Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This Civil War has been going on for a long time..........including the last elections and the GOP has gained ground while this is going on..............The Civil War has been going on for a while now.............Against the Status Quo aka the RINO'S.......and more of the same..............There's a distinct possibility of another perot like schism among conservatives. With this playing out like a Chris Rock joke:
"Whose more politically hateful? Conservatives or Liberals?
Conservatives.... You know why? Cause conservatives hate the GOP too.
Everything Liberals don't like about the GOP,
Conservatives really don't like about the GOP.
There some shit goin on with the GOP right now
There's like a civil war goin on with conservatives.
And there two sides....
There's Conservatives, and there's Republicans.
And Republicans have got to go. "
The Dems had a small civil war of their own............Blue Dogs........who dared to not toe the line...........not many left of them now is there........................
There's a huge difference. In the case of Blue Dog democrats, they weren't purged from the democratic party. They just lost their elections.
The GOP is turning on itself. With conservatives defining by narrower and narrower criteria who is and isn't a conservative. With purity tests being the standard rather than the exception. You don't build coalitions with 'purity tests'. You built outliers and impotent ideologues with purity tests.
The Dems didn't go out of their way to save the Blue Dogs, and yes the Blue Dogs run in more conservative states and got the axe because of the left's policies especially Obamacare...............
Bullshit. The DNC invested heavily in those races because they were so contested. In virtually every instance, at least as much money was spent by the DNC for these Blue Dog democrats after the Obamacare vote than before. And in most cases, far more. The exceptions you could count on one hand, missing a finger or two.
That's not a 'purge'. That's blue dog democrats losing elections.
The Dems toe the line and vote party line MOST OF THE TIME...........The GOP have those who cross the line more often............But the status quo holds power..........both parties.
The Democrat discipline is the main reason that the majorities in the House and Senate haven't amounted to much for Republicans.
Liberals[edit]
Some in the Democratic Party's liberal wing promote primary challenges against Blue Dog Coalition members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.[citation needed] The editors of the left-wing weblog OpenLeft refer to Blue Dog Democrats who voted for war funding in May 2007[32] and voted to grant the Executive branch warrantless wiretapping powers[33] as "Bush Dogs".[34][35] Others in the party[who?] view these individuals as "Republicans in Democrats Clothing".
Membership
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half by the 2010 Election, in which 26 members were re-elected but 28 were either defeated or chose not to run for re-election.
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half again for the 113th Congress. Of the 27 Blue Dogs, 3 resigned (Giffords, Cardoza and Harman), while 10 chose not to run for re-election or were defeated. Of the remaining 14 members Adam Schiff left the coalition, but Pete Gallego (Texas), Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), Ron Barber (Arizona), Nick Rahall (West Virginia), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Cheri Bustos (Illinois) joined them for the 113th Congress.
Freshman Blue Dogs in the House are sometimes nicknamed "Blue Pups".[11]
I remember the back lash from the hard line dems on their failure to toe the line...........they are almost all gone.................and your side was prepared to throw them under the bus..........
They are almost the same as the term RINO for the Democratic sign.............
I remember Pelosi saying they would take losses for Obamacare.............and said they are willing to accept those losses................aka the Blue Dogs are gonna get hammered for this policy.
The only difference since they are from your party your side doesn't go around calling them the American Taliban like your side does to the Tea Party.
As much as Liberals might try people outside of hard-core Hillary supporters aren't going to attribute Trump's remarks to the other candidates.
yea I agree, I am going to give you a lot more credit, but what he is doing is. taking all the hits and they are bouncing off of himTo give T-Rump some credit he seems to have driven a wedge between FauxNoise and the rabid extremist rightwingers, albeit unintentionally.
Yes, his campaign is starting to show cracks and Stone was right that T-Rump is surrounded by Yes-men who don't dare to tell him the truth.
Given that scenario T-Rump is still convinced that he in 100% correct and the rest of the world is out of step with him and his sycophantic followers. So when he drops in the polls, and yes I am making that call now ahead of the data, he will blame everyone but himself.
