So, who is the most conservative Democrat

[MineralMan]

currently serving in the House or Senate? I don't follow them all, so I don't know. But, if you have a nominee for that status, please post his or her name, along with that person's voting history over the past two to four years. What would be most interesting would be the percentage of votes that were the same as the Democratic Caucus in that house of Congress.

You see, I have a feeling that even the most conservative of Democrats usually votes with the Democratic caucus. If you have evidence to the contrary, I hope you'll present it.

This is going to be important in 2018, you see. In some districts and in some states, no progressive Democrat would have even a sliver of a prayer of being elected, which could easily flip that seat to a Republican.

So, if you know of a conservative Democrat in Congress, and especially if that person represents your state or district, let's see a voting record, so we can better judge the value of that person to Democratic causes.

Thanks for your help!

[TexasBushwhacker]

1. Joe Manchin, West Virginia

Cosy with the coal industry, has voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Voted to confirm Sessions, Tillerson and Price.

[MineralMan]

9. OK, let's have a look:

Since he entered the Senate in 2010, during the 111th Congress, Manchin has voted with his party 77 percent of the time in the average Congress5 on votes in which at least 50 percent of Democrats voted one way and 50 percent of Republicans voted the other way. (For shorthand, I’m calling these party-line votes.) The median senator6 over that stretch voted with her party 94 percent of the time on such votes.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/liberals-would-be-foolish-to-target-joe-manchin/

So, just over three-quarters of the time he has voted with the Democratic Caucus for several years running. So, could a more progressive Democrat get elected in WV? I don't have the answer to that, but I'd ask, "How would a Republican from WV vote?"

[JCanete]

13. you are only looking at part of the issue with running conservative dems. Is he better than a

Republican being in office? From one metric, yes, of course, even though that is a pretty shitty voting record at 77 percent, for a Dem. But does our party's identity suffer? Does it make it harder for us to use strong, non wishy washy language when it comes to the issues that Democrats care about, just so that we can be careful not to throw the Manchins of the party under the bus--or worse, so as not to alienate the Manchins of the party and have them go rogue on us? Does it ultimately water down our whole message? Does it tie our hands behind our back and lead to larger losses than these middling gains?

You're right, we don't know if liberals can win these seats. But we don't try to build a liberal counter-argument in these states and localities, opting instead to try to cater to the conservative mindset already present...just a little kinder and gentler. Its no surprise that these conservative bastions of thought have persisted and rooted themselves so thoroughly. We haven't offered an alternative, if only to introduce a little cognitive dissonance.

[MineralMan]

18. So, run someone in the Primary, and see

How it goes. I don't live in WV, so I can't do anything there. One thing's for sure, though. If someone else can't win in the Primary, they sure won't win in November.

[JCanete]

20. Not everybody here is fond of the idea of primarying incumbents. In fact, isn't it the threat of

primarying them why we get threads about why we need them so badly? Its not like we have another method of replacement.

If what you are suggesting(not that you are) is that once we get a blue-dog in, we lay low on the challenges to that incumbent's governance-- only offering up a primary alternative or loudly pushing a liberal message in non-incumbency years-- then I'm sure you see why that might undermine the sincerity of the argument. Sure, if Manchin is the best we can get out of the primaries, then yeah, he's the best we can get at that moment, and hopefully the voters vote for him. I don't think anybody has a bone to pick with that. But I see no reason why we shouldn't put forward more liberal challengers to primary him and others. That could have the result of pulling him left just as much as it could have the result of replacing him.

[MineralMan]

21. I think primaries are the time for challenges.

Frankly, that's why they exist. So, if West Virginians truly don't like Manchin, then they should run someone they like more in the primary for that seat. It's up to WV Democrats to choose their candidate.

I don't ever say that people shouldn't run in primary elections. They are how our system works. I suspect, though, that any primary opponent of Manchin, in that particular state, will have a very, very difficult time. However, if people there believe that a more progressive Democrat could win, they should field the very best candidate they can find and see what the people in that state want to do.

My point, here, is that not every state will elect a progressive Democrat to the Senate. So far, Manchin has managed to stay in office. If he, or whatever other Democrat wins in a primary loses, however, the Republican who wins is going to vote 0% of the time with the Senate Democratic caucus.

That's the equation that is true in every state for Senate races. In the end, either a Democrat or Republican is going to Washington. I prefer that a Democrat serve as Senator. But I can only vote for Senators from my own state. I have to leave West Virginia and every other state other than my own for the voters in those states to decide.

That's why I stay out of discussions about Senate races in states other than my own. My input is not desired, nor needed, for the voters to decide who they want to represent them. I just hope it's a Democrat.

[JCanete]

22. Fair enough. Sadly though, it's usually deeper pockets who decide which candidates

are serious contenders, not the voters in these or any state. That is a bigger factor in determining what the voters get to choose between than anything, and the less corporate "friendly" you are as a candidate, the less likely you are going to have any visibility at all. I'm not sure how the DNC fits into that, except that my guess is it likes to fund "viable" candidates...that is, those who have demonstrated an "ability" to raise certain levels of money. What we need to be doing is promoting and funding candidates who we think can generate excitement and pull in money from the grass-roots, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

[MineralMan]

23. Typically, the national Democratic Party organizations do not

get involved in primary races. Attempts to primary incumbent Democrats usually fail and fail miserably. Most Democrats in legislative offices are popular with Democrats in their own district, which makes primary challenges difficult, at best.

