Blue Dogs Lose in Numbers, Progressive Dems Gain

[FourScore]

Harry Truman: “Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time.”

Progressives Caucus remains intact, becomes a plurality of House Dems
by Chris Bowers
Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 01:56:04 PM PDT

Due to extensive losses by conservative and moderate Democrats, another shift in power occurred in the House last night besides Republicans taking the majority. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has replaced the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats as the plurality ideological caucus among House Democrats. For the first time ever, the CPC is larger than Blue Dogs and New Dems combined.

Here are the specifics, assuming every House candidate who is currently ahead stays ahead. That would mean a Republican majority of 243-192, for a net Republican gain of 64:



Here is a finer level of detail that separates out the duplicates, and looks at the five types of ideological caucus members among House Democrats with full voting rights:



As freshman Democrats join new caucuses, and as the Blue Dogs turn to their waiting list, these numbers will change. However, even after those changes, it is highly likely that Progressives will hold on to their new plurality among House Democrats.

Losing the House is painful, and will cause lots of problems for two years (or more). However, it does give us an opportunity to reshape the ideological composition of the House Democratic caucus in a positive way. Imagine if we can retake the House with the CPC maintaining this new plurality.



http://dailykos.com/main/2

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[HereSince1628]

2. For me, in Wisconsin losing Russ feels like losing more than 1

We lost a Progressive leader, and replaced him with a guy who petitioned government on behalf of protecting priests from pedophile investigations. Wisconsin is sending a joker to Washington who hopes to run it like his plastic factory.

[FourScore]

3. Very true. Even those of us outside of WI feel that way.

But I do not believe we have seen the end of Russ Feingold. He'll be around.

:hi:

[doc03]

4. Here we go again the Blue Dogs were voted out because they

were too conservative bullshit. They got voted out because because they backed the HCR bill that the people in their districts were dead set against. There is no way in hell a progressive Democrat would get into office in their district to start with. That is exactly the opposite argument the Republicans are having with the Teabagger faction. Do you people really believe you can get a progressive majority in congress by just winning seats on the east and west coasts?

[jsamuel]

6. no one said that

your argument doesn't hold much water either


http://bluearkansasblog.com/?p=4537

Of the 39 Democrats who voted against Health Care Reform 27 of them lost their seats with 12 staying on. That is roughly 70% of those Democrats voting against their party only to lose.

I am not suggesting that this is why they lost, only that their efforts to rebut their party were all for naught, as were Blanche Lincoln’s.

That also means that only 15% of those Democrats who voted FOR the Health Care bill lost.

The point isn't that they lost because they weren't liberal enough. The point is that being conservative didn't save them at all.

[FourScore]

9. Thank you, jsamuel -- well said!

:fistbump:

[doc03]

11. You tell me how Democrats won't be a permanent minority

when they can't get anyone elected outside of the coastal states?

[EFerrari]

22. Coastal states like Ohio?

[doc03]

35. That proves my point, the entire state government

and federal seats went red with the exception of Cleveland. In order to win in most all of Ohio you have to be on the conservative side to start with.

[EFerrari]

41. Except Cleveland? So, you except the members that don't prove your point?

Come on. What about Nevada? Grayson was voted out but first he was voted in. You know the list of liberals who have served all over the country, including the heartland.

[femrap]

52. Then explain

Sherrod Brown....a true progressive.

I live in Ohio...it is a state full of contradictions. Just like Iowa which has 2 Senators who couldn't be more opposite: Harkin and Grassley. Ohio is similar. (Ed Schultz discussed this on Election Eve).

Years ago my father said something that stuck in my mind: 'The President is a dem so we need a republican house to balance him.' Maybe this is the way people in Ohio think. I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, I feel as if I'm surrounded by Willfully Ignorants who are incapable of analysis and just do as Faux News says.

I'm simply trying to understand it and make some sense of it.

I looked at voter turnout by county for Ohio...the state averaged close to 49%. I looked at Athens County where Ohio University is (this county votes likes San Francisco, CA usually)...voter turnout was 33%. I think young people stayed home. And all the hateful, racist, selfish people went to the poll in droves.