At this point the odds of him running a 3rd party campaign are looking considerably better IMO.
As far as the damage he is causing goes that is going to be interesting to analyze. Cruz has staked himself out as the heir apparent to T-Rump's supporters when he leaves and he will discover that T-Rump will take the majority with him for his 3rd party run. Cruz will be left with slim pickings and a decision to make whether to go with T-Rump or stay in the GOP that he has alienated against himself.
FauxNoise will see ratings drop too. Not significantly because there is no alternative but perhaps Glen Beck can find a way to capitalize on this opportunity.
The rest of the GOP field will breathe a sigh of relief until they figure out that the base they were relying upon has decamped. That won't be good news, even for Bush the 3rd.
That is my 2 cents worth of crystal ball gazing and yes, I could be wrong and T-Rump could have a Come to Jesus moment and kiss and make up with the GOP and FauxNoise but that is not his style. He might just walk away and not run 3rd party but again, that is not his style. So while those are possibilities I don't see them happening at present.
No one can take it like he has, it's fascinating
He is shielding the true candidates and it's only August 2015.
Those hits might be bouncing off him and solidifying the part of his base that agrees with him 100% but they are shredding his support amongst those who were listening to his populist rhetoric. They aren't as likely to continue to support him when he goes out on a limb and insults 51% of the voters in this nation. And yes, that is exactly what he did when he accused Kelly of "bleeding".
Those kinds of remarks don't "shield" the rest of the GOP field in any positive way. They are shielded from getting the kind of attention they need to grow support for their campaigns and that is a net negative. They are also getting splattered with the damage that T-Rump is doing to the GOP brand. That too is a net negative.
Right now the GOP is still doing a great imitation of a circular firing squad and the longer it keeps going the greater the harm. Priebus must be hiding under his bed waiting for this all to be over because there is nothing that he can do to stop the damage. To his credit he did issue warnings about this but they were ignored and now the party is paying the price.
Only time will tell us how much of a price but it won't be cheap in terms of election results in 2016 IMO.
I want the RINO's of the Status quo's HEADS MOUNTED ON THE WALL................Trophy mounts..............to the career politicians that have taken our country to the brink of ruin..................This Civil War has been going on for a long time..........including the last elections and the GOP has gained ground while this is going on..............The Civil War has been going on for a while now.............Against the Status Quo aka the RINO'S.......and more of the same..............
The Dems had a small civil war of their own............Blue Dogs........who dared to not toe the line...........not many left of them now is there........................
There's a huge difference. In the case of Blue Dog democrats, they weren't purged from the democratic party. They just lost their elections.
The GOP is turning on itself. With conservatives defining by narrower and narrower criteria who is and isn't a conservative. With purity tests being the standard rather than the exception. You don't build coalitions with 'purity tests'. You built outliers and impotent ideologues with purity tests.
The Dems didn't go out of their way to save the Blue Dogs, and yes the Blue Dogs run in more conservative states and got the axe because of the left's policies especially Obamacare...............
Bullshit. The DNC invested heavily in those races because they were so contested. In virtually every instance, at least as much money was spent by the DNC for these Blue Dog democrats after the Obamacare vote than before. And in most cases, far more. The exceptions you could count on one hand, missing a finger or two.
That's not a 'purge'. That's blue dog democrats losing elections.
The Dems toe the line and vote party line MOST OF THE TIME...........The GOP have those who cross the line more often............But the status quo holds power..........both parties.
The Democrat discipline is the main reason that the majorities in the House and Senate haven't amounted to much for Republicans.
Liberals[edit]
Some in the Democratic Party's liberal wing promote primary challenges against Blue Dog Coalition members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.[citation needed] The editors of the left-wing weblog OpenLeft refer to Blue Dog Democrats who voted for war funding in May 2007[32] and voted to grant the Executive branch warrantless wiretapping powers[33] as "Bush Dogs".[34][35] Others in the party[who?] view these individuals as "Republicans in Democrats Clothing".
