More Conservative and Moderate Senate Dems than Liberals

Following the 2008 election, how could there be more Conservative and Moderate Senate Democrats than Liberals?

It doesn't matter if the Democrats have the majority or not here, there just needs to be more moderates and conservatives in the caucus than not.


Travis Childers beating Chris McDaniel in Mississippi is a prospect.
Ben Nelson running for a third term would be a route.

Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, and Kay Hagan winning in 2014 would work.

More liberal candidates losing in 2010 and 2012 while more moderate and conservative candidates win would be a route.
 
Extremely unlikely with a POD after 2008. Once a Democrat becomes president you are almost certainly going to see the bulk of the conservative Democrats get wiped out in the ensuring midterms. The problem for these conservative Democrats is that in an era of increasing polarisation, will mean that they are at serious risk once a Democrat becomes president and conservatives in their district will start to want a more effective check on the president.

This is OTL. The democratic party of IRL is the 19780s and 1980s GOP but with added feminist prudishness on top.

If you actually have a look at what the 1980s GOP were actually like, you quickly notice how obviously untrue this statement is.
 
You've never looked into the foreign policy and economic stances of the party's mainstream, have you? You'd know I'm 100% in the right here.
 
You've never looked into the foreign policy and economic stances of the party's mainstream, have you? You'd know I'm 100% in the right here.

Interesting, because from what I know the Republican Party of that era tended not to support things like Free College or supported universal Pre-K. In fact they tended to oppose these programs, unlike the Democratic party of today, to give a couple of examples.
 
Last edited:
Assuming a PoD later than 2008? Tough to imagine. As has been seen since 2006, the Democratic base in most areas has shifted left rapidly. Even if this hasn't really resulted in a lot of Democratic incumbents losing primaries (big exceptions being Joe Lieberman, Al Wynn, Joe Crowley) or just having to sweat them out (Blanche Lincoln, Dan Lipinski), it's still definitely helped to pull most incumbents left, especially recently. It also means that genuine centrist/moderate/conservative/whatever Dems aren't getting through primaries in open seats, John Morganelli's recent campaign being a good example.

I don't think "more liberals losing while moderates/conservatives win" is really viable, because in general, federal politicians try to tailor their ideological position (in terms of votes/public position taking) to their constituency. I think this is particularly true for Democrats, and while there's exceptions to the rule - Sherrod Brown being the most obvious - generally speaking a swing district/state Dem is going to be more moderate than one running in a solid blue constituency. What this means in the context of your question is that these same moderates are much more vulnerable to defeat in a general election than their more lefty peers - in 2010 and 2014, it wasn't Progressive Caucus members going down, it was Blue Dogs and New Dems. The Republicans saw similar outcomes in 2006 and 2008, which effectively wiped out the moderate faction in their congressional ranks.

Candidates matter, of course - look at Heidi Heitkamp - but only so much. Plenty of entrenched, personally popular incumbent conservative Dems lost in Republican districts in 2010, and others retired likely because they knew they couldn't win and didn't want to bother campaigning for a year just to lose. It's really hard to beat PVI.

Finally, I think it's helpful to define our terms a little bit. By and large, I don't think the moderate/conservative Democrats of 2014 are ideologically comparable to those of say, 2000 or even 2008. Mark Begich or Kay Hagan aren't exactly clones of the old school Southern Democrats.

All of that is a longwinded way of saying that unless you find a way to prevent the wipeouts in 2010 or 2014, I think the only way to do this is have a pre-2008 PoD. Perhaps if the Bush years are less radicalizing to the Democratic base (ie no Iraq war, etc), the party won't shift left as quickly. But - what would really work is preventing the defection of Southern Democrats (and more broadly, working class whites) to the Republicans. And to do that you have to go back decades.
 
Interesting, because from what I know the Republican Party of that era tended not to support things like Free College or supported universal Pre-K. In fact they tended to oppose these programs, unlike the Democratic party of today, to give a couple of examples.

