House- Progressive Caucus is now the plurality. How the Blue Dogs and New Dems did (badly)

[underpants]

Details on Blue Dogs here

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:




http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/3/916876/-Progressives-Caucus-remains-intact,-becomes-a-plurality-of-House-Dems

[Goblinmonger]

1. Countdown to claims that the progressives caused the losses in...

10...9...8...7

Even though it is clear that the progressives came out to vote.

[mmonk]

2. Excellent. This may make for more of a two party system the

way it used to be.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Thanks for this..and the post on the blue Dogs.

Very, very interesting stats....

Looks like that "enthusiasm gap" did not affect the Progressives so much...
Progressives came out to support those they saw were supporting the Progressive ideas.

[Recursion]

10. There was plenty of enthusiasm in the districts the blue dogs lost.

It was just for Republicans.

There are not legions of progressives hiding in MS-4, MO-4 or VA-9, but Gene Taylor, Ike Skelton, and Rick Boucher managed to hold those districts for decades. The price of that was they couldn't go very far to the left.

As stunningly inadequate as HCR, the stimulus, and financial reform seem to us here in the echo chamber, they were far enough to the left that those seats weren't tenable anymore.

And getting those seats back will require running candidates who are... wait for it... conservative enough to get elected in those districts.

[CTyankee]

37. Yes, we voted enthusiastically. the problem was that there just isn't enough of us.

We can't win elections on our own except in my darling New England (excepting New Hampshire just now)and the Left Coast. We simply don't have that big enough slice of the pie...

[polichick]

4. That's the upside of this election. k&r

[BzaDem]

5. It is easy to have a vast majority progressive caucus if your caucus is a powerless minority.

Then again, a powerless minority Democratic caucus can't even unlock the bathroom in the House, let alone pass legislation. So I'm not sure why anyone considers this state of affairs to be a good thing.

If you want a majority, you need significant numbers of blue dog seats. The next majority we get will have significant numbers of blue dog seats. Of course most of the seats we lost were blue dogs -- they are the ones that come from unsafe districts that we need to win to become a majority.

Progressives won because they came from safe districts. The few that were in unsafe districts (Grayson, Perriello, Feingold in the Senate) lost.

[PassingFair]

13. I'd rather have a powerless minority than a powerless majority.

At least we can send out a unified message now.

Voters prefer clear choices.

And a united, progressive house will energize
both candidates AND voters
in areas that otherwise
wouldn't bother to put up a fight.

[BzaDem]

14. What you are missing is that it is impossible to have a majority AT ALL without significant numbers

of blue dogs.

The average congressional district is R+3. There are many more congressional districts that are conservative than are liberal, even if you deny this fact or don't like this fact.

To the extent "voters like clear choices," on average they make their choice clear by voting Republican.

Sure, in a wave election like '06 and '08, where Republicans are unenthusiastic and Democrats are enthusiastic, we might be able to buck the tide and get independent voters to vote for Democrats if the Democrats in question agree with the independent voters on policy. But that won't happen if we nominate a candidate that disagrees with the Independent voters on every single policy, as you propose.

[PassingFair]

15. What you are missing is that it is possible to tackle the New Dems head on...

without their Blue Dog cover now.

Then we'll just have to wait until the next
"wave election" to attain an EFFECTIVE
majority.

[BzaDem]

17. The next wave election will either elect lots of blue dogs/new dems, or will not elect a majority.

One or the other. Not both simultaneously.

[PassingFair]

18. How the hell do YOU know?

It could bring about a wave of Democrats like
Grayson in Florida.

The Republicans won't do anything to pull the
US out of this slump, and people will be desperate
for real progress and real representation.

It could energize Kansas.

No one can predict the future with certainty,
not even you!

[BzaDem]

19. "and people will be desperate for real progress and real representation"

You are assuming that the people of conservative districts don't think of their Republicans as "real representation."

Even in 2006 and 2008, many seats we won were won by a few points, on the strength of centrist independent voters in those districts.

[PassingFair]

20. I am assuming that the people of conservative districts won't continue...

to think of their Republicans as "real representation"
when they lose their homes and ability to support their
children with luxuries such as FOOD.

The idiots in those districts don't "get it"
until "it" happens to them.

And it WILL happen to them.

[BzaDem]

24. That is kind of a false assumption though. If they lose their homes, they will blame it on liberals

regardless of who is in power.

[PassingFair]

29. Then I guess there is nothing we can do for them.

You're right.

Let's nuke them....

Even if they need to bite the hand
that feeds them, we still need to
try and provide for all.

