WANTED : "Blue Dog" Democrats to run against Comrade Republicans

[kentuck]

Would this be a bad idea?

Could they win enough seats to take over the Democratic Party?

Could they win enough seats to give Democrats a majority in the House and Senate?

What would be the biggest negative to Democrats supporting "Blue Dogs" in conservative districts, such as in the South?

Should the door be opened to these conservative Democrats?

Do Democrats have to give up anything if they support these "Blue Dogs"? What?

[geek tragedy]

1. the votes that Blue Dogs take that matters are at the beginning of each Congress

when they vote for a House Speaker, house rules, etc.

That determines which pieces of legislation get to the house floor.

If a Democrat is speaker, crappy rw pieces of legislation don't get beyond Republican press releases.

[Lee-Lee]

2. Such a simple concept that goes right over the heads of so many here

[geek tragedy]

3. one would think the discomfort of having Blue Dogs within our ranks would be outweighed

by the hatred of having Republicans control Congress.

But, apparently not.

[Sneederbunk]

4. I thought you had to be a Blue Dog to mount a viable campaign in red states.

[onecaliberal]

5. THEY VOTE WITH REPUBLICANS! Are we ever going to learn that?

What does it matter if we win the house back if we can't move legislation because blue dogs are busy supporting the republican positions?

[Johonny]

6. Typically what happens is that when the country is in crisis these blue dogs win

and as soon as whatever crisis allowed their voting base to gloss over their total package, they all get swept out of office in one huge defeat.

1) The pro in running them is for a brief moment sometimes Dems can take leadership and pass real significant legislation.

2) The con is, for huge regions of the country the idea that there's no significant difference between the parties is hard to argue against. Often voters are choosing between two very similar sounding candidates. Even if the conserva-dem supports many parts of the Dem platform it's often the case they can't run on those stances or are afraid to. Meanwhile their pro-choice (etc...) cover stances simply aren't believed by the voters. Meanwhile their opponent gets to run as a Republican and brow beat the conserva-dem as a Nancy Pelosi liberal blah, blah, blah. Yeah, they do win when the chips are down and voters aren't complacent. But when the chips are up...even apparently Donald Trump can win office on the Republican ticket.

Dems would probably be better off in the information age working on controlling information better. The Republicans have built a huge, mostly unchallenged, media empire that's now expanding into the Internet (once a much safer domain for liberals). The Democrats have to be satisfied with the scraps the media throw them. So long as the Supreme Court allows it, they need to look at what conservatives are doing and do it too. The great news for them is reality is on their side. They don't need to be FOX, but they do need to control their own access to media. It's fair game in politics now so they need to start playing ball. They're decades behind and can't rely on Mr. Internet to pull them even any longer.

[Doc Coco]

7. Blue dog Dems?

You have to be JOKING!!!

[kentuck]

8. Why??

...does it have to be a joke?

[Doc Coco]

11. Aligning to the right is not the way to go.

I don't care if the state are conservative. It is the people that needs help and they must vote left of center, not right of center. I consider the party adrift to the right. We need to make a course correction.

[NurseJackie]

9. Fewer "Comrades" in the Senate and House would be a good thing!

I'm VERY MUCH in favor of that.

[mcar]

10. Blue Dogs have given us the majority in the past

If they are not actively legislating against the Democratic platform, I'm all for them.