Another Blue Dog Bites the Dust

[Velleity]

Full Article Here

WASHINGTON -- It was a not-so-super Tuesday for Pennsylvania's Blue Dog Democrats.

Reps. Tim Holden (D-Pa.) and Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), both members of the dwindling conservative Democratic coalition, lost their primary races on Tuesday. Before the defeat of the two incumbents, there were just 25 Blue Dogs left in Congress, after the coalition's members were wiped out in the 2010 election.

Holden lost to progressive candidate Matt Cartwright, an attorney who attacked the incumbent for voting against President Barack Obama's health care reform. Holden is the second House member to lose to a newcomer in the 2012 primaries. The other lawmaker was Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio). Both were also targeted by the anti-incumbent super PAC, the Campaign for Primary Accountability.

Getting a progressive Democrat into Pennsylvania's newly redrawn 17th Congressional District was a priority for progressive groups, including MoveOn and the League of Conservation Voters. The latter ran the largest independent expenditure campaign in the race, which included a $230,000 TV ad buy on broadcast and cable networks in the Scranton media market. The spot criticized Holden for opposing Obama's clean energy plan.

The League of Conservation Voters "targeted Representative Tim Holden for defeat explicitly because he has opposed policies that will curb harmful global warming pollution and build a clean energy economy," said Gene Karpinski, the group president. "Tim Holden is the first candidate this cycle to lose because he is out of the mainstream on global warming and clean energy, but he won't be the last.”

[Velleity]

Good riddance, I say.

[jaxx]

I agree, good riddance. We need Democrats holding those D seats, not people who vote with the R's.

[Brewman_Jax]

If they want to be repubs, they can do like the scumbags in the state legislature and change their party affiliations. We don't need anymore DINO's.

[suzie]

Will the Blue Dog be replaced by a Republican? Is that really better?

My Blue Dog congressman was much hated by "progressives." He lost last time around to a really awful, far, far, far right wing Tea Partier.

Although I disagreed with this congressman a lot and was displeased with many of his votes, on a lot of issues he voted for Democratic legislation. In fact, he often voted with Democrats when progressive favorite Dennis Kucinich voted with the Republicans.

His replacement is one of the most conservative guys even within the Tea Party class of 2010.

We'll likely never get another Democrat in that seat--maybe some can consider that a good thing. I simply can't.

[Peacetrain]

fingers crossed this works good.. if blue dogs are replaced with tea party.. it is a lose lose game.

I will take 80% over 0% any given day.

But if we can get a Democrat in there with a capital D who will not cave on critical votes.. that is even better.

Just have to know what the local populace is and the chances of getting enough people to back you up.

Many blue dogs were originally much more liberal..but the constituency they represented demanded a move to the middle.

[jaxx]

(04-25-2012 09:13 AM)suzie Wrote:  Will the Blue Dog be replaced by a Republican? Is that really better?

My Blue Dog congressman was much hated by "progressives." He lost last time around to a really awful, far, far, far right wing Tea Partier.

Although I disagreed with this congressman a lot and was displeased with many of his votes, on a lot of issues he voted for Democratic legislation. In fact, he often voted with Democrats when progressive favorite Dennis Kucinich voted with the Republicans.

His replacement is one of the most conservative guys even within the Tea Party class of 2010.

We'll likely never get another Democrat in that seat--maybe some can consider that a good thing. I simply can't.

I think the idea is that the winner of the Democratic primary will win in Nov. The voters obviously like the idea of someone other than the two who lost. Newly redrawn districts don't always mean the incumbent will survive....look at Kucinich.

[Velleity]

Of course a reasonable conservative is better than a radical right "conservative". I assume the local Democrats know what they're doing in their primary, so if they're booting the Blue Dog I assume that they believe they can win with the person they're putting up as their candidate.

I would also assume that Teabaggers are going to be suffering the same kind of fate as the Blue Dogs. I believe our base is motivated and if that's true, we're going to win a lot of seats. If we vote, we win.

If the base isn't motivated then I'm stunned and speechless.

[janedrake]

I hope the Cartwright campaign is ready for the onslaught of GOP "J'Accuse!" ads that will try to smear him as a, gasp!, trial lawyer (I read on ThinkProgress that he's a personal injury lawyer.) I can see the Koch-fueled minions smacking their lips now and poring over any TV ads he may have put up as an injury lawyer. On the plus side, it's pretty cool that he has the same last name as the beloved Bonanza TV family.

[Willinois]

Great news! This is how to move Congress left instead of hopeless third party campaigns.

[Willinois]

(04-25-2012 09:13 AM)suzie Wrote:  Will the Blue Dog be replaced by a Republican? Is that really better?

My Blue Dog congressman was much hated by "progressives." He lost last time around to a really awful, far, far, far right wing Tea Partier.

Yes, it is better.
First, because it sends a message to other Democrats that they may be defeated if they consistently oppose Democratic policies. They won't be so quick to vote against the party if they're afraid of losing a primary. That's how we avoid having a "Democratic" Congress that blocks half of Obama's agenda.
And let's remember, those conservative Democrats blocking Obama's agenda are why many Dem voters stayed home in 2010. They had nothing to vote for. We can thank the blue dogs who held Obama back for the tea party landslide.

