House Democrats recruiting moderates for ’14 bids

[DonViejo]

Source: AP/Salon


BY BY HENRY C. JACKSON

WASHINGTON (AP) — Wanted: moderate Democrats.

If interested, please contact the mostly liberal House Democratic leadership.

Democrats say their best chance to take control of the House of Representatives away from Republicans in 2014 is by mirroring their last successful effort to flip the House in 2006.

The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Steve Israel, says that means finding non-ideological “problem-solver” candidates to run against Republican tea party conservatives elected the last two elections. The New York lawmaker says Democrats will focus on two large states — Florida and Texas — and districts where Republican incumbents won with less than a 10 percent margin of victory.

House Democrats would need to net 17 seats to flip the House in 2014 — nine more than they picked up in 2012.

-30-

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/house_democrats_recruiting_moderates_for_14_bids/

[The Magistrate]

1. In Some Target Districts, Sir, This Course, Regrettably, Is Probably Necessary

But once in, they will have to vote right if they want to keep their seats....

[demwing]

3. Right, because that's exactly what happens

Third way Demos, so indebted to the party for their jobs, fell right in line.

Yep.

[The Magistrate]

4. When They Do Not Vote Like Democrats, Sir, They Lose Running For Re-Election

There is no energy among Democrats in their districts, while the other side is fired up to re-take the place.

Sooner or later, even self-centered careerists will be unable to avoid noticing the pattern.

[OKNancy]

6. Absolutely. I sure would love to get rid of this jerk

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251293750

[The Magistrate]

10. I saw That Story, Ma'am: A Real Prize, That One...

A special kind of stupid....

[quakerboy]

24. Maybe in a few highly red districts

But it shouldn't be the direction for competitive districts. Given the choice between a republican, and a republican lite, as the saying goes.

[AndyTiedye]

29. WHAT Competitive Districts?

There are fewer competitive districts in the House than ever before, thanks to all the gerrymandering.

[quakerboy]

30. I think there are more than people think.

Of course a lot of that depends on the candidates. Name recognition, money, star power, all play in. But in a battle of equally funded unknowns plop in a one person with a strong position against a someone who mostly agrees with them, except for a few minor details that they probably cant really explain well and see what happens. You recall the foreign policy debate where Romney essentially spent the entire time saying "I agree"?

[liberalmike27]

41. Yea, Welcome Moderate Dems

Needed to pretend to be democrats, and slowly bargain away any of the good things, the gains we made during the FDR years of the 20th century, who won't speak with intensity, or verve. Yea, that's what we need. And make sure you don't make good arguments with Republicans, and sit quietly by when they lie, giving tacit approval too.

Seriously, we just keep giving up ground in that ideological tug-of-war.

[iandhr]

2. Unfortunately...

This is necessary,

We need some folks who will have chance in those gerrymandered districts.

[Daniel537]

13. And they are more gerrymandered than ever.

All those state legislative seats and governorships we lost in 2010 came back to bite us in the ass last year when Dems won the national popular vote for the House, and yet still ended up 17 seats short of a majority. That's what happens when you don't vote, folks. I know voting for some of these Blue Dogs is not easy, but look at the alternatives. Most of those seats we lost in 2010 were in already conservative districts. The odds of getting them back does not look good, to say the least. We might be stuck with Speaker Boehner for a while.

[AndyTiedye]

32. It Wasn't Us Not Voting in 2010

That has been debunked already.

Obama got votes from a lot of people usually don't vote, and from a good number of Republicans.
Many of those voters didn't turn out (or voted Republican) in 2010.

[Daniel537]

35. If they voted for Obama

i include them in the "us" category. It can't just be political die-hards going out to vote during a mid-term.

[AndyTiedye]

40. These are Swing Voters

Many of them did show up at the polls in 2010, but unfortunately they voted Rapeuglican.
They are swing voters, and the infusion of millions of dollars in corporate money
courtesy of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, swung them the other way.

Blaming the left for 2010 is something the blue dogs have been doing to drag the party further to the right.
We must not fall for it.

[Volaris]

49. Agreed, with the caveat that the SECOND part of Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy"

was "..., then, get BETTER Democrats elected."

Electing "moderate" dems in districts supposedly more red than blue should be viewed by the party as a kind of INTRODUCTION to the policies that serve the People rather than the Corporations. As in, "hey, I'm a MODERATE Democrat 'cause you all NEEDED me to be that, and look what got done. If you want MORE of that stuff that you like, 'cause now you see that it actually DOES work for you, just give the word, I'm ready."

[iandhr]

54. Sure

But lets get a majority in the house first eh.

