The Democratic Caucus will be a good bit more liberal next year.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Whether we hold Congress or lose Congress there is one thing we know for sure:

The Democratic caucuses in the House and the Senate will be smaller and more liberal on average than they are today.

Most Dem loses will be in "moderate" districts. Most losers will be blue dog types. Those who remain will be Dems from safe districts, meaning liberal districts.

So, ironically, when the blame for the election is pinned on the left (count on that) it will be in the context of a very bad election where the only people who won were the furthest left.

Most of the pols who made all the right "moderate" moves will have just lost.

So it will be an intriguing argument.


(That doesn't mean endangered blue dogs should have run to the left. They were toast either way so they should have voted left on the way out.)

[geardaddy]

1. My rep Keith Ellison (MN-5-DFL)

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Sadly, one reason that many of these "moderate" Dems will lose is

because the Obama Admin. has put forth no compelling populist vision of America for these Reps and the American public to support. Their right of center, triangulated approach to governing is eating them alive at both ends of the political spectrum. Some argue that there are some Dems in the Admin and in Congress that desperately want minority status in Congress. It allows for better cover when voting for their corporate overlords and makes the fundraisers so much easier. They simply claim they are fighting the good fight, but being in the minority they are powerless. Then they ask for the donation check to "change" things in Washington.

[Poboy]

3. no compelling populist vision of America for these Reps and the American public to support.

no compelling populist vision of America for these Reps and the American public to support.
no compelling populist vision of America for these Reps and the American public to support.
no compelling populist vision of America for these Reps and the American public to support.
no compelling populist vision of America for these Reps and the American public to support.
no compelling populist vision of America for these Reps and the American public to support.
no compelling populist vision of America for these Reps and the American public to support.

no compelling populist vision of America for these Reps and the American public to support.

In a nutshell.

[metapunditedgy]

13. no compelling populist vision of America for these Reps and the American public to support.

Let me echo that...

Obama had so much goodwill and momentum. It would have been so easy. If only he had wanted to.

[JVS]

9. A lot of these "Moderates" helped in the hamstringing of developing such an agenda and deserve...

what they're getting.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. It'll be nice but won't mean squat IF we lose our majorities in either chamber

leaving Boehner as Speaker of the House and/or McConnell as leader of the Senate. We'll just see how much good liberal/progressive legislation gets through with either/both of them in charge of Congress from 2011-2013. :eyes:

Some people think that President Obama and the Democrats compromise too much with the Republicans? Well, he will undoubtedly have to compromise with the GOP (not the difficult but more tolerable "Blue Dogs") EVEN MORE to get anything through and we will be lucky if the Republicans are unable to reverse any progress Obama and the Democrats have made since 2009.

As far as the assignation of "blame" for a presumably poor outcome in November, I'm not sure that we'll have the luxury of time to sit around and play that "game" if the Republicans take over one or both Houses of Congress. Instead, what we will need to be doing is getting ready to fight the GOP and the inevitable investigations of President Obama and his administration that Issa will undoubtedly be busy preparing for, as well as the flood of anti-Democratic/anti-progressive legislation that will almost certainly be heading our way from Boehner, McConnell, et. al.

Unfortunately, I suspect that we probably WILL be spending most of our time blaming and attacking each other for the outcome of the election instead- much to our detriment. :-(

[vi5]

6. I don't want the outcome of losses either, BUT....

if it has to happen (and sadly it does), then I'd rather it leave us with a a more liberal caucus that will stand up to what the republicans are going to try and do and who may have the stones to pull the same obstructionist tactics right back at the republican than a bunch of blue dog centrists who will give them the votes and the "bipartisan" cover to enact some of their horrible legislation.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. I'm not enamored by the "Blue Dogs" either BUT

having a numerical majority that allows US to dictate chairmanships, committee assignments, and hold the Speaker's gavel, as well as make decisions about who and what is investigated is a helluva lot more important/productive IMHO than having a liberal minority that has little or no power to do anything let alone block everything, especially in the House.

[NorthCarolina]

5. Counld it be that Dems are finally waking up to the fact

that the DLC New Dems are a pox on the party? Let the clean-up begin!

[JVS]

7. Ya gotta prune the sick branches at some point.

[geek tragedy]

8. But, the margin of majority--if they do hold the House--will be comprised

of the worst of the worst Blue Dogs. Blue Dogs + Republicans will be a majority no matter what.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Very true

[unblock]

11. hey, if we go down to just 50 seats, on average we'll be REALLY liberal!

see, there's even a bright side to a real shellacking!

:eyes:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. re: bright side

I don't ever see much bright side in losing but it does seem to be a natural part of the flow of things.

The out party is always more idealogical and critical.

When things suck being critical makes you sound like you "get" it and are a truth-teller.

When things suck people gravitate to ideology because ideologies often offer bumper-sticker level promised solutions.

Governing is kind of thankless.

[NewJeffCT]

14. I think Connecticut has 3 vulnerable House Democrats

While not true liberals, Chris Murphy, Jim Himes & Joe Courtney are all reliable Democratic votes and not Blue Doggish at all. Murphy & Courtney were elected in 2006 - Courtney by like 50 votes. Himes was elected in 2008 in a district held by moderate Republicans for decades (Chris Shays and Stu McKinney) Courtney is well-liked, but is going up against a popular local news anchor in Janet Peckinpaugh.

I think Larson & DeLauro are pretty safe.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Fair enough.

Generalities are seldom best. (Though make for punchier writing.)