I can't even read what I typed. Incomprehensible!

But you know what I mean, thank you!

[GaryCnf]

194. . . .

[Trial_By_Fire]

112. If the Dem Party moves center-right/conservative...

There is already a party like that - we call them 'republicans". And the old
rule applies per Truman, paraphrasing - between a Dem who runs as a
republican and a real republican - the republican wins...

The Dem party has to restore their greatness with FDR-like progressive liberal
policies and issues.

[Demsrule86]

200. The Democratic Party has to get elected and their were conseradems during Roosevelt's time.

Roosevelt was a great man in a very different time...clinging to the past instead of working for a better future is a mistake...few are even alive that can remember Roosevelt.

[GaryCnf]

114. Does the math really support what

Representative Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, the chairwoman of the Blue Dog PAC says?

In 2010 Democrats lost 63 net seats.

According to this excerpt, the Blue Dogs went from 54 seats to 18 - a net loss of 36 seats - or in other words 67% of Blue Dogs could not defend their turf.

In addition Blue Dog losses accounted for 57% of the total Democrat seats lost - even though the 54 Blue Dogs represented only 21% of the 256 pre-2010 Democrat seats.

By comparison the remaining 28 seats which were lost by "liberals" represented only 14% of the 203 "liberal" seats. In other words in the Republican wave election of 2010 only 14% of "liberals" could not defend their turf.

In addition, "liberal" losses accounted for only 11% of the 63 pre-2010 Democratic seats lost.

Combining the two:

67% of Blue Dogs could not defend their turf in 2010 - only 14% of "liberals" could not defend their turf.

There are good arguments to be made regarding picking candidates which both confront GOP policy AND present messages plucked from our national platform which appeal to the voters of the district. However, if these numbers show anything, they show that rejecting our platform and often times our President as many Blue Dogs did in 2010 and running instead as "not as extreme as the Republican candidate" is a recipe for disaster.

We have a great PLATFORM. When our candidates defend our PLATFORM, when they make that the focus of their campaign, they win.

Since this is my first post I also want to say thank you to anyone reading this.

[WePurrsevere]

131. I like your use of logic. Welcome to DU.

[Me.]

136. Excellent 1st Post

There is the saying that when Republicans vote, if given a choice between a real Republican and a Republican light/fake, they will always choose the former.

Wecome.

[fleabiscuit]

141. Welcome to DU

[meadowlander]

148. +1

And I would only add that there's no point voting in DINOs who never vote with the party.

[Demsrule86]

155. You ignore the elephant in the room...health care. It caused most of the losses and there are

always losses in the president's party at the midterm...you will never elect a rep in Georgia with 'Ideas' pulled form the Democratic platform. Consider Quist and the Governor of Montana...Governor Bullock who is a centrist Democrat... won in 16. Quist lost...heis a Bernie Sanders type Democrat...you can't win red seats without moderate IE blue-dogs...who have always been part of the Democratic Party when there was a Majority...they were called different names back then...so if we want to remain in the minority permanently, then we Should follow your advice.

[GaryCnf]

170. The elephant isn't being ignored

he's in another room.

I agree that ACA backlash together with the realization that the Barack Obama was not going to ratify the feel good belief that his election proved we live in a post racial nation were the primary causes of the 2010 GOP flood. Right wingers were enraged and a huge number of white moderates/liberals were disillusioned because they wanted recognition for in their minds how far they'd come.

Th OP and my post weren't about what caused the 2010 deluge. They were about what a set of statistics showed was the best way to fight the tide. What I pointed out was that the statistics appear to support exactly the opposite conclusion from the one drawn by the OP and urged by the subjects of the linked article.

I also cannot agree with the other reasons you offer for the conclusion that supporting Blue Dogs is the way back to gaining a Democratic majority. No doubt you're correct that our past majorities have included conservative Democrats with tenuous connections to important portions of our platform, whether they be called, as another poster put it, Blue Dogs, Dixiecrats, etc. What is also correct is that their inclusion may well have let us choose Congressional leadership positions but it has prevented us from carrying out the platform of the overwhelming majority of our party.

