eom

And I admit that I am only guessing. I bet almost all Democrats in safe Democratic districts predictably have an overall voting record that looks fairly liberal at first glance - but a look beneath the surface might reveal a different story. Overall liberal voting percentages can be arranged by always voting liberal when one's vote would not effect the outcome either way. Look for defections on key issues at key moments. Look for amendments that water down provisions, look for votes to bottle things up in committees, etc, and a different picture can emerge.

And not all Democrats elected to state wide office in blue states are solidoy progressive by a long shot - look for where they "sell out" slso.

Even if the number of seats to initially target is relatively small - it is still an excellent starting point. Once progressives are in office in safe Democratic seats they can begin to move up and gain more power. And once Democrats in safe districts no longer feel they can take re-election for granted, more of them may develop stiffer spines for fighting hard for progressive ideals.

If we plan to control the House and Senate, we are going to need people that are Moderate and Moderate-Progressive. To insist that we run Progressives in districts that lean Moderate, Moderate Progressive or Moderate Conservative only means that we will fail to take most of those districts. The country is about Moderate-Progressive on average now, the arc is toward Progressive. There are still some difficult areas in rural parts of Blue states and the South, bu even those regions are moderating, as evidenced that President Obama actually got a higher percentage of the vote in some southern states in 2012 than he did in 2008.

If Progressives want to continue on insisting that every thing be done their way now then I challenge them to look at what the teabaggers have done to republicans with clear eyes and tell me that being obstinate about having one's way exactly as desired is a good thing overall. Our objective should be to take advantage of the dysfunction teabaggers are causing in the republican party and take seats that wouldn't been available to us otherwise.

In fact I actually think it is complementary. I was far from insisting that we run Progressives in districts that lean moderate. To an extent I implicitly acknowledged your point by saying the emphasis should start out on "safe" Democratic seats. Now a good discussion can be had about what is and is not a "safe" Democratic seat. I am sure there are areas of West Virginia for example that are "safe" for Democrats as long as no one accuses them of being a liberal. That, I believe, is now the exception to the rule. Few of those type districts are safe for any Democrat anymore even though the South in particular used to be full of them. They may remain competitive for the right Democratic candidate, but that isn't what I was talking about.

and put the blame and anger on the GOP for their divisive mind games.