[Volaris]

58. that's the first strp, yes. MODERATING ones views for the purpose of getting elected, however,

is not the same as NOT being a Liberal.=)

[littlemissmartypants]

5. LMSP kicking...n/t

[thetruthhurtsforsome]

7. This is the last thing the party needs more so called Dems who will waterdown or block all good

legislation.

Quality will ALWAYS trump quantity.

So now when the DCCC comes a calling for CASH and they always do, I will let them know how I will not donate to see my money WASTED on their hair brained schemes.

[liberalmike27]

42. Agreed

We lose because we never try to pull back.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Depends on where they are being recruited

Also depends on what "moderate" really means. It makes a huge difference which Party has the majority in the House. Not only does it effect what bills win a majority, it determins which bills are even allowed onto the floor for a vote. As a rough rule of themb, probably "moderate Dems" re a good choice for strongly leaning Republican districts where it might still be possible for a Democrat to win. For true toss up districts however, I agree. We need to run full strength Democrats in every district that is clearly competitive - that is the only way ultimately that a true Democratic agenda will get articulated and advanced.

[MrSlayer]

8. This is why there is no hope for the country.

We can never get enough elected officials that are in favor of doing the business of the people. What good is it to have a house majority if "our" people are going to side with the owners?

How about trying to run progressives regardless of conventional wisdom? If you lose, so what? You weren't really winning with the DINO anyway. If you do win, you really win.

[sangsaran]

15. +1

[Skittles]

17. CORRECT

[valerief]

21. What you said!

[fascisthunter]

27. it's a unrepresentive rigged government and political system

we lost our country to greed, and unfortunately, extremes will rise because of it. Very stupid, but the wealthy never really were that smart, because they have always been plagued by arrogance due to their financial successes, as if a god had chosen them.

[liberalmike27]

43. You're right

People mistakenly confuse making money, or having money with intelligence.

[forestpath]

28. +1

[AndyTiedye]

33. How Often Has a Conservative Rapeugican District Elected a Liberal Democrat?

I won't say "never", because I suppose it has happened once, but it's really a long shot.

[MrSlayer]

45. It's about presentation.

Try to show the mouthbreathers how they've been financially screwed by the policies of the fascist right. Make it irrefutably clear. Work within the Christian parameters of charity, compassion and inclusion.

Present the facts, and if they still can't vote for their own interests then at least you tried.

It's better than having some asshole with a D voting like an R.

[Myrina]

52. +100

Yes please.

[HughBeaumont]

53. +100. No more Leiberturds.

[hobbit709]

9. What "mostly liberal House Democratic leadership" are we talking about here?

[Skittles]

18. yup

our House Democratic leadership is already moderate

[valerief]

22. Well, there's Alan Grayson. And then there's, um...

[quakerboy]

23. Hes in the house leadership now?

[valerief]

37. Right. I was thinking Progressive and House. Well, then, there's, um...

[2ndAmForComputers]

36. They're slightly to the left of Augusto Pinochet.

Commies, all.

[chuckstevens]

11. Moderates or Republican Lights?

Either way, watch out Medicare and Social Security! We have GOT to get the $ out of politics.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. non ideological “problem-solvers” - let me guess that means those who show "courage and leadership"

in enacting "entitlement reforms." That is of course is defining "entitlement reforms" as cutting earned benefits for the elderly and disabled and defining "showing courage and leadership" as going against the will of the overwhelming majority of people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. and are "pro business" and "for a strong defense"

Yeah, I've seen that movie before.

[dembotoz]

14. on the count of 3 lets all move 4 steps to the right

even when the republicans loose they win




harder and harder to support the ticket

[AndyTiedye]

34. They Still Won the House Despite a Large Majority Voting for Democrats

[dtom67]

19. Dem,Repub, tea party....

starting to look like its all just a show to make you believe you have a Democracy...

[NorthCarolina]

50. "starting"????

I think this became quite evident long before now.

[dtom67]

62. yeah...

I still had Faith ( more like "Hope&quot before the election. You wanna believe its just the " other guys " (repubs) who are the corrupt ones. But then you start looking at the economic policies of the two parties and realize that they really are intended to benefit the same small group of people. People that have more than they could every spend.
Once you start to see that there is no real democracy, you start to think that there never really was one. From there, it isn't hard to see that there is very little chance of change. Protest might win a small token, but the system will remain. And collapse of the system or even an outright revolution would result in horrible suffering for the people. And they would fail. Most likely to be followed by a totalitarian state.

Which is probably why I tried to cling to my Faith (in the system) for so long....