[BzaDem]

32. Yes, we do need to try to provide for all. To do that, we need a majority, and to get that, we need

some conservative Democrats in districts that won't elect liberal ones.

[PassingFair]

35. Jeebus, it's the conservative DEMS who stop us from putting the case to the people!

Voters will FLUSH this watered-down
crap EVERY TIME.

These rednecks will turn into economic populists
soon enough, but they need to have
an alternative.

Hopefully we will be able draw some lines now.

[BzaDem]

43. Yeah, like they flushed down Alan Grayson, and Russ Feingold, and Tom Perriello.

Those were "watered-down crap" to you. If only they were "economic populists," they would have won. Got it.

:rofl:

[PassingFair]

47. TWO Progressives lost.

Grayson WON his initial election for speaking straight
and promising change. He LOST this election because
the Democrats, watered down as they are
could NOT DELIVER.

Rinse, repeat.

:rofl:

[BzaDem]

48. Umm, bullshit. You said people were looking for a choice. Grayson was a choice. He lost. n/t

[PassingFair]

50. He also WON.

Until "Center-Left" dems took over the
face of the party.

64 seats were lost to the Pukes in this cycle.
TWO of them were Progressives.


Obama won in a landslide when people thought he was
a Progressive.

Now....not so much.

[BzaDem]

51. He won before he cast votes. As soon as he was actually a Congressperson and cast votes, he lost.

What does that tell you, that people will only vote for him before they see what he actually does in office?

[PassingFair]

52. Bull. He never hid who he was.

Obama won the election on a wave of
Progressive Populism.

He will LOSE the next one, like
Grayson just did, if he continues
to let centrists sabotage the party
for corporate gain.

[Recursion]

64. He won on coattails and lost on a wave. That's how those districts work.

He was "too liberal" for his district, but he would have probably lost as a blue dog, too; that's how the waves work.

The difference is, a blue dog could win that district back without having a massive Presidential coattail to ride on.

[CTyankee]

74. And this is what is not being tried. The knee jerk reaction is "move right."

We might try "moving left" for a change. We might lose but we lost as "centrists who are 'reasonable.'"

[Recursion]

72. "These rednecks will turn economic populists soon enough"

Yeah, the narrative that says Democrats are arrogant and out of touch has no basis in reality...

[Chan790]

33. I think these center-right Dem coalitions are dead or dying.

There won't be a next time for them. They're taking the dirt nap. That said, I don't think we'll see a Dem House again in this decade.

Perhaps there will be a different iteration thereof (a Center/Moderate/Right coalition within the Democratic Party) but I doubt it will look like these groups. For one thing the lines of demarcation are changing too much for this iteration to be viable.

[BzaDem]

34. Then there won't be a next time for a Dem House. Once center-right-Dems are revived, then we might

have a shot at having a Dem House.

[Chan790]

40. You need to lay-off the acid koolaid.

And if you want my opinion truly, I think the term center-right Democrat will ring as funny in 20 years as liberal Republican does now. I was born in an era where if you wanted to win in my home state as a Republican, you had to be a liberal Republican. Republicans still win in my home state but they're not liberal...things change. This change is the end of this iteration (or form, if you prefer form) of moderate Democratic politics.

These sea-changes happen...the conditions that made this iteration viable no longer exist. The very premise you're pushing is a dinosaur...it's time has passed and something else will evolve to replace it. It's happened before and will happen again...and we'll be viable throughout. The moderates of tomorrow will not look like the ones you supported.

[BzaDem]

42. You are correct that the type of Democrat needed to win in some districts might no longer be

"center right." Now, it might just be "right." So to the extent that the premise I am pushing is a "dinosaur," that may be true, but if it is true, it is because these districts are so far right that they won't even elect center-right Democrats anymore (not because they are about to elect liberals).

Can there be a sea change in 20 years? Sure there can be. But that would redefine what the center is, so what I am saying is generally true regardless of the era. It could be that a center-right Democrat in the future is much more progressive than a center-right Democrat is today. Or it could be the case that a center-right Democrat in the future is much more conservative than a center-right Democrat is today.

It all depends on where the people move (and therefore where the center moves).

[CTyankee]

57. We keep losing the argument and the right keeps moving us more to the right.

Look at 30 years ago where we were with Republicans such as Bob Dole. They seem so "left" now!

this is not getting any better, folks...it's getting worse...why can't we "win" these arguments with the American electorate?

[Recursion]

67. The whole world is moving to the right. Look at europe.

People respond to different circumstances with different political attitudes.

