Comments on: Walt Minnick and the Democrats’ Dilemma

By: bgarland

bgarland — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:51:54 +0000

Minnick's election was a fluke. Idaho is overwhelmingly Republican. He knows that if he doesn't conduct himself within Idaho's conservative principles (which makes Idaho one of the best places to live in the country and a major draw for California refugees) he'll be out in a heartbeat. He be out anyway as just having a D after his name contributes to the Democrat majority in the House.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:10:21 +0000

From RCP:

Until Democrats find a way to address the structural problems described [in this article] — and are willing to shed some members of their coalition in the process — they will continue to have a difficult time governing.

Is it really easier to govern with a smaller, more ideologically narrow group of legislators?

I'm going to guess it's not.

We'll see.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:09:56 +0000

That works in the short run, Elrod, but soon the voters in those districts notice that their moderate Dems are casting these votes which have no effect, because the party passes left wing legislation over their objections.

And then the majority starts to shrink, and then the moderates in the party are gone.

By: elrod

elrod — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:47:02 +0000

Except it isn't true. Walt Minnick and other vulnerable Democrats can vote against Obama's plans without affecting the final outcome one bit. Meanwhile, Minnick can introduce all sorts of regional and less controversial legislation that he can show off to the locals. Southern Dems have been doing this for decades. As long as the Democratic majority is large enough, the party can allow dissent among a minority.