Membership
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half by the 2010 Election, in which 26 members were re-elected but 28 were either defeated or chose not to run for re-election.
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half again for the 113th Congress. Of the 27 Blue Dogs, 3 resigned (Giffords, Cardoza and Harman), while 10 chose not to run for re-election or were defeated. Of the remaining 14 members Adam Schiff left the coalition, but Pete Gallego (Texas), Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), Ron Barber (Arizona), Nick Rahall (West Virginia), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Cheri Bustos (Illinois) joined them for the 113th Congress.
Freshman Blue Dogs in the House are sometimes nicknamed "Blue Pups".[11]
I remember the back lash from the hard line dems on their failure to toe the line...........they are almost all gone.................and your side was prepared to throw them under the bus..........
They are almost the same as the term RINO for the Democratic sign.............
I remember Pelosi saying they would take losses for Obamacare.............and said they are willing to accept those losses................aka the Blue Dogs are gonna get hammered for this policy.
The only difference since they are from your party your side doesn't go around calling them the American Taliban like your side does to the Tea Party.
Sounds to me that the right wingers are jealous!!
Want the moderates to roll over and play dead for you? Want them to flip in circles and attack on command? Oh poor right wingers, we already sent the moderates that don't play ball into your party.
You have rabid Blue Dogs!! It is impossible to train them.
They are trying to train you!!
yea I agree, I am going to give you a lot more credit, but what he is doing is. taking all the hits and they are bouncing off of himTo give T-Rump some credit he seems to have driven a wedge between FauxNoise and the rabid extremist rightwingers, albeit unintentionally.
Yes, his campaign is starting to show cracks and Stone was right that T-Rump is surrounded by Yes-men who don't dare to tell him the truth.
Given that scenario T-Rump is still convinced that he in 100% correct and the rest of the world is out of step with him and his sycophantic followers. So when he drops in the polls, and yes I am making that call now ahead of the data, he will blame everyone but himself.
At this point the odds of him running a 3rd party campaign are looking considerably better IMO.
As far as the damage he is causing goes that is going to be interesting to analyze. Cruz has staked himself out as the heir apparent to T-Rump's supporters when he leaves and he will discover that T-Rump will take the majority with him for his 3rd party run. Cruz will be left with slim pickings and a decision to make whether to go with T-Rump or stay in the GOP that he has alienated against himself.
FauxNoise will see ratings drop too. Not significantly because there is no alternative but perhaps Glen Beck can find a way to capitalize on this opportunity.
The rest of the GOP field will breathe a sigh of relief until they figure out that the base they were relying upon has decamped. That won't be good news, even for Bush the 3rd.
That is my 2 cents worth of crystal ball gazing and yes, I could be wrong and T-Rump could have a Come to Jesus moment and kiss and make up with the GOP and FauxNoise but that is not his style. He might just walk away and not run 3rd party but again, that is not his style. So while those are possibilities I don't see them happening at present.
No one can take it like he has, it's fascinating
He is shielding the true candidates and it's only August 2015.
Those hits might be bouncing off him and solidifying the part of his base that agrees with him 100% but they are shredding his support amongst those who were listening to his populist rhetoric. They aren't as likely to continue to support him when he goes out on a limb and insults 51% of the voters in this nation. And yes, that is exactly what he did when he accused Kelly of "bleeding".
Those kinds of remarks don't "shield" the rest of the GOP field in any positive way. They are shielded from getting the kind of attention they need to grow support for their campaigns and that is a net negative. They are also getting splattered with the damage that T-Rump is doing to the GOP brand. That too is a net negative.
Right now the GOP is still doing a great imitation of a circular firing squad and the longer it keeps going the greater the harm. Priebus must be hiding under his bed waiting for this all to be over because there is nothing that he can do to stop the damage. To his credit he did issue warnings about this but they were ignored and now the party is paying the price.
Only time will tell us how much of a price but it won't be cheap in terms of election results in 2016 IMO.
53% of the registered voters.
This Civil War has been going on for a long time..........including the last elections and the GOP has gained ground while this is going on..............There's a huge difference. In the case of Blue Dog democrats, they weren't purged from the democratic party. They just lost their elections.