Two examples. In the past Dixiecrats first prevented any advancement whatsoever in the area of civil rights and in doing so forced our party leadership to accept Republican demands both in the bill itself and in other areas in order to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In an important side note, when we refused to continue to let them run the Party, they stabbed us in the back. Second, it was Blue Dog opposition that forced everyone from Hillary Clinton, when she was spearheading health care reform during Bill's presidency, to Barack Obama to abandon the public option, an abandonment that left it without important cost and coverage controls and, as you pointed out, gave us a bill that the GOP used to run our party out of office including the vast majority of the very Blue Dogs who demanded no public option because they said leaving it out would help get them re-elected.

Control is a necessity for sure, but it only matters if we can pass legislation which reflects the values in our platform. I happen to support our platform and it is my humble opinion that a majority of the people living in states constituting a majority of the electoral college and in a majority of the congressional districts of this country do too. Again, it is merely my opinion, but the key to winning isn't to run from that platform as we have in far too many elections at every level but to run with that platform to the American people.

[Voltaire2]

115. Well that is the same dumb recipe that has failed for the last ten years.

But who knows, perhaps the 6th try will be the charm.

[Warpy]

118. Of course the Eisenhower Republicans want more of their kind

That doesn't mean the rest of the country is going to be impressed with their brand of conservatism. Remember, when the GOP started to take control back, the first to go were the Blue Dogs because they just didn't fight for what was important to people and some, like Baucus, almost destroyed one thing that was very important to us, health care reform, because he didn't like abortion.

Sure, if you want one or two term Congressmen, run the same old Blue Dogs. If you want them to last a little longer, find some with more life in them who will fight for people and not just corporations.

"Business as usual" is no longer terribly appealing as a campaign slogan.

[Eko]

122. It's funny.

We keep getting told that the Democratic party needs to reach out to the "working class". A sure fire way to do that is to elect more blue dogs, point that out and then the same people that tell us we need to reach out to the "working class" start crying foul that they are not "progressive" enough. Funny.

[Voltaire2]

137. Not by promoting anti abortion anti lgbt anti blm sexist homophobic racist horseshit

because that is what "bluedog" democrats stand for. They are "cultural conservatives". They are also frequently conservative on all other issues as well.

[Eko]

138. Blue dogs

vote more consistently on the Democratic side. More so than the "working class" that voted for Trump that some want us to appeal to.

[Voltaire2]

147. I'll try once more: racist sexist homophobes. And they frequently support Republican economic issues

We have been following this strategy since the Reagan era, and it has been an abject failure that has resulted in a political party that stands for nothing competing with a party that has a clear ideology.

[snowy owl]

130. People rejected establishment on both sides.

Many republicans would have voted Sanders if given the chance. Don't give up progressive values yet. We just threw off the burden of the establishment. Let's not get desperate. Many of the progressive candidates haven't been that good. Sanders was charismatic and articulate. Kashama (sp?) is same. The right is driven by social issues. They are easier to herd. The left requires erudite, charismatic and articulate leaders.

I think it is all about leadership and finding the right independent and authentic leader. Both Bill Clinton and Obama seemed to be but both veered too much to the right. Big money corrupts everybody but the strongest and most confident and committed. I think that was proven in Canada when Jack? ?? made the NDP a force in politics but it's impact died with him. It takes a strong committed leader. We can't quit now. We know where we've been. Let's not go backwards.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

172. Hillary won the popular vote in the GE by 3 million

And in the primary by 4 million

What do you mean people rejected establishment?

[tenderfoot]

135. If you're so conservative, what did the GOP do wrong that they lost your vote?

and in what conservative things do you think Democrats should adopt and run on?

[yallerdawg]

139. I'm passing on an observation.

It has nothing to do with my personal convictions.

Bernie Sanders is more conservative than I am!

[tammywammy]

140. I believe in a 50 state strategy

Running a candidate that has the best possible chance of winning a seat. I'd rather have a Joe Manchin get a seat and vote with the democrats 75% of the time than Ted Cruz that votes 0%.

[Awsi Dooger]

202. Somehow logical strategy is accepted in sports but not politics

If our favorite football team went for it on 4th and 25 every time from deep in our own territory in a tie game, the announcers would be in disbelief and all the arm chair types would go nuts. That's really not much different than force feeding a liberal into a district that will never accept a liberal, but on sites like this the aggressive political masochism is encouraged and applauded.