If you're not going to be truthful this thread is dead in the water before it even starts. The Democratic Party's Base is in favor of of Tuition Free College, Single Payer Healthcare among other things, but the support for that on the national level, in the party establishment, is sparse and opportunistic on a very good day. If you think that any other of those things would be passed even if the Democratic Party (An incredibly broad spanning organization) had control of the legislature and the presidency then you're very mistaken.

They may not be Reagan Republicans, but they are a conservative bunch all the same. Just because they don't recite your favored talking points or champion a few issues that may be near and dear to you doesn't make them radicals, they're barely liberal by their own definitions let alone any objective one.
 
If you're not going to be truthful this thread is dead in the water before it even starts
Pretty sure I am being truthful, not sure what incentive there is to lie in this situation.

If you think that any other of those things would be passed even if the Democratic Party (An incredibly broad spanning organization) had control of the legislature and the presidency then you're very mistaken
And why would I be mistaken exactly? Political Parties tend to actually try to keep their promises despite people's claim to the contrary. And the Democratic party status as some broad ideological tent, has been out of date for some time now. They may be more broad than the GOP, but that isn't saying much.

They may not be Reagan Republicans, but they are a conservative bunch all the same
Maybe amongst certain true leftist types that may be true, but to everyone else, they are certainly not conservative.

Just because they don't recite your favored talking points or champion a few issues that may be near and dear to you doesn't make them radicals
I don't remember actually stating my political beliefs to you, but okay.

they're barely liberal by their own definitions let alone any objective one
Pretty sure they are by Liberal "their own definition". And considering how the meaning of the term Liberal, tends to change with the times, I'm not sure what the "objective" definition of a liberal is supposed to be.

This is starting to veer into chat territory anyway.
 
Last edited:
From a non-partisan view, it doesn’t matter which way you cut the cake, Southern Democratic moderates are going to be a rare breed in the Senate Democratic Caucus and they’re going to be a very significant minority in the caucus. The simple fact that moderate Southern Democrats are going to be more inclined to vote on issues to the right of their base is going to be problematic, and Southern Democrats have the unfortunate burden of having a more diverse base that Mountain West or Midwestern Democrats. You’re going to have divisive primaries, in states like Mississippi and Louisiana (Mary Landrieu if we’re talking 2008 and on) with jungle primaries where Republicans can easily eat into the vote totals because Democrats are fighting each other.

My conclusion: If Southern Democrats are still voting like it’s 1994 in 2009 and onward they’re going to lose period. There has to be some major divergence for this not to be the case. Mark Begich and a Ben Nelson might last, just like Heidi Heitkamp and Jon Tester could last until the wheels fall off or they just aren’t tenable to their respective voters. Southern voters outside of Maryland and Virginia just aren’t built like Prarie Populists and Frontier Mavericks.
 
Personally, I think "let's write something about relatively recent politics and one that depends on definitions of terms like "moderate" that are hotly contested" is probably better handled in Chat.
 
As David T says, these terms are hella relative. But we could use that to our advantage in crafting a scenario! The OP also doesn't specifically set a POD, just says that after 2008 this is the configuration of the Democratic Party in congress after 2008.

So if we can set up a situation that promotes more consensus candidates in the Senate at least a few cycles before 2008, we should be able to make it happen. There are various types of electoral reform that might promote this. National top-two primaries like in California, for example. What causes that to happen is up for debate. I admit it would take some fairly unlikely events, but not ASB events- a few high-profile elections of unsuitable candidates, some breeches of strict democracy, a national press campaign from the right editor who took a different job IOTL, what have you. It would probably require a constitutional amendment unless states just started to decide doing it through their own legislatures. It's a rocky path, I'll admit.

Now the other side of this, to get back to David T's point, is that these are relative terms, so you have to have "liberals" or "progressives" or whatever to compare the "moderates" to, else the moderates will just look like "liberals." I think the top two system would still provide, as even in California it seems to leave some ideological pockets in place.

And national top two is just one idea. There are certainly others, I'd love to hear people take a stab.

Finally, @Political Powerhouse taking potshots: I'm sorry somebody hurt you and hope you find a way to lose that burden.
 
Top