[d_b]

20. status quo

always and forever

[Dawson Leery]

25. For certain districts.

Other districts there is no need for "moderates", therefore they better recruit liberals.

[NorthCarolina]

26. Not wanted by this Democrat.

I'm sick of the "moderate", "conservative DLC New Dems". I think they've ruined the party enough already. The myth of a center-right nation has been exposed as a fraud. Nationally, over 70% of the voting public WANTS single payer (Liberal), WANTS wall st. prosecutions (Liberal), WANTS an end to our illegal and fruitless wars (Liberal), IS IN FAVOR of LGBT marriage equality (LIBERAL)...etc. Moderates need not apply, recruit Liberals/Populists of the ilk of Sanders, Grayson, Warren, and let them run on what they stand for instead of suppressing their message. They'll win.

[Laelth]

31. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[SemperEadem]

38. they'd better fire whoever is running with that philosophy

and go progressive.

might as well vote republican if you're going to run moderates. That is what is the problem with the Democratic party--too many moderates. Too many corporate Dems.

If they want to give the people any incentive for turning out in 2014, then they'd better start singing a different tune or there will be apathy 2.0 and more gridlock for another 8 years til the midterms after that. The people need to be heard and have their voices represented by those who think like they do, not represented by those who hear only corporate interests.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. My tea leaves are telling me that the Republican Party will become weaker and weaker as the

Democratic Party enacts the core economic agenda of the GOP while marginalizing the GOP's social/religious conservatism and their most strident ideologues. Social liberalism will largely win out even as right-wing economics increasingly dominates - modified just enough to represent these reactionary trends as the sensible middle and the reasonable alternative to the extremes of the far left and the far right.

So a women's right to choose will remain protected and marriage equality will be recognized throughout the land. But the concentrated power of capital will become more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands as the remnants of the New Deal and the Great Society are gradually but relentlessly dismantled recreating the the economic divide of the Victorian Era but without the social prudishness. The new gentry class of the new Gilded Age will be black or white, gay or straight, male or female. But the divide both in terms of wealth and in terms of political power between the haves and have-nots will return to late 19th Century/ early 20th Century levels - but with less prudishness but also less class mobility.

I guess I don't have a very optimistic view of the world. I pray history will prove me wrong. But I honstly don't think it will.

[AndyTiedye]

44. That is the Best We Can Hope For

It requires the Democrats to win everything for about the next two decades.

In that scenario there would still be a way forward, once the Rapeuglican party becomes sufficiently weak
that mounting primary and 3rd-party challenges does not automatically throw the election to them.

I see no discernable sign of this weakening, however. They are utterly destroying us at the state level and in the House. It's all because of gerrymandering, but they get to do that.

If the Rapeuglicans win, it will be more like the 17th century both economically and socially.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. 'Cause what we need is more

third-way, corporate-friendly puppets as we certainly don't have nearly enough already.

[Wabbajack_]

47. Keep our minority 2014!!!

Yay!

[Fearless]

48. DINO's wanted.

Just fucking perfect. I don't care about the party name, just the politics. If it smells like a Republican, acts like a Republican, and votes like a Republican, its still a fucking Republican even if it calls itself a Democrat. Certainly not any small "d" democrat. And that fucking sucks.

[Doctor_J]

51. And you liberals better get out there and vote for them, dammit

Especially if they are in favor of more guns, less health care, and the Keystone XL! Otherwise everything is your fault!

[brooklynite]

56. Let's follow in the footsteps of the Republican Party....

...and nominate ideologically pure candidates everywhere, even in the most mainstream districts.

Because it worked so well for them...

[MrSlayer]

61. It has worked for them.

It's their way or no way in Washington. They're winning.

[brooklynite]

63. So says Senator Akin, Senator Murdock, Senator O'Donnell...

[MrSlayer]

64. Senator Paul, Senator Toomey, Senator Cruz

A massive pack of them in the House.

Their agenda being pushed.

Don't be naive.

[CapnSteve]

57. Two words: Steve Stockman

My (God help me!) representive. He is a total moron, 2nd amendment gut nut, and all around bad actor. Which means the Tea Partiers LOVE him!

He is absolutely beatable, however. Nick Lampson beat him before (also before the reshuffling of districts here - I was not in the district them).

Who beats him, however, is a progressive democrat with populist ideas, not a DINO. We need to wake up the sleeping or frightened democratic majority in this district.

Please oh please oh please oh please!

[yurbud]

60. they LOST the House because of do nothing, Bush ass-kissing corporate Democrats

that was more the case in the Senate than House, however since only a third of the Senate is up at any one time, the resulting voter apathy didn't effect the truly guilty chamber.