Beggars can't be choosers and neither can the party with roughly a 9-11% deficit in self-identification numbers between liberals and conservatives nationwide. If it were reversed, if 35% called themselves liberals and 26% called themselves conservatives, then sure we could roll the dice and run anyone we wanted in any state and district. The math and margin for error would take care of themselves. I have to laugh every time someone asserts it's a center left nation. Yeah, if you're moronic enough to rely on issue polling and not self-identification, which dictates how people actually vote.

With the deficit we're stuck and only extremely favorable cycles will allow a chance to hold the House very briefly. That's the reality of the matter.

I say we try. Nominating liberals into the teeth of the ideological headwinds is not trying.

[Foamfollower]

146. They are absolutely correct.

Accept the Blue Dogs or accept permanent minority status.

Those are the only two choices.

[loyalsister]

159. Probably true

But I'm not looking forward to more Joe Lieberman's, and Manchin's, Zell Millers, or George Wallaces. Representing party and constituency is one thing. Actively seeking to please the worst elements of that constituency is something else and has an ugly historical pattern. Strom Thurmond was once a Democrat, you know.

[Hekate]

166. "What the Dems haven't done is win all of the swing seats in the country." Good point, actually.

All of the country is not Vermont. All of the country is not New York or coastal California. A winning candidate has to have a message for her own district and state. If we say we want a big tent, we have to mean it.

[yallerdawg]

177. We are not going to make liberals out of conservatives.

But we can help ease them along, and break it to them gently.

We don't have anyone in my state (except Terri Sewell from Selma!) reminding the voters that 31 states are getting Medicaid expansion paid for by "the rich" while our state rejected that free money (we're a 'taker' state) because it was being handed out by Obama.

We need to have voices in leadership that can point out the choices, not the one side. Then, one day the people will make the right choice!

[Hekate]

180. Yep

[GaryCnf]

174. Maybe the better question

Than whether being "too liberal" costs us control in 2010, is why, in 2008, with Obama running an overtly liberal campaign, we gained/cemented control?

While many Democrats ran away from Obama and our platform in 2010, almost no Democrats were running away from him and his liberal agenda in 2008.

I'm sorry, but I still believe that our platform represents the will of a majority of the American people.

Call me naïve, I just believe we are right.

Thank you for your OP though. I appreciate your views and it was a great way to dip my toe in the discussion forums.

[Lee-Lee]

204. Blue Dogs made the ACA possible. That is a fact.

And other great legislation like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act.

I live in a very red district, with far-right Mark Meadows as my rep right now. But before him we had Heath Shuler, a Blue Dog Democrat, who won 3 consecutive terms. It is possible for Democrats to win in deep red districts with the right one.

Heaths voting record in Congress would gather him mostly scorn among the crowd here at DU. But, it reflected the district. Pro-gun, anti-choice, he even voted against the ACA (although he held out as stayed "undecided" until after it was known there were enough votes to pass it, so I suspect he would have voted for it had his vote been needed, but was allowed to vote against in an attempt to keep the seat). He voted anti LGBT and against the stimulus.

But in reality there was only one thing every year Democrats really needed from him. That is to simply put his name down with a D next to it and say he would caucus with Democrats. Him and a few other Blue Dogs doing that ensured that Nancy Pelosi was speaker instead of John Boner. That meant our side controlled what legislation even made it up for a vote and how it was voted on.

That meant the ACA got voted on and passed instead of going off to languish and die in a committee. Along with every other great piece of legislation that was able to be passed and sent to President Obama to sign in his first 2 years.

Bottom line- its better to have that seat held by the most ultra conservative person with a D next to their name than the most liberal person with an R by their name, because the one huge thing that matters is who is in control and who sets the agenda.

[yallerdawg]

205. Good observations!

I think a lot of DU'ers apparently live in bastions of liberalism and have no idea of what it is like to vote for the Democratic ticket every 2 to 4 years and see the Republicans become more dominant election after election.

In many states, we have been the progressive, liberal, Democratic underground for our entire lives!

Now the entire country is getting a taste.

What's the way out?

Get back to those 2008 numbers which came about after the country gave the keys to the last Republican - and he drove us into a ditch!