Begich, Pryor, Heitkamp, Baucus

[Recursion]

These are the four Democrats who voted against the expansion of background checks.

They represent four of the redder states out there (AK, AR, ND, MT). It is not clear (to me) that someone who supported the background check expansion could win (84% of Americans may support expanded background checks, but few of them live in North Dakota), but then again maybe they could.

A poll: should we as national Democrats strongly support a primary challenge against them? (NB: all of them except Heitkamp are up for re-election in 2014.)

EDITING TO ADD: Reid also voted Nay, but has legitimate procedural reasons for doing so (it affects how he can bring the bill to the floor following the failure of the amendment).

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	No. Anyone to the left of them would lose, and we must keep the Senate
	1 (20%)
	Yes. A more progressive candidate could win in those states
	0 (0%)
	Yes. A more progressive candidate could not win statewide, but we need to stand on this principle
	1 (20%)
	No, for a reason other than #1
	0 (0%)
	Yes, for a reason other than #2 or #3
	0 (0%)
	We should leave that to the Democrats of their states
	3 (60%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[name not needed]

1. You forgot Reid.

[Recursion]

2. Reid had to vote Nay for procedural reasons

I'll edit to add that, but I left that out for a reason.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

3. Why vote no? It's not like people who are against background checks would vote for them anyway. n/t

[graham4anything]

4. Too bad Chelsea don't live in Arkansas. She could primary and then win.

80-20 is coming democratic. Once its 65, 70, then it's time for the worst to go.
So it will be a few cycles still.

The question with Pryor though is-he is going to most likely lose either way.
As such, why not primary him for someone better.

Then throw tens of millions to the person in the general, and flood Arkansas with ads
24/7/365.

If Pryor is going to lose anyhow, why the hell not attempt to send a better message?

As for Reid- hell no, I don't want to see him go. Harry is a master technician, and the person most missing from the Dems is Teddy Kennedy.
What is really needed is for Warren to be the liberal voice agianst guns in the congress.
She can be the new Teddy for the next 18-24 years if she wants to stay in office that long.

[Recursion]

5. Begich and Pryor are both stretches for us, unfortunately

Though Alaska is so idiosyncratic I always hesitate to make predictions (who the hell could have predicted Murkowski's stunning win?)

[graham4anything]

6. We could do better with attempting to pick up some red states

I have never understood why Collins didn't change sides (same with Snowe when she was in office. She was left of Joe Lieberman.)

2016 because of who is running of the 1/3 will be easier in the senate.

The house is ripe for changeover though. This will make it easier.
house races can be more easily bought, and if you ask me, the challengers should be women.

Women in red states can vote different than the NRA male.
The Conn. School shooting resonated nationwide.

The house doesn't need all that many changeovers to go blue.

[cyclezealot]

7. the vote was disgusting

but, gotta face facts. the problem with some state's : its not the politicians but the people. Certain states are full of paranoia among its gun nut majority. The problem is not the politicians in some cases but our people.
Example of Begich. is he all bad.. He's the senator trying to raise the upper limit to include the rich in our Fica taxes. That is a brave move in a Congress fixated on austerity. Do we really want to loose Begich..
So whom should we attack.. Lobbying and the power of money.. Money scares the s' out of politicians. take away the role of money and maybe they'd act differently.

[bornskeptic]

10. Pryor will probably win comfortably.

Despite its record in presidential elections, Arkansas has appreciably more registered Democrats than Republicans. The Republicans didn't even run a candidate against him in 2008. If he can get 40% of the Independent vote, he'll win. A few supporting appearances by Bill Clinton should seal the deal.
I have to agree with you on Begich, though.

[Laelth]

8. It's not that someone to the left of these folks couldn't win.

They could. The American people are, by and large, liberal (on nearly every issue--just not gun control). On that issue, there is a clear urban/rural divide, and I do not blame rural-state politicians for toeing the NRA line.

I think gun control is a losing issue for Democrats, and I'd like to see the national party take a neutral stance on this issue, or, at the very least, take a federalist stance (i.e. this is an issue that should be left to the states to decide).

While I am a die-hard liberal, I do not support gun control at all in this political climate, not because I oppose gun control in principle, but because it's a losing issue. It's just another wedge, and it's a very effective one. I am willing to let go on this one so as to focus on other, more pressig, issues.

This may seem calloused and calculated, and it is, but we need to win at the polls in all 50 states. The Democratic Party's perceived stance on gun control does great damage to liberal interests.

-Laelth

[rucky]

9. Bottom line: The opposition to this bill were lying

These senators knew that opposition to the bill was based on NRA lies, but they still voted the will of mislead, reactionary people. That's a character flaw in my book. Their seats would be less fragile over one vote, if they took some action to speak the truth to their constituents.

[Bucky]

11. I think we'd do better to concentrate fire on Republicans rather than "purging the party"

91% of the problem is Republicans voting against the will of the public. Let's get our priorities straight.

[geek tragedy]

12. Ignore those states. Can't primary them, but don't donate either.

Heitkamp et al don't deserve our help.