The GOP is turning on itself. With conservatives defining by narrower and narrower criteria who is and isn't a conservative. With purity tests being the standard rather than the exception. You don't build coalitions with 'purity tests'. You built outliers and impotent ideologues with purity tests.
The Dems didn't go out of their way to save the Blue Dogs, and yes the Blue Dogs run in more conservative states and got the axe because of the left's policies especially Obamacare...............
Bullshit. The DNC invested heavily in those races because they were so contested. In virtually every instance, at least as much money was spent by the DNC for these Blue Dog democrats after the Obamacare vote than before. And in most cases, far more. The exceptions you could count on one hand, missing a finger or two.
That's not a 'purge'. That's blue dog democrats losing elections.
The Dems toe the line and vote party line MOST OF THE TIME...........The GOP have those who cross the line more often............But the status quo holds power..........both parties.
The Democrat discipline is the main reason that the majorities in the House and Senate haven't amounted to much for Republicans.
Liberals[edit]
Some in the Democratic Party's liberal wing promote primary challenges against Blue Dog Coalition members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.[citation needed] The editors of the left-wing weblog OpenLeft refer to Blue Dog Democrats who voted for war funding in May 2007[32] and voted to grant the Executive branch warrantless wiretapping powers[33] as "Bush Dogs".[34][35] Others in the party[who?] view these individuals as "Republicans in Democrats Clothing".
Membership
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half by the 2010 Election, in which 26 members were re-elected but 28 were either defeated or chose not to run for re-election.
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half again for the 113th Congress. Of the 27 Blue Dogs, 3 resigned (Giffords, Cardoza and Harman), while 10 chose not to run for re-election or were defeated. Of the remaining 14 members Adam Schiff left the coalition, but Pete Gallego (Texas), Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), Ron Barber (Arizona), Nick Rahall (West Virginia), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Cheri Bustos (Illinois) joined them for the 113th Congress.
Freshman Blue Dogs in the House are sometimes nicknamed "Blue Pups".[11]
I remember the back lash from the hard line dems on their failure to toe the line...........they are almost all gone.................and your side was prepared to throw them under the bus..........
They are almost the same as the term RINO for the Democratic sign.............
I remember Pelosi saying they would take losses for Obamacare.............and said they are willing to accept those losses................aka the Blue Dogs are gonna get hammered for this policy.
The only difference since they are from your party your side doesn't go around calling them the American Taliban like your side does to the Tea Party
This is the most committed and aggressive campaign Trump has made for the Presidency (and most successful) - the only issue I see from Trump's view of him backing out is his credibility.
He's gone out stating he loves the USA and wants to make it better, then, to drop out, he's going to have to come up with a very good reason to "abandon" his cause...
As much as Liberals might try people outside of hard-core Hillary supporters aren't going to attribute Trump's remarks to the other candidates.
Want to bet that T-Rump's misogynistic remarks won't end up in ads during the general election?
Show's how well the people took to the Hard Core Liberal Agenda now doesn't it.....................This Civil War has been going on for a long time..........including the last elections and the GOP has gained ground while this is going on..............There's a huge difference. In the case of Blue Dog democrats, they weren't purged from the democratic party. They just lost their elections.
The GOP is turning on itself. With conservatives defining by narrower and narrower criteria who is and isn't a conservative. With purity tests being the standard rather than the exception. You don't build coalitions with 'purity tests'. You built outliers and impotent ideologues with purity tests.
The Dems didn't go out of their way to save the Blue Dogs, and yes the Blue Dogs run in more conservative states and got the axe because of the left's policies especially Obamacare...............
Bullshit. The DNC invested heavily in those races because they were so contested. In virtually every instance, at least as much money was spent by the DNC for these Blue Dog democrats after the Obamacare vote than before. And in most cases, far more. The exceptions you could count on one hand, missing a finger or two.
That's not a 'purge'. That's blue dog democrats losing elections.