Mike Dewine, who Sherrod beat in '06, is now our Atty General...he'll suck every Corporation's dick. Richard Cordray had been fighting for the people...against foreclosures and the banks...and the people kick him in the teeth.

But, one thing different from '06 and '08: ALL THE CORPORATE $$$$. ROVE'S GROUP SENT MILLIONS TO OHIO!!!! The TV stations made out like bandits on this.

There are many factors to consider when looking at Ohio. Kasich, the new gov who worked for Lehman Bros. beat Strickland, a man with a soul. It's simply heartbreaking to me. Kasich will have people dying in the streets...he'll cut funding for hospice, domestic violence, you name it, he'll cut it. Maybe the selfish and ignorant people of Ohio will have to learn the hard way....hungry, sick, and dying.

[meow mix]

12. +rec

[cascadiance]

15. They shouldn't be 'liberal" or "conservative" but POPULIST!

We need creative thinking individuals that find ways to reach out to their constituents there, conservative or liberal, on issues that should be those that all can agree on (getting more jobs, campaign financing reform IF SOLD PROPERLY as returning government accountability to 98% of Americans).

The problem with the so-called "moderates" of both parties is that they just use that label for them voting for their corporate cronies and rationalizing those votes as not being "ideological" one way or the other, when they are just servants to the wealthy elites. Effective REAL moderate politicians that aren't beholden to corporations (opposite of what the DCCC and Rahm wanted to find) are what we need to find in these districts now. If people can see that they are working for their interests and not those of corporations, they will get bipartisan constituency support and loyalty if they do a good job too. They are getting thrown out of these districts each term for each party because the voters start to see through their manipulative crap each time.

Getting those kind of politicians in these swing districts is what we need to restore democracy to America.

[doc03]

19. Gee wasn't that what Obama was supposed to do "Change

we can Believe in" and what happens they let the insurance industry lobbyists write a health care bill. They pass a stimulus that is mostly tax cuts and pork to buy votes. That is the same way things have always been done.

[cascadiance]

34. His naming Rahm his chief of staff supports his corporatism...

And THAT is the problem! If we had a party that was less DLC-oriented and doing what corporations wanted, then those in the middle that might have some other values than liberals have on other topics would still see our party as the sane party that represents people and want to be a part of the big tent. But if we still have corporate control over us and also have different values on other issues, they are more apt to put up with corporate control of the Republicans in exchange for more support for their other issues. The key is to show that we'll support them having fundamental rights as people and not only support "corporate people".

Now as a party I think we still need to be more vocal about supporting progressive stances on social issues, but in reasonable ways that allow for a big tent for others with divergent stances in purple states that would see us as more still for what the common man wants even if not an exact match for all of their issue stances.

[femrap]

53. +1 nt

[doc03]

17. That doesn't prove anything, Democrats that voted against the

HCR got voted out just because of the general anger about the ones that did. You didn't see all the ads saying if so an so gets elected he will vote with Nancy Pelosi or rubber stamp Obama? People were just plain pissed off at Democrats in those states and were sending a message to Democrats that they went too far.

[jsamuel]

24. That doesn't conflict with what I said. Being conservative did not save them.

Be careful about putting words in the voters' mouths.

[doc03]

27. And by being a liberal in their district they wouldn't have been

there in the first place.

[jsamuel]

31. depends on the district and the candidate

and the year in which they were first elected

[Rex]

25. You are completely wrong in your assessment.

Blue Dogs lost because the were acting like Republicans, get the message or continue to fail in elections. The HCR argument is pure hogwash, but keep spreading that garbage around. Someone will believe it eventually. :eyes:

[doc03]

29. They wouldn't have been there in the first place, if they were

liberals.

[nyc 4 Biden]

43. It's true.

Most members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are from relatively safe blue districts.

Blue Dogs and New Dems for the most part are from unsafe purple or red districts.