Sometimes, people from outside of districts or states don't like some incumbent Democrats, but that rarely affects the incumbents at all. The bottom line is that legislative offices, particularly state and House seats, are truly local elections, and depend almost entirely on local efforts. It's rare for an incumbent, especially one who has served multiple terms to be unseated in a primary election. Normally, they're quite popular in their own district, which is why they have been elected in the first place.

Primary challenges are just fine, and I encourage Democrats to run for whatever office they seek. However, it should be with the knowledge that an incumbent almost always enjoys a huge advantage that is almost impossible to overcome.

[Doc Coco]

2. Joe Manchin is identified as the most conservative Democrat

Votes with the caucus approximately 52% of the time.

[MineralMan]

10. I'll repeat my post from above. Your number seems to be incorrect:

Since he entered the Senate in 2010, during the 111th Congress, Manchin has voted with his party 77 percent of the time in the average Congress5 on votes in which at least 50 percent of Democrats voted one way and 50 percent of Republicans voted the other way. (For shorthand, I’m calling these party-line votes.) The median senator6 over that stretch voted with her party 94 percent of the time on such votes.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/liberals-would-be-foolish-to-target-joe-manchin/

[Tatiana]

3. It's Manchin of WV.

And I support him because he's about the only Democrat outside of a Rockefeller or Byrd who can get elected in that state.

[MineralMan]

11. That would be my guess, too.

If Democrats run a more progressive candidate, the likelihood is that that candidate would lose to a Republican, who would certainly not vote 77% of the time with the Senate Democratic Caucus. I'm not seeing the advantage, then, from trying to elect a progressive in that state.

[StevieM]

4. According to countless Democrats on Election Day 2016 it was Hillary Clinton.

People were convinced that voting for her was like voting for Joe Lieberman.

It was so ridiculous. This woman had a lifetime of fighting for progressive causes. And then she was declared to be the ultimate conservadem.

It is too her credit that she ran a good enough campaign to overcome that obstacle, and the FBI had to rig the election to prevent her victory.

[RhodeIslandOne]

6. Followed closely by Barack Obama and Joe Biden

But yes, it's amazing she did so well after the pure rig job.

[Demonaut]

5. Manchin

[Weekend Warrior]

7. Interesting thing about Manchin.

"Of the 196 bills that Manchin cosponsored, 66% were introduced by a legislator who was not a Democrat."

Here is a list of the bills he cosponsored.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse#congress=114&cosponsors=412391&sponsor_party=Republican

Some other good information about him.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/joe_manchin/412391/report-card/2016

He does vote with Democrats most of the time. I do consider him to be a conservative.

In the Senate it's probably Young and Murkowski behind Manchin.

[LeftInTX]

8. Henry Cuellar in the House

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-qa-with-the-house-democrat-whos-voted-with-trump-75-percent-of-the-time/

His current Trump score is 69%

He's still better than any GOP.

[MineralMan]

12. OK. What's his longer term voting record. Trump hasn't been

around very long. I'd like to see a longer view of his voting record.

[LeftInTX]

14. I don't know. He calls himself a blue dog.

He's certainly a zillion times better than his neighbor, Blake Farenthold

[dsc]

15. Congressman Lipinski of Illinois

he may not be the most conservative but he is plenty bad and could easily be replaced in a primary.

[geek tragedy]

16. relative to his district, it's the odious Dan Lipinski (from a safe seat in IL)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/daniel_lipinski/400630
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/daniel_lipinski/400630/report-card/2016
http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Dan_Lipinski.htm

•Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
•Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
•Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
•Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
•Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
•Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
•Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
•Ban abortions for sex selection or race selection. (Dec 2011)
•Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
•Sponsored prohibiting abortion information at school health centers. (Mar 2013)
•No family planning assistance that includes abortion. (Jan 2013)

...

•Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
•Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
•Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
•Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
•Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
•Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks. (Dec 2005)
•Rated 40% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
•Rated 89% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
•Protect anti-same-sex marriage opinions as free speech. (Sep 2013)
•Honor the 100th anniversary of the NAACP. (Jan 2009)
•Constitutionally prohibit flag desecration. (May 2009)

Click here for 4 full quotes on Drugs OR background on Drugs. •Voted YES on more funding for Mexico to fight drugs. (Jun 2008)
•Rated -25 by NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance. (Dec 2006)
•Rated 25% by NORML, indicating an anti-legalization stance. (Jan 2014)
•Rated D by NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance. (Nov 2016)

•Voted NO on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval. (Jun 2011)
•Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011)
•Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)
•Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
•Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
•Boycott & sanctions against Iran for terrorism & nukes. (May 2011)
•Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment. (Apr 2012)
•Intervene in Iraq to protect persecuted Christians. (Jul 2014)
•Work with Iraqi government to fight ISIL. (Jul 2014)
•Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program. (Apr 2009)

[Boomerproud]

19. A question-is Lipinski Catholic?

That would explain his anti-choice stance.

[Hekate]

17. KnR, MinMan

I'm about to move to a new district, and will be interested to see how my new Representative is doing. She's a Democrat. I remember from years past that the Rep for that district was a hard-right gent who hated Planned Parenthood -- so improvement? I would say absolutely an improvement, sight unseen.