[Chan790]

31. Thankfully you state your basic assumption upfront.

Because it's the crux of the problem...if progressives cannot win in those districts, then the solution has to be to fix our message so we can be competitive in those district. The solution can't be to continue to be pulled farther right and/or to continue to send purplish-red Democrats to office.

You solution is not a solution, if that's the best we can do then we need to do better or don't bother contesting those districts.

Blue-dogging is a terminal strategy.

[BzaDem]

36. Have you ever considered that the only way to "fix our message so we can be competitive in those

districts" is to move to the right (only in those districts)?

In other words, have you ever considered that people in those districts do not want very progressive policies, and will ONLY elect a representative that fits their views?

[PassingFair]

39. Have you considered that people in those districts are rarely offered a choice?

Tell Alan Grayson you can't win in
a conservative district.

[BzaDem]

44. Alan Grayson just found out that he can't continue to win in a conservative district.

So I don't need to tell him anything.

The people in these districts are offered a choice every 4 years for President. And every 4 years, they vote massively against Democrats. Including very liberal Democrats like McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis.

[Recursion]

76. He just did a pretty good job of proving that himself (nt)

[Chan790]

41. No, that's the problem and not the solution.

You're hog-tied to a dead goat of a political-identity. It's not viable in those districts clearly anymore than it is anywhere else.

You're in Bohemia. Pull out your modern atlas and find Bohemia for me. You can't because it stopped existing as a country during WW I. It, like the current iteration of the center-right coalition, is a relic of the past.

The question is do you want to be part of the next moderate coalition of the Democratic Party which is viable in those districts or do you want to be irrelevant?

[BzaDem]

45. I think the problem with your Bohemia-analogy is that it is false.

Just because this particular year was bad for moderate Democrats doesn't mean every year in the future will be. Just because an identity was perfectly valid in '06 and '08, but not in '10, doesn't mean it won't be in '12 or '14. If you were talking about an identity that hasn't been valid for 30 years, you might have a point, but conservative and moderate Democrats have been elected on and off for decades.

[Chan790]

53. Okay, now I see our communication breakdown.

You're very tied to a specific axis by which you're defining the lines of demarcation. Things only move in one dimension, along that line. All positions fall along that line from right to left. (Note that these terms are meaningless. They merely act to denote shades of gray between two absolute POVs. Change the two end points and we still define positions along the line from right to left.) You're arguing for one position on that line, saying other positions along that line are not viable in some districts.

I'm not arguing for abandonment of that position, I'm arguing for an abandonment of that line of demarcation entirely. We've waged war with the GOP on social issues and in a large part of the country, we've lost and it's killing our agenda on other fronts. Let's wage war on another front as the key dividing point.

For an example:
Someone suggested in another thread that we refuse to address the GOP on the Bush tax-cuts and push a payroll tax holiday instead for small business hiring. It's brilliant because it puts us on the side of small businesses and workers. The GOP will have to oppose it because it would be disastrous for large corporations that give them lots of money in a post-Citizens United landscape. Consistently make those sorts of plays (which would be popular in ever district in the US) and you redraw the front-lines of the political battlefield right through their base. Of course, it means abandoning our own Wall St. friends.

The old moderate is dead, all hail the new moderate.

[PassingFair]

54. "..abandoning our own Wall St. friends". Now you've done it!

Not fair, the DLC NEEDS those friends.

[Chan790]

55. Hence, why I say the DLC is dead. n/t

[PassingFair]

56. Hence, why I hope you are right.

But they're not dead yet.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZIvg_I3yHx0/Rrkw2OEarmI/AAAAAAAAAf8/zWeIK0yYXFM/s320/bring+out+your+dead.jpg

They just smell that way.

:P

[Recursion]

60. Mikulski, Reid, Feinstein, Nelson, Landrieu, Kerry, Stabenow...

Johnson, Cantwell, and Kohl are all still in the Senate. The only New Democrat Coalition Senator who lost was Lincoln.

DLCers did a lot better than blue dogs. Those two groups are different; as far as I can remember the only member of both caucuses is Jane Harman.

[PassingFair]

61. We were talking about the House.

We know there are still New Dems in the Senate,
why else would our legislation be so watered down?
Why else would sound House legislation be stymied
when we had a "bullet-proof majority of 60" in the Senate.

Nelson will turn Republican in the next election,
because that's about what he is, and I don't think
Kerry would like being identified as a DLC member.