Thus the Blue Dogs and New Dems are the most vulnerable in elections that trend heavily in GOPs favor.

[The Uncola]

51. The numbers say you are dead wrong.

Repeating the same lie doesn't make it so, except to Regressives.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. So, why did progressives fare better? -nt

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

28. Right,' mirror image of the tea party'. Thanks.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact you have no idea what your talking about. :eyes:

[doc03]

32. The Tea Party wants to push the Republicans to the

extreme right, you want to push the Democratic party to the extreme left. Looks like a mirror image to me.

[FourScore]

33. doc3, and you please name 1 "extreme left" policy that has been implemented in the last 2 years?

I can't think of any.

Energizing your base is a way to win. That's how the Republicans do it. The democrats should take a page out of their playbook.

[doc03]

37. The HCR bill (I don't see it as extreme left). But in this district

that was perception and it was obvious the vast majority of the people were pissed about it. I think when my Congressman voted for it he knew he was toast. I am actually surprised how many votes he got, outside of me I don't know one single person that voted for him. What you may think is a corporate sellout where you come from appears extreme left to most people in Ohio. If I were wrong the Democrats wouldn't have all been voted out Tuesday.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. No, you don't get to label things "far left" based on lunatics' perception. -nt

[Rex]

36. Well then there ya go, completely clueless as to the difference

in political parties. Unless you believe socialized medicine is a radical idea, do you? Seems your mirror is starting to show a lot more about you than you know.

[doc03]

40. I am not talking about what I think myself I am just telling

you how most people in this part of the country think. I do not personally know or have I ever ran into one person that was in favor of the HCR bill. And it was obvious over a year ago our Congressman was going to get voted out.

[doc03]

21. delete

[w4rma]

50. Most of the blue dogs voted against the health insurance bill and were voted out. (nt)

[treestar]

5. There are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress

this is what matters most.

[snot]

7. The question is, will this get any play in the media? Or

. . . will the dominant narrative be, we need to move further to the right?

[KittyWampus]

8. Blue Dogs were newbies who got voted out of Republican strongholds and swing districts

Why is that so freaking hard for some DU'ers to grasp?

Are you really such an ideologue.

[TexasObserver]

10. You say it like it's a good thing to be in the hole 50 plus votes.

At least with Blue Dogs, we have their vote in the caucus, which means we control the House leadership. Replacing Blue Dogs with Republicans is NOT a good idea. The people who replaced them are much worse. You cannot escape the reality that each congressional constituency dictates who will represent them. For conservative districts, a blue dog is the best we can hope to get.

When the GOP run House is running amok, let's revisit this topic and see if they purge of blue dogs sounds great then.

[FourScore]

14. First of all, nobody is saying it is a good thing to have a R majority over a D one

It is merely post-election analysis. However, I do think it is encouraging to have a stronger Progressive Caucus. But forgive me if I am trying to find some hint of positive in this abysmal election. Maybe we should just all cry in our beer and mourn the loss of (some of those) who killed the public option. That's a great stategy!

:sarcasm:

[TexasObserver]

23. Without Blue Dogs, we will always be a minority party in this country.

We can't even keep our coalition voting with the party, as it is. We've given away rural whites with arrogant attitudes about their brand of the party, and that's why we are now a party with 190 House members, most from major urban areas.

It is unreasonable for a person from one congressional district to expect to have a say about the kind of person another district sends to congress. Each district picks the Democrat or Republican who represents them. They're not using a template created in New York, or Los Angeles, or Houston, or Austin.

Cheering for the defeat of blue dogs in the general election is a self defeating approach, and it only increases the problem of keeping such people inside the party, if only to determine who controls the House.

[FourScore]

30. Let me say it again...no one is cheering. This is post-election analysis.

Got it?

[TexasObserver]

38. You're not the only person with an opinion on that.

You analyze it as you see fit, and I'll analyze your analysis as I see fit.

Got it?

