Has anyone ever noticed (and asked why) the Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate

so frequently comes from a "red" state?

What the hell is our problem?

Since the 1940's, when the "solid South" began to waver, we have frequently selected our party leadership from either a swing state or a red state.

2005 - present: Nevada
1995 - 2005: South Dakota
1990 - 1995: Maine
1977 - 1999: West Virginia (was "blue", for what it's worth)
1961 - 1977: Montana
1953 - 1961: Texas (was a swing state)
1951 - 1953: Arizona
1949 - 1951: Illinois ("blue")
1937 - 1949: Kentucky

Where's New York? Massachusetts? Senators who's seats were pretty much solidly in the "D" column?

Why would we select a leader from a state where that seat is so obviously vulnerable (WV being an exception in that time)?

Doesn't that tend to castrate our leadership and produce a leadership that's timid?

Republican leaders have come from Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kansas, among others.

Maybe this "reach across the aisle" aspect of Obama's governance is not something new and is intrinsic to the Democratic party.

So-called "moderation"?

what are they trying to achieve with that ?

Topic is Democratic leadership of the U.S. Senate.

The topic is the U.S. Senate leadership.

Not statehouses, or governorships, or mayors or house representatives.

in all of this.

and claiming there was something in the Dem party that make them reach across the aisle .

when in reality that's what politics is. in Obama's case reaching across usually means reaching to blue dogs , not republicans.

see Bart Stupak as example.

But it doesn't seem to be "what politics is" when Republicans chose Trent Lott or Bob Dole or Howard Baker.

The house and the senate are very different animals.

So you're right. The curiosity is "Why do Democrats so frequently choose swing state or red state Senators while Republicans have just as frequently chosen leaders with solid conservative support?"

Are we cursed with a peacemaker complex? Is conciliation more important to Dems than Repubs and what does that say about the "progress" we have made in the last 40 years?

in the last 30 years.

In the last 30 years (since 1980?), there have been three Republican presidents and three Democratic presidents in the Oval office.

The party leader's relationship with the president in power is not the question.

The question is about what motivates Democrats in choosing a senate leader. Strength or magnanimity?

What motivates Republicans in choosing a senate leader? Strength or magnanimity?

And it's neither about strength nor magnanimity; the Democratic Party is apparently less willing to consign itself to total electoral irrelevance in much of the country (since you mention 3 Democratic Presidents in the last 30 years...where were 2 of those from? Georgia and Arkansas? Square that circle for me, if you would.)

Being elected in 1986.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daschle

That cites TWO exceptions to the seniority theory, actually.

until Byrd defeated him.

Twice, Democrats have set the record for promoting a relative novice to party leader: once with Johnson, then with Daschle.

It does negate the theory that seniority is a principle factor.

Byrd is a good exception to the pattern all around, having both seniority and coming from a solid seat.

isssues. if i was Senator i don't think i would want to be Senate Leader. i would rather work on issues and be on committees.

Wrong reply.

when you take into account that west virginia was blue at one time. and texas wasn't always red . and nevada is a swing state.

I think there's still something worth exploring here.

Texas was a swing state during the Johnson years, and his ascension to the Oval Office resulted in the first Republican senator from Texas since reconstruction.

It's a bit nebulous, I'll admit.

It has been since we cast our electoral votes for Barrack Obama in 2008.

User number 33135 in the linux counter....since June 1995....

Man I loves me some penguins.....

For one thing, making Daschle into Senate Democratic Leader is an argument for his re-election. SD voters will look at that and think "Daschle is too liberal for me, but he does have some status and power and that provides benefits to SD that his Republican opponent cannot provide." So it helps to keep a D Senator in an otherwise Red state, but the whole red-blue split did not really get established until 2000. You call Illinois blue in 1949, but it was won by the Republican candidate for President from 1968-1988. It was won by Truman in 1948 and FDR in 1932-1944, but it was also won by Ike in 1952 and 1956 even though Ike was running against a former Governor of Illinois!! :wtf: So it was not that reliably blue.

the thing that stands out to me is (with the exceptions of IL & TX) low population - not red or blue.