The Dems toe the line and vote party line MOST OF THE TIME...........The GOP have those who cross the line more often............But the status quo holds power..........both parties.
The Democrat discipline is the main reason that the majorities in the House and Senate haven't amounted to much for Republicans.
Liberals[edit]
Some in the Democratic Party's liberal wing promote primary challenges against Blue Dog Coalition members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.[citation needed] The editors of the left-wing weblog OpenLeft refer to Blue Dog Democrats who voted for war funding in May 2007[32] and voted to grant the Executive branch warrantless wiretapping powers[33] as "Bush Dogs".[34][35] Others in the party[who?] view these individuals as "Republicans in Democrats Clothing".
Membership
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half by the 2010 Election, in which 26 members were re-elected but 28 were either defeated or chose not to run for re-election.
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half again for the 113th Congress. Of the 27 Blue Dogs, 3 resigned (Giffords, Cardoza and Harman), while 10 chose not to run for re-election or were defeated. Of the remaining 14 members Adam Schiff left the coalition, but Pete Gallego (Texas), Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), Ron Barber (Arizona), Nick Rahall (West Virginia), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Cheri Bustos (Illinois) joined them for the 113th Congress.
Freshman Blue Dogs in the House are sometimes nicknamed "Blue Pups".[11]
I remember the back lash from the hard line dems on their failure to toe the line...........they are almost all gone.................and your side was prepared to throw them under the bus..........
They are almost the same as the term RINO for the Democratic sign.............
I remember Pelosi saying they would take losses for Obamacare.............and said they are willing to accept those losses................aka the Blue Dogs are gonna get hammered for this policy.
The only difference since they are from your party your side doesn't go around calling them the American Taliban like your side does to the Tea Party
The difference is the 'backlash'. It didn't come from democrats. The DNC continued to support the 'blue dogs'. They poured at least as much money into the races after the Obamcare vote as they did before. The Blue Dogs lost. They faced a backlash from the voters, not the DNC or the democratic party. There was no attempt to 'purge' the DNC of the Blue Dogs.
Instead we saw the rise of the Tea Party. With the Tea Party eating the Blue Dog's lunch.
If he runs 3rd party it will be by design and not ego...............This is the most committed and aggressive campaign Trump has made for the Presidency (and most successful) - the only issue I see from Trump's view of him backing out is his credibility.
He's gone out stating he loves the USA and wants to make it better, then, to drop out, he's going to have to come up with a very good reason to "abandon" his cause...
His ego will force him to run as a 3rd party
I really liked Trump and I was looking forward to his first debate. He was in my top 3 candidates along with Rubio and Christie. But these past 3 days have all but sealed it for me. I can't vote for Trump. It's great to be a tough "tell it like it is candidate", but there is a line. There's a line in everything in life and Trump doesn't realize this. However, I hope he stays in the race because ratings for the GOP debates will continue to be sky-high as long as he's involved. The other candidates are getting plenty of exposure because of Trump.
Ludicrously high. But not for the reasons you want. Its spectacle, not debate.
It doesn't matter. At this point the GOP candidates just need to get their names and ideas out there. The 24 million who tuned in also witnessed the fireworks between Christie and Paul in regards to the 4th amendment. They found out who Ben Carson is and they saw Rubio put on a solid performance. Viewers also heard Kasich say some very accepting remarks about gay marriage. As much as Liberals might try people outside of hard-core Hillary supporters aren't going to attribute Trump's remarks to the other candidates.
What..............all 10 of them.............LOLMore like The Blue dogs are going to tear the Right wingers up.
They already have the social conservatives placing the ground work for a new party. The TEA party is not moderate in the least.
Seems to me, everyone who is not a moderate are making plans to leave. The moderates have the Leadership. They are not letting go.
This is the most committed and aggressive campaign Trump has made for the Presidency (and most successful) - the only issue I see from Trump's view of him backing out is his credibility.
He's gone out stating he loves the USA and wants to make it better, then, to drop out, he's going to have to come up with a very good reason to "abandon" his cause...
