Skip to main content

View Diary: Meet the 48 Democrats Too Conservative for Their Districts (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it is about far more than the statistics you cite (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice Olson, willyr, kurt

    it is about the issues as they play out in an off year

    it is about the media landscape and what is available on free media

    In Gene Green's case there is a further issue you seem willing to ignore, that he held that seat when it was not so friendly, that he has built up credibility and trust.

    Perhaps it is that I personally know as many Members as I do, and on occasion here them talk about things beyond what you see in raw data.  

    I also think it is more than ridiculous to be listing Gary Peters when he is running for the Senate not to retain his House seat, that he held that House seat even when being heavily targeted by Republicans, and oh by the way he has the thorough backing across the Democratic spectrum for his Senate run.

    I would far rather see efforts made on defeating Republicans in districts won by Obama.  That's where I'd start.  Given the number of seats we need to take control, any efforts made at primarying those who are fairly solid Dems even if not as progressive as you - or I - might prefer - is merely causing self-inflicted wounds.

    When a Dem endorses a Republican, or breaks faith with the party on key votes and it makes a difference, that becomes a different story.  I had no trouble primarying Lieberman for example, nor did I have any trouble when Don McEachin primaried and defeated a sitting but disloyal Democratic state senator in Virginia.

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 02:33:15 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There's Always More (0+ / 0-)

      But our objective is to give progressives scores on each member of congress based on their progressive (or non-progressive) voting record. You're also off a bit regards to the fact that these scores are based off how progressive you or I would like each of these members to be. (I think we would probably like them to be much more progressive.) It's based off of Democratic members voting records in similar districts to mathematically state the minimum in which they can and should be voting progressive.

      And what we're looking to do is factor in as much relevant data as possible to gain a clear picture as to whether or not a member is of high progressive yield based on their district or low progressive yield. If they're low, we assign them a primary score. We don't expect to have our primary score be the be-all-end-all either. Nobody's going to primary a person based off of a number. But we want to be there to provide as much context as possible. Also, if Democrats in whichever member's district like that person as their representative, it's fairly unlikely that a primary challenge will pop up.

      There's also no reason to think that primarying Democrats that should be more progressive and helping Democrats win current Republican seats should be mutually exclusive. Not everybody lives in the same district.

      Again, you can point to Democratic enthusiasm just as much (if not way more, in these districts) as you can point to moderate appeal with regards to November electability.

      Finally, like Enhydra Lutris, I also see no reason why primarying somebody and winning or primarying somebody and losing must result in an automatic loss. If they're a good fit for the Democrats of the district and the voters of the district, then they shouldn't have a problem.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site