Why do "Bluedogs" not run as Republicans?

[kentuck]

They say they live in "red" districts so they have to be more "conservative" in order to win? If that is true, would it not be easier for them to win as Republicans? I have never bought this argument. Since they vote with the Repubs on every important issue, why don't they run as Repubs in a red district?

[havocmom]

1. Possibly because GOP supporters pay them to run as DEMs?

If you have the $$ and want to push an agenda, how better than to assure you get your way no matter who the voters put in office.

[xchrom]

6. +1

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Because we have even further to the right, real Repubs that would get the majority vote. There are

few progressive Democrats in this state. I would call the Bluedogs, moderately conservative Democrats.

[NoSheep]

3. I would guess it is because there are still a lot of people who call themselves Democrats, believe

they are Democrats, but really aren't when it comes down to it. This board is full of them (imho). Which begs the question: What IS a Democrat?

[billyoc]

5. The term "Democrat" is undefinable.

The Democratic party is not a membership organization, you cannot be expelled, so there are no criteria to base a definition on.

[Political Heretic]

7. That is false. The Demoratic Party has a platform.

The Democratic party has a platform. You can base "membership" on that.

[NoSheep]

8. That's a good point. But I'm not sure they follow it.

[Political Heretic]

17. They clearly don't follow it.

But, that begs some other questions.

What's the point of a party platform if you don't have to follow to be a party member?

What's the point of being a "democrat" if it literally, as billy is suggesting, as no definable meaning? If Democrat really doesn't stand for anything, then what's the point? If anyone of any political view can be one then what difference does it make?

[Prophet0621]

23. Moderates not true Dems?

Must everyone who aligns themselves with the Democratic party march lock step in line with each and every issue and the proposed method of achievement? Debate and dissension can be good and healthy in my opinion. These same "blue dog" Democrats were welcomed with open arms prior to the Dems taking back control of the House and Senate and considered a breath of fresh air by many. Now they are being tossed to the wolves for not towing the line on each and every issue they are told to follow in the 'platform' or being to moderate. Sad that Moderates are only welcome when control is lost.

[Political Heretic]

30. I didn't say that. I didn't say what a "true dem" was or wasn't. Maybe liberals aren't "true" Dem

It's just absurd that there is NO definition of what Democrat means - that means its meaningless.

[Prophet0621]

32. Now I understand your position

I've read through your other posts on this topic and clearly see where you're coming from. My misunderstanding to the point you were making prior to my earlier reply. I agree there is not a coherent or consistent definition and many seem to make their own of what is and is not a Democrat.

[billyoc]

10. I could base it on being left-handed, too. The Democrats have no membership requirements.

[Political Heretic]

16. Then there's no point to a party platform.

And there's no point to being a Democrat.

[billyoc]

25. In the most technical sense, there IS no point to being a Democrat or a Republican.

Both parties have platforms, but I'm free to vote against any or all of them without affecting my party affiliation.

[elocs]

13. One can define "Democrat" as strictly and narrowly as you believe

therefore one can tag anyone who does not agree with them or who is to the right of them as not really being a "Democrat". Such power (nice "imho" though--you seldom see that here).

[Political Heretic]

18. Then there's no point to being a "Democrat" at all.

[elocs]

26. But who gets to decide? Who gets to place themselves in the position of saying

"I am a Democrat, but you are not"? I think one of the differences between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans like to make their tent as small and as exclusionary as they can. Don't toe the line just right and you cannot be a Republican (actually, this sounds kind of like Liberals, too). Democrats tend to be more inclusive and agree to disagree.

[Political Heretic]

29. I don't really care. If no one can even define what a Democrat is, then there's no fucking point.

[elocs]

31. Well then, we should appoint you as the One who gets to officially decide who gets to be a Democrat.

Then you could purge everyone to the right of you (that's the direction it usually works).

[Political Heretic]

35. I don't care who we "appoint." Just someone tell me what the democratic party stands for

and then I can accept or reject that. Right now, it doesn't stand for anything that I'm aware of. There's no definition of what being a "Democrat" means.

I'm happy to be "purged" if that's what is decided. The Democratic party would officially stand for positions that are to the right of me. That's cool, I'd just like it to mean something rather than what it is right now, where it means absolutely nothing.

[elocs]

37. Democrats are all to the left of where the Republicans won't allow them to be Republicans.

There is a similarity here though. Republicans try and push those within their party that they perceive to be too "Liberal" to the Democrats, and there are Democrats who want to push those in their party that they perceive as being too conservative into the Republican Party. Hmmm, maybe we are more alike than I first thought.

[ellenfl]

38. dems have been out of power BECAUSE they don't toe the line.

dems, imo, are truly the big tent party of the individual where republicans are small tent in lockstep. i see dems as wanting to help everyone and republicans want everyone to help themselves. that does not mean that dems have to agree on every issue like republicans have trained themselves to do.

personally, i think we need at least 3 'parties': conservative (republican?), moderate (centrist) and progressive (democratic).

ellen fl

[Prophet0621]

15. Differing opinions are good

Good question, "What IS a democrat?" What's the definition? I have debated this with some friends of mine from both sides (and the middle) of the political spectrum. My Conservative friends are also having a similar discussion. It seems the lines have blurred a bit which in my opinion is a good thing.
Disagreeing with a generally Democratic issue, or even a particular direction our elected officials are taking on an issue does not make one any less a Democrat. Isn't debate within the party a good thing? I always held the impression it was. I don't think we should simply follow along with what we're told we should. I have friends on both sides who will blindly accept without question what they are expected to believe based on the party they associate themselves with. Personally I think they are doing a great disservice and it's insanely irritating but that's just my opinion.
Blue dog Democrats I simply consider moderate Democrats. Someone who generally aligns themselves with the Democratic party but is not going to tow the line on each and every issue before them. I may not always agree with them but I do respect them, more so than most of our other elected officials who will stoop to any level to tow a line and complete an agenda.