Second, sometimes it's better in the long run to let Republicans have a seat for one or two terms and come back to defeat them with a decent Democrat in a future election. It's very difficult to take out an incumbent in the primary no matter how bad of a Democrat he/she is. Odds of defeating an extremist Republican in the general election are better.

The failures of Obama's first two years should be enough of a lesson to everyone that it's not enough to elect just anyone with a D next to their name.

[KonaKane]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass, Blue Dawgies.

[yowzayowzayowza]

I'd love to add a progressive to the Tx Dem Congressional crew, but would certainly consider a blue dog an upgrade to the current line of repukes.

[suzie]

I couldn't disagree more.

To me, it's this attitude, "just go ahead and lose the seat and maybe sometime in the future we'll get it back," that has lost the Democratic Party statehouse after statehouse. This has enabled Republicans to control redistricting, which allows them to retain Congressional seats election after election.

Democrats who have insisted on ideological purity in their candidates have already ceded whole groups of statehouses to Republicans, which makes it highly unlikely that many of the seats will ever be available to a Democrat again.

I don't blame the Blue Dogs for the 2010 electoral losses. There were a lot of causes, but the constant noise from so-called progressive Democrats that Obama is worthless, that there is no difference between the two parties were just as harmful as anything the Blue Dogs ever did.

Plus, no matter how much people who live in blue districts in blue states want to tell us that in their fantasy world, people in conservative districts will elect the candidate that they'd choose, it just doesn't happen that way.

What does happen is that the more you lose, the fewer people who are wiling to run, the smaller the organization that you have to help people run. Losing doesn't breed winning, it breeds losing.

[KonaKane]

I have to disagree with you on this one, suzie.

What I see happening is a political force moving Democratism in the South to the left, which means closer to it's true orientation in regards to the rest of the nation. The old Democratic conservatives are losing their jobs because people are coming around to the truth that the blue doggies help the GOP as much as they ever help the donkeys.

Southern Democratic ideology is being reframed, the narrative is being pushed left, and frankly that's a good thing. The era of "well that's the only way it can work for Democrats in the South" is obviously wrapping up.

[sandnsea]

Well at least the people in the district will hear what real Democrats want. It might take a few cycles, but that is the only thing that will ultimately break the back of the right wing rhetoric the Blue Dogs have been feeding back to their people. Joe Manchin comes to mind. I get the people in WV need coal jobs, but that in itself isn't enough to excuse some of his stupid stances on Obama's policies and just downright hatefulness.

[suzie]

(04-25-2012 05:42 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  I have to disagree with you on this one, suzie.

Southern Democratic ideology is being reframed, the narrative is being pushed left, and frankly that's a good thing. The era of "well that's the only way it can work for Democrats in the South" is obviously wrapping up.

Actually, I wasn't thinking about the South at all in this discussion. We're talking about Blue Dogs in Pennsylvania. I was thinking about them in any red state or red part of a blue state.

I think that whether you call them Blue Dogs or whatever, you're going to have moderate Democrats elected from moderate/conservative areas or you'll always get Republicans in those areas.

I was also thinking of Wisconsin, where the kinds of folks who want to just "wait a few cycles" are discovering that when Republicans get in power they change the rules, they redistrict, they make all kinds of election rules that permanently harm Democratic chances. At least that's what I hear from people who are very involved with what's happened in Wisconsin.

There are candidates that certainly should be voted out of office, whether Blue Dogs or fake progressives like Dennis Kucinich, or just corrupt jerks. But I wonder if people from outside the district who want to see a candidate lose because they think they're a Blue Dog or whatever really take a serious look at that candidate's voting record. I did compare Kucinich once with my Blue Dog congressperson's record and was surprised at how much more he voted with the Democrats on issues that are of importance to me than Kucinich--who voted more often with the Republicans.

And yet, I doubt that anyone from Moveon.org or many of the prominent "progressive" voices would ever consider that my guy's record was in many ways the better one. Because a lot of what even "progressive", liberal Democrats think about various congresspeople is a lot based on media spin.

But, even my congressperson lost primarily because he was redistricted out of office by Republicans, who kept increasing the Republican footprint in his district, not because of his philosophical differences with liberal Democrats.

[Treestar]

I think we need the people in the middle elected, in order to get things done. That person will be replaced with a Republican, and that adds to the chance Rs hold Congress. Even if the more progressive D wins, they won't get much done, as the rest of Congress may be R or with more moderate Democrats.

That's how we have showdowns over every single budget. Both sides preferring their extremists who won't "cave" (compromise).

[Velleity]

(04-26-2012 07:42 AM)Treestar Wrote:  I think we need the people in the middle elected, in order to get things done. That person will be replaced with a Republican, and that adds to the chance Rs hold Congress. Even if the more progressive D wins, they won't get much done, as the rest of Congress may be R or with more moderate Democrats.

That's how we have showdowns over every single budget. Both sides preferring their extremists who won't "cave" (compromise).

Pendulums swing. What's true today isn't necessarily true 5 or 10 years from now. Right now we don't need baby splitting. Right now we need to make Republicans pay the price for being radical and extreme.

[Treestar]

But how? If they are part of a Congressional majority, they won't pay a thing. Or even just 40 of them in the Senate (at least for President Obama. I wonder if the president elected in 2016, likely to be white, will have this problem? Maybe, if it is a woman).