His ego will force him to run as a 3rd party
Show's how well the people took to the Hard Core Liberal Agenda now doesn't it.....................This Civil War has been going on for a long time..........including the last elections and the GOP has gained ground while this is going on..............There's a huge difference. In the case of Blue Dog democrats, they weren't purged from the democratic party. They just lost their elections.
The GOP is turning on itself. With conservatives defining by narrower and narrower criteria who is and isn't a conservative. With purity tests being the standard rather than the exception. You don't build coalitions with 'purity tests'. You built outliers and impotent ideologues with purity tests.
The Dems didn't go out of their way to save the Blue Dogs, and yes the Blue Dogs run in more conservative states and got the axe because of the left's policies especially Obamacare...............
Bullshit. The DNC invested heavily in those races because they were so contested. In virtually every instance, at least as much money was spent by the DNC for these Blue Dog democrats after the Obamacare vote than before. And in most cases, far more. The exceptions you could count on one hand, missing a finger or two.
That's not a 'purge'. That's blue dog democrats losing elections.
The Dems toe the line and vote party line MOST OF THE TIME...........The GOP have those who cross the line more often............But the status quo holds power..........both parties.
The Democrat discipline is the main reason that the majorities in the House and Senate haven't amounted to much for Republicans.
Liberals[edit]
Some in the Democratic Party's liberal wing promote primary challenges against Blue Dog Coalition members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.[citation needed] The editors of the left-wing weblog OpenLeft refer to Blue Dog Democrats who voted for war funding in May 2007[32] and voted to grant the Executive branch warrantless wiretapping powers[33] as "Bush Dogs".[34][35] Others in the party[who?] view these individuals as "Republicans in Democrats Clothing".
Membership
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half by the 2010 Election, in which 26 members were re-elected but 28 were either defeated or chose not to run for re-election.
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half again for the 113th Congress. Of the 27 Blue Dogs, 3 resigned (Giffords, Cardoza and Harman), while 10 chose not to run for re-election or were defeated. Of the remaining 14 members Adam Schiff left the coalition, but Pete Gallego (Texas), Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), Ron Barber (Arizona), Nick Rahall (West Virginia), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Cheri Bustos (Illinois) joined them for the 113th Congress.
Freshman Blue Dogs in the House are sometimes nicknamed "Blue Pups".[11]
I remember the back lash from the hard line dems on their failure to toe the line...........they are almost all gone.................and your side was prepared to throw them under the bus..........
They are almost the same as the term RINO for the Democratic sign.............
I remember Pelosi saying they would take losses for Obamacare.............and said they are willing to accept those losses................aka the Blue Dogs are gonna get hammered for this policy.
The only difference since they are from your party your side doesn't go around calling them the American Taliban like your side does to the Tea Party
The difference is the 'backlash'. It didn't come from democrats. The DNC continued to support the 'blue dogs'. They poured at least as much money into the races after the Obamcare vote as they did before. The Blue Dogs lost. They faced a backlash from the voters, not the DNC or the democratic party. There was no attempt to 'purge' the DNC of the Blue Dogs.
Instead we saw the rise of the Tea Party. With the Tea Party eating the Blue Dog's lunch.
As much as Liberals might try people outside of hard-core Hillary supporters aren't going to attribute Trump's remarks to the other candidates.
Want to bet that T-Rump's misogynistic remarks won't end up in ads during the general election?
Trump will be long gone by time the general election roles around. But if Hillary thinks she can get some mileage by attributing Trump's remarks to Rubio, Christie or whomever, she'll do it. But it won't work among Independent, moderate and on the fence voters.
You leave out the part like Pelosi saying some would be sacrificed...................which was the Blue Dog. They were openly against them during the selling of Obamacare................Show's how well the people took to the Hard Core Liberal Agenda now doesn't it.....................This Civil War has been going on for a long time..........including the last elections and the GOP has gained ground while this is going on..............
The Dems didn't go out of their way to save the Blue Dogs, and yes the Blue Dogs run in more conservative states and got the axe because of the left's policies especially Obamacare...............
