"Working to defeat the Blue Dogs"?

[Telly Savalas]

I was reading a thread where someone mentioned that we're working to defeat the Blue Dogs. Rather than trying to hijack a Stupak thread, I thought I'd respond to this statement by starting a new thread.

Working to defeat the Blue Dogs entails supporting successful challenges to such candidates in the primaries. In what Congressional districts are such challenges taking place? These primaries are just months away so such challenges need to be starting now if they haven't already.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5840/2010-sortable-congressional-filing-deadline-primary-calendar

It's easy to make broad declarations about tossing the Blue Dogs out, but such proclamations are just words unless people on the ground in these districts field viable candidates to unseat the incumbents. So where is this happening?

[Gman]

1. Oh no. It's a lot more than just

"Working to defeat the Blue Dogs entails supporting successful challenges to such candidates in the primaries." It also means winning the General Election. You're going to try try to beat a Democrat that has proven he/she can win in the GE in a generally moderate/conservative district with someone that is likely very liberal and has no track record of winning a congressional seat in a general election.

That's messed up.

[Telly Savalas]

5. I agree that you need a viable candidate who can win in the general.

My question is where are we seeing such primary candidates. Maybe I don't read DU closely enough, but I see tons of general statements about replacing Blue Dogs, but almost nothing in the way of specifics.

[Warpy]

7. Brian Schweitzer

In case you don't know who he is, he ran as an unmitigated progressive in one of the most Republican states in the country--MONTANA--and he won.

He is the future of the party if the party bosses and timid, nervous nellies will step aside and let the party take it.

He's proof that Democrats who run as Democrats can win in conservative, Republican states.

And that's why dumping Blue Dogs in the primaries is going to work.

[Telly Savalas]

10. So who are the Brian Schweitzers for 2010?

On edit: sorry for dancing around the point, but this question is pretty much the point of this thread.

[Kaleva]

11. Schweitzer is pro-gun

[Warpy]

14. AND?

Sheesh.

[Kaleva]

15. How do you then define "progressive"?

His active promotion of the mining industry in Montana wouldn't,IMHO, be considered "progressive" by many here at DU.

[Warpy]

20. Certainly on more than one issue

and taking local context into account.

People out west need their guns. It's still wild out here.

[Gman]

8. Viable means one thing:

Big $$$$$$$$$$$$.

Purists here on DU will say it doesn't matter if the blue dog's primary opponent can win in November because they'd rather have a Republican in the seat than compromise their "principles".

[customerserviceguy]

2. I'd venture to say

that in the districts with Blue Dogs, especially those that were in GOP hands two or three elections ago, any candidate more progressive than the BD would lose to a moderate Republican.

There are some districts that are just on the fence that way, and short of moving to them, there's really not much that we can do about that.

[Kaleva]

6. liberals can't get any traction with the Dem base in the district I live in.

[doc03]

3. So you want to do what the Republicans are doing

My Congressman is a Blue dog and he voted in favor of the HCR. In this district if you try and unseat the Blue Dog you will get a Republican. I would imagine you will find the same in most of the other Districts, they are conservative Districts that's why they are Blue dogs. What you are proposing would be comparable to the one in NY the Republicans just lost.

[Telly Savalas]

9. That's not what I want to do.

I recognize the constraints that exist, and agree that in most districts you're probably not going to do too much better than the Blue Dog.

Usually in conservative districts, the Democrats are pretty attuned to their local political climate and aren't going to field a candidate that has no hope of winning the general. In light of this, where are local Democrats fielding primary challengers?

[doc03]

12. I am glad you recognize that. My District was Bob Ney's

old District and a Blue Dog is about as good as can be expected. Charlie Wilson did vote for the HCR bill and he took quite a chance since the district was probably overwhelmingly opposed to it.

[TwilightZone]

4. In many cases, Blue Dogs got elected in their districts for a reason.

And, it's not because they're liberal.

[dflprincess]

13. And some areas elected a blue dog because that's who the party establishment picked and pushed on us

Amy Klobuchar is good example of that. The liberal who was running against her for endorsement was completely shut out of the process by both the national and state party machinery. Klobuchar won with nearly 65% of the vote in Minnesota, a liberal could have taken that seat.

The party hacks all pay homage to Wellstone, but there's no way the DLC types who are running things want someone like him elected again.

[Ardent15]

16. GREAT point.

Seriously. Liberals get shut out of the process.

[donco]

17. My district has Claire McCaskill sitting

in a seat once occupied by John Ashcroft sure wouldn’t want another Ashcroft.

[aikanae]

18. The state DNC won't support a liberal or running against an incumbent

It's party politics more than anything else. That's who chooses who people get to vote for or against.
The state DNC won't support liberals very often and they won't support anyone running against an incumbent.
Way to many races go unopposed.

[nashville_brook]

19. Spector will be challenged.