OpenLeft: The 2010 elections will hit moderate, conservative House Democrats hardest

[marmar]

The 2010 elections will hit moderate, conservative House Democrats hardest
by: Chris Bowers

Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 16:33


Which House Democrats are in danger in 2010? According to the Cook Political Report, mainly it appears to be Blue Dogs and New Dems, and unaffiliated Democrats:

Cook Political Report's 34 most endangered Democratic incumbents
http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/house/competitive_2009-11-19_12-36-11.php


Given how few Progressives are in danger, in the extended entry I discuss how the 2010 elections are likely to increase Progressive power in the House Democratic caucus.

For hypothetical purposes, if all of these Democrats lost to Republicans, and there was no other switch in the partisan control of any seat in Congress, the power balance within the Democratic House caucus would shift as follows: ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.openleft.com/diary/16118/the-2010-elections-will-hit-moderate-conservative-house-democrats-hardest

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. Take the useless fucks out in the primary, run a REAL Democrat in November.

The most recent election was good for Democrats, not so much for the posers.

[TheWraith]

5. And then LOSE in November.

Most of those seats are occupied by moderate and conservative Democrats for a reason.

[Vincardog]

6. Right and the reason is that Rahm and the DLC supported the Corporate loving ConservaDAWGS

[TheWraith]

7. Do you seriously think they're electing liberals in Wyoming?

Go ahead and run a campaign in the Dakotas or Louisiana that would appeal to DUers and DKos readers. Let's see how it works out.

We don't have to like the Blue Dogs, but we DO have to recognize that it's almost always a choice between them and a Republican. I'll take the Democrat I agree with 75% of the time over any Republican any day.

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. And which DLC'er or Blue Balled Coward actually votes like a Democrat 75% of the time

And please, I'm talking about votes that actually count here, like health care, or endless funding of stupid illegal pointless wars. Not studies of cow farts in Montana or other meaningless crap like that that all these pro-DLC ranking lists like to use to prop up their claims of "voting correctly most of the time".

[Vincardog]

11. I think that an elected Democratic legislator should not side with the REpigLICKERS on procedural

votes. They should not be impeding the Democratic agenda. If they need to vote against the policies for their constituents let them do it in the up or down vote.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Good. Fuck'm.

[AllentownJake]

3. It always works out that way

and the Conservative Democrats never learn...

[unblock]

4. and therein lies the problem

conservative democrats are usually in conservative districts/states and they hope that by acting fairly republican-like that they can neturalize the policy differences and then win based on incumbency advantages, seniority, and being part of the majority (always more useful for bringing home the pork).

this is why reid and pelosi are having such a tough time even with nominally sizeably majorities.

the heart of the problem on the house side is the horribly gerrymandered districting; the redistricting based on the 2010 census should ease this at least somewhat. and on the senate side, the fixed structure itself is already "gerrymandered" with a conservative bias.

[Marr]

8. You won't hear THAT on television.

When these Blue Dogs lose, the consensus opinion will be, "Democrats lost seats! Obviously they must move to the right!".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Good. Maybe the Democrats will try running Democrats against Republicans.

Instead of part-time, sorta, maybe, Democratic timeservers out for an easy buck.

[anonymous171]

12. So it's basically going to be a reverse 2008. nt