Bullshit. The DNC invested heavily in those races because they were so contested. In virtually every instance, at least as much money was spent by the DNC for these Blue Dog democrats after the Obamacare vote than before. And in most cases, far more. The exceptions you could count on one hand, missing a finger or two.
That's not a 'purge'. That's blue dog democrats losing elections.
The Dems toe the line and vote party line MOST OF THE TIME...........The GOP have those who cross the line more often............But the status quo holds power..........both parties.
The Democrat discipline is the main reason that the majorities in the House and Senate haven't amounted to much for Republicans.
Liberals[edit]
Some in the Democratic Party's liberal wing promote primary challenges against Blue Dog Coalition members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.[citation needed] The editors of the left-wing weblog OpenLeft refer to Blue Dog Democrats who voted for war funding in May 2007[32] and voted to grant the Executive branch warrantless wiretapping powers[33] as "Bush Dogs".[34][35] Others in the party[who?] view these individuals as "Republicans in Democrats Clothing".
Membership
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half by the 2010 Election, in which 26 members were re-elected but 28 were either defeated or chose not to run for re-election.
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half again for the 113th Congress. Of the 27 Blue Dogs, 3 resigned (Giffords, Cardoza and Harman), while 10 chose not to run for re-election or were defeated. Of the remaining 14 members Adam Schiff left the coalition, but Pete Gallego (Texas), Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), Ron Barber (Arizona), Nick Rahall (West Virginia), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Cheri Bustos (Illinois) joined them for the 113th Congress.
Freshman Blue Dogs in the House are sometimes nicknamed "Blue Pups".[11]
I remember the back lash from the hard line dems on their failure to toe the line...........they are almost all gone.................and your side was prepared to throw them under the bus..........
They are almost the same as the term RINO for the Democratic sign.............
I remember Pelosi saying they would take losses for Obamacare.............and said they are willing to accept those losses................aka the Blue Dogs are gonna get hammered for this policy.
The only difference since they are from your party your side doesn't go around calling them the American Taliban like your side does to the Tea Party
The difference is the 'backlash'. It didn't come from democrats. The DNC continued to support the 'blue dogs'. They poured at least as much money into the races after the Obamcare vote as they did before. The Blue Dogs lost. They faced a backlash from the voters, not the DNC or the democratic party. There was no attempt to 'purge' the DNC of the Blue Dogs.
Instead we saw the rise of the Tea Party. With the Tea Party eating the Blue Dog's lunch.
Given that our conversation was about how the democrats had 'purged' the Blue Dogs, and it appears that we both agree that didn't happen, then the stark difference between what is happening in the GOP now and what happened within the DNC then is apparent.
You leave out the part like Pelosi saying some would be sacrificed...................which was the Blue Dog. They were openly against them during the selling of Obamacare................Show's how well the people took to the Hard Core Liberal Agenda now doesn't it.....................Bullshit. The DNC invested heavily in those races because they were so contested. In virtually every instance, at least as much money was spent by the DNC for these Blue Dog democrats after the Obamacare vote than before. And in most cases, far more. The exceptions you could count on one hand, missing a finger or two.
That's not a 'purge'. That's blue dog democrats losing elections.
The Democrat discipline is the main reason that the majorities in the House and Senate haven't amounted to much for Republicans.
Liberals[edit]
Some in the Democratic Party's liberal wing promote primary challenges against Blue Dog Coalition members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.[citation needed] The editors of the left-wing weblog OpenLeft refer to Blue Dog Democrats who voted for war funding in May 2007[32] and voted to grant the Executive branch warrantless wiretapping powers[33] as "Bush Dogs".[34][35] Others in the party[who?] view these individuals as "Republicans in Democrats Clothing".
Membership
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half by the 2010 Election, in which 26 members were re-elected but 28 were either defeated or chose not to run for re-election.
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half again for the 113th Congress. Of the 27 Blue Dogs, 3 resigned (Giffords, Cardoza and Harman), while 10 chose not to run for re-election or were defeated. Of the remaining 14 members Adam Schiff left the coalition, but Pete Gallego (Texas), Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), Ron Barber (Arizona), Nick Rahall (West Virginia), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Cheri Bustos (Illinois) joined them for the 113th Congress.