[Political Heretic]

21. If you're confused about what you political believe don't join a party.

America would be better if it had multiple parties and those parties clearly represented a fairly structured ideology. People can figure out these basic "what is the meaning of life" type questions before they join a party.

You talk about the greatness of differing opinions, but you're missing something critical. In order for anything to work there must be agreement in the essentials but freedom in the nonessentials. If you don't have agreement in the basic essentials of what makes your party "your" party - then you've got nothing.

Right now the Democratic Party can't even agree on what its essentials are. It's won the last round of elections, primarily due to Republicans fucking up so bad, wars that failed and America was sick of, an economy that collapsed on their watch, and an exceptionally weak candidate running against an exceptionally strong politician.

None of those are a foundation for long term success of the party.

Again, right now you can't even get agreement on what are the "essential" positions of the Democratic Party. There's nothing that makes someone a "Democrat." Right now, Democrat can mean anything under the sun, which makes it weak and ineffective. I repeat, of course there needs to be room for debate and different opinions within any organization - but there needs to be balance between that and a fundamental mission, with some key definitions where one can say "we may disagree on these other issues, but these core principles define Democrats - if you don't support these things, you belong in a different party.

Democrats couldn't define what those would be right now, and that's a real problem. Not something to be proud of.

[LuvNewcastle]

4. They have a lot more freedom to vote

however they please as Democrats. Republicans have to march in lockstep.

[LeftishBrit]

9. I would guess ...

that it's because they aren't far-right ENOUGH to be selected as Republican candidates in those sorts of areas.

I am not American, and my contacts with America are mostly not with 'Blue Dog' type areas; but it always seems as though moderate Republicans are always getting tossed out in the primaries, in favour of extremists. Isn't that why Specter switched parties - because he would have lost the primary to someone to the right of Attila the Hun?

[Individualist]

11. They can do more damage

to the Democratic party by posing as Democrats while supporting republican policies.

[Fire1]

12. Exactly. Infiltration. n/t

[crickets]

14. +1

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Because they agree with the Democrats on more issues than they do with the Republicans

[Echo In Light]

20. Ensuring strategies that favor the right

[stray cat]

22. have you seen conservative repubs?

[tritsofme]

24. You must enjoy life in the minority.

This is the only way at present for Democrats to build a majority coalition in Congress.

We have this majority because moderate Democrats now occupy seats once held by Republicans.

If that's not good enough for you, well then we can get people like Tom Delay and his cronies to run Congress again, not very many other options.

[Political Heretic]

33. What difference does a majority make?

Frankly, I'd rather Tom Delay and his cronies ran congress again if it was because Democrats actually represented some core agreement around key positions and thus lost some seats in the beginning in districts better represented by a different political viewpoint. I'd rather do that, and then campaign, work and persuade the electorate to why Democrat ideas were better, and build slowly build a new majority that means something.

Or, as I said above, maybe it would be decided that the core principles of the Democratic party were things that didn't represent me. That's fine. I'd just like to know, and I'd like a party that actually stood for something rather than nothing.

[fascisthunter]

27. stealth

insuring the upper class gets what they want when they want it, when Dems are in the majority. Its a win win scenario for corporations and the wealthy.

[Fla_Democrat]

28. Well, if FL, house district 2 is any indication

It's because of history and closed primaries, but that's just what I've gathered talking to people here. :shrug:

[tekisui]

34. $$$

The can get funding from the Democrats, and win as a Democrat. They would lose in the current political climate if they ran as a repuke.

[SoCalDem]

36. which is why we need a new party system..

conservatives
christian freakazoids
moderates
progressives..

[leftstreet]

39. Because it wouldn't like there were 2 parties n/t

[RBInMaine]

40. Some blue dogs are fiscally conservative but actually progressive on other issues. i.e. Michaud

Mike Michaud from Maine is very populist and progressive on many issus, but a fiscal conservative and somewhat conservative on a few other issues too, but mostly votes with Dems. Not all blue dogs are alike. Can't lump them all together.

[KharmaTrain]

41. Speaks To How Far Off The Right Edge The GOOP Is...

On the scope of the "modern" rushpublican party, Blue Dogs would be considered moderates and many would have never made it through the primaries. Some found this an easier way to win...back when the Democrats were on the verge of veto proof rushpublican majorities in both houses, but overall, most are still to far to the "left" of this current GOOP.

[TheKentuckian]

42. Have you seen the run of the mill Republican or certainly a far right one?

Come on this is a party whose base seriously considers people like Ridge and McCain liberals. When McCain is even seen as middle of the road they your waaaaaaaaaaay out on the fringe. Many refuse to look at this on a micro level and at the districts and states these reps come from and quickly forget that some of these races were fucking miracles.

Many times a Bluedog will be pretty damn far to the left of the competition they run against and still be to the right of the center of the party, much less of DU.