[doc03]

26. Well if Democrats think they will get liberals elected in the

(flyover country) Democrats like to make fun of you will permanently locked in a minority status.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. No liberals in "flyover country"?

"Flyover country" was once the most left-wing part of the country. Read Whatever Happened to Kansas?

It would still be that way if the Dems had done something to aid the foreclosed farmers in the early 1980s. (Yes, Reagan was president, but the Dems had a majority in both houses till 1982.)

[jeff47]

42. There's more than one way to fill and keep those seats

"At least with Blue Dogs, we have their vote in the caucus"

Actually, we didn't. That was one of the problems. While we simply rolled over the Blue Dogs on some issues, on other issues they stopped the House from acting.

"For conservative districts, a blue dog is the best we can hope to get."

The election returns do not bear out your assessment. First-past-the-post defines who goes to Washington, but does not necessarily define what a winning strategy is.

Take Perriello. Yes he lost as an unabashed liberal in a "conservative" district. Yet he lost only by 3 points. Most other D's in VA ran desperately away from the Democratic party and lost by double digits. Your plan would be to follow the strategy that did worse on election day. Our plan would be to stick with the strategy that almost worked in a year where the Democratic party had damn near everything working against them.

Overall, the problem is that the only thing the electorate knows about the Democratic party is what the Republicans say about us. Because we would not stand up and say "This is what it is to be a Democrat" out of fear of alienating the blue dogs. There's no good way to differentiate the Democratic party from the Republican party when a significant portion of your caucus is pretending to be Republican.

Now, I'm not saying we nominate nothing but Kucinich clones in every district. But we need to give people in swing districts a real choice, instead of trying to convince them to vote for a slightly less Republican.

[TexasObserver]

44. No, there isn't.

The voting with the caucus matters most with the formation of the House leadership. If they vote with our caucus, they count for control of the House, no matter how they vote on bills thereafter.

I'll take a blue dog over a Republican in the House every time. That's the choice.

[jeff47]

45. So...

Couldn't be bothered to read my post before whining about it?

Lovely. You're quite the credit to our party.

Tell ya what, we'll get back to a strategy that can win elections. You can go enjoy sulking in the corner.

[TexasObserver]

46. When you understand how many it takes for a majority in the House, come back.

We lack a majority. We get a majority however we have to, and that includes accepting that blue dogs are Democrats, too. You many turn your nose up at their politics, but your opinion of what constitutes a Democrat in someone else's district simply doesn't matter.

[jeff47]

47. Still can't read then?

Bummer. I mean, my post clearly said how to get a majority without catering to blue dogs, even in conservative districts. I even backed up my assertion with actual results of the election we just had.

'Course, that would require reading and considering the opinion of someone you disagree with. Yeah, much better to sulk and lash out at people trying to avoid these catastrophes in the future.

[JCMach1]

13. Recommended for putting out the truth!

[d_r]

16. not making a clain about good or bad here

I am not saying this is a bad thing. But one way to look at this is that the house has gotten even more "polarized." Districts that had a "blue dog" democrat have probably now gotten a much more conservative republican - many of the republicans who won are very right-wing. So there are fewer "in the middle" democrats and republicans. The democrats moved a little to the left, the republicans moved a lot to the right. So the divide is greater.

[nannah]

48. yes indeedy. the most hopeful information of the day

to me. once i understood this, and began to appreciate the undisciplined nature of the "new republicans" i began to think we might actually enjoy the next two years. the new republicans bring to mind the "pony pulls" i enjoyed at fairs in the northeast. At "pullings" the historic need for teams that could haul heavy loads was the challenge. Their were three types of teams: oxen, draft horses, and ponies. pony pullings are hilariious. with oxen and draft horses it's brute strength lunging forward. with ponies the challenge is to keep all the ponies pulling forward because they are inclined to bolt in all directions. it is laugh out loud funny. and so, after the strict discipline shown by republicans over the last decade or more, the picture of mr. boehner dealing with rebellious teabaggers may provide some opportunities for humor. and will hopefully be disruptive to republican order. so that is my hope for this.