Freshman Blue Dogs in the House are sometimes nicknamed "Blue Pups".[11]
I remember the back lash from the hard line dems on their failure to toe the line...........they are almost all gone.................and your side was prepared to throw them under the bus..........
They are almost the same as the term RINO for the Democratic sign.............
I remember Pelosi saying they would take losses for Obamacare.............and said they are willing to accept those losses................aka the Blue Dogs are gonna get hammered for this policy.
The only difference since they are from your party your side doesn't go around calling them the American Taliban like your side does to the Tea Party
The difference is the 'backlash'. It didn't come from democrats. The DNC continued to support the 'blue dogs'. They poured at least as much money into the races after the Obamcare vote as they did before. The Blue Dogs lost. They faced a backlash from the voters, not the DNC or the democratic party. There was no attempt to 'purge' the DNC of the Blue Dogs.
Instead we saw the rise of the Tea Party. With the Tea Party eating the Blue Dog's lunch.
Given that our conversation was about how the democrats had 'purged' the Blue Dogs, and it appears that we both agree that didn't happen, then the stark difference between what is happening in the GOP now and what happened within the DNC then is apparent.
Kinda proves the people were pissed with Liberal laws now didn't it.You leave out the part like Pelosi saying some would be sacrificed...................which was the Blue Dog. They were openly against them during the selling of Obamacare................Show's how well the people took to the Hard Core Liberal Agenda now doesn't it.....................Liberals[edit]
Some in the Democratic Party's liberal wing promote primary challenges against Blue Dog Coalition members in an effort to unseat Democratic Party members they view as unreliable or too conservative.[citation needed] The editors of the left-wing weblog OpenLeft refer to Blue Dog Democrats who voted for war funding in May 2007[32] and voted to grant the Executive branch warrantless wiretapping powers[33] as "Bush Dogs".[34][35] Others in the party[who?] view these individuals as "Republicans in Democrats Clothing".
Membership
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half by the 2010 Election, in which 26 members were re-elected but 28 were either defeated or chose not to run for re-election.
Blue Dog membership was nearly cut in half again for the 113th Congress. Of the 27 Blue Dogs, 3 resigned (Giffords, Cardoza and Harman), while 10 chose not to run for re-election or were defeated. Of the remaining 14 members Adam Schiff left the coalition, but Pete Gallego (Texas), Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), Ron Barber (Arizona), Nick Rahall (West Virginia), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), and Cheri Bustos (Illinois) joined them for the 113th Congress.
Freshman Blue Dogs in the House are sometimes nicknamed "Blue Pups".[11]
I remember the back lash from the hard line dems on their failure to toe the line...........they are almost all gone.................and your side was prepared to throw them under the bus..........
They are almost the same as the term RINO for the Democratic sign.............
I remember Pelosi saying they would take losses for Obamacare.............and said they are willing to accept those losses................aka the Blue Dogs are gonna get hammered for this policy.
The only difference since they are from your party your side doesn't go around calling them the American Taliban like your side does to the Tea Party
The difference is the 'backlash'. It didn't come from democrats. The DNC continued to support the 'blue dogs'. They poured at least as much money into the races after the Obamcare vote as they did before. The Blue Dogs lost. They faced a backlash from the voters, not the DNC or the democratic party. There was no attempt to 'purge' the DNC of the Blue Dogs.
Instead we saw the rise of the Tea Party. With the Tea Party eating the Blue Dog's lunch.
Given that our conversation was about how the democrats had 'purged' the Blue Dogs, and it appears that we both agree that didn't happen, then the stark difference between what is happening in the GOP now and what happened within the DNC then is apparent.
And that's where your argument breaks. The DNC wasn't 'openly against them'. They supported them in their races, poured at least as much money into the races as they did before the Obamacare vote. The backlash didn't come from the DNC or democrats. The backlash came from voters.