[Recursion]

63. If Kerry doesn't want to be identified as a DLC member he should leave that caucus

The New Dems lost 10% of their caucus in the House; the blue dogs lost 50%. My still-valid point is that DLC and BDC are two different caucuses.

[PassingFair]

65. He's not "in" that caucus. He's a Senator n/t

[Recursion]

66. Yes, he is in the Senate New Democrat Coalition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition#Senate_New_Democrat_Coalition_members

(The actual DLC is just From and the Clintons.)

[PassingFair]

68. You're right...I had no idea he'd become so "out" about it.

I recall him rowing away from the DLC
as fast as he could in '04.

[Recursion]

69. Sure, in the primaries. He was trying to capitalize on Dean's momentum

Remember, when the 2004 primaries started out, it still looked like Gephardt was the "establishment" pick, and Clark was eating up a lot of Kerry's DLC base.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. DLC=Democrats Lose Congress

Hopefully working Americans can have our Party back.

[Arkana]

7. 95% of the Progressive Caucus won reelection, eh?

This little fact sheet should be distributed to every Democrat in the House right now so that they know where their goddamn bread is buttered.

[Recursion]

8. It's now buttered in a much smaller part of the country

That's the price of having a more progressive caucus.

[tritsofme]

16. And what does that prove? That if you draw a district so that the Democrat can't lose

They won't?

Blue Dogs were in the front line districts, many of which were Republican turf before 2006 and 2008. The majority of the progressive caucus are in comfy districts built to suite, and have never faced a legitimate Republican challenge.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. That's a new euphemisim..'front line districts'

But no matter how you put it, the losing Blue Dogs lost their own districts, districts previously won, be they front line, back line, squiggly line, you name it. They lost the districts they had won, their own damn turf. Won it, then lost it.

[Recursion]

70. Yep. And progressives would never have won those districts in the first place. (nt)

[underpants]

59. Yes there is that

and the Repubs hit right at the "soft targets" - conservative districts that went Dem in 06 and 08. Smart move by them. Easy win or not a win is a win.

Now since the census was last year I think that the house gets to redistrict--well actually it has been taken out of their hands and done by a more impartial committee or team in the FEC (I think)

[Recursion]

9. Good data. Now find a progressive that can win in the districts the blue dogs lost

Any ideas?

[0rganism]

21. Clone Rep. DeFazio?

He's been carrying a republican-advantage district (OR-4) for decades without hiding his solidly progressive positions.

http://defazio.house.gov

[Recursion]

23. Coastal Oregon?

That district had also elected a Democrat for the 12 years preceding him.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. 'Costal Oregon' is a terrible descriptor for the 4th

as it is not accurate, as the 4th represents part of the coast, but not all, and has much far inland area, I'm in the middle of it, 60 miles from the coast. It is one of the geographically largest districts. We have liberals, conservatives, radicals, anarchists, you name it. Peter wins the votes of liberal urban people as well as farmers, ranchers, retirees, students.
Anyone running for office of any sort would do well to watch Peter in action at a rural town hall.

[LWolf]

30. +1

[onenote]

73. who says that OR-4 is a "republican advantage district"?

Charlie Cook, who is generally the source for such matters, characterizes the fourth district as Democratic +2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Or-4#1996

[Recursion]

75. Yeah, I still don't get that. They elected a Democrat for the 12 years before DeFazio (nt)

[countrydad58]

25. New Deal

Economic populism circa 1930s-1960s! Case closed!

[treestar]

38. This is the rub

that so many refuse to see!

Exactly. To some, it's great to be in a minority because it is more purely progressive!

[de novo]

71. The American voters, even in conservative leaning districts would not

have a problem with progressives if the result of electing progressives was meaningful and beneficial legislation. Saying that only conservatives can get elected is admitting defeat before trying.

Failing to enact progressives legislation by capitulating to conservatives is another way to accept defeat.

[Chan790]

46. I expect it will be:

Someone who is a populist barnstormer. Someone who talks like those constituents. Someone who can connect and talk honestly about their faith. Someone who can connect their values clearly and concisely to liberal ideals. Let's be honest, we've sucked at choosing those people for a while.

The problem is in media, not message. We've ceded a lot of ground to the GOP on things that have f*ck-all to do with actual content of the agenda, liberal or moderate. It's time liberals running for office shut up about ideals until after they've stooped to eating crappy pie and kissing babies and connected to the constituents. Nobody trusts politicians, but they trust people they genuinely connect to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Good riddance.

[Greyhound]

12. K&R.

[PassingFair]

22. Kick. n/t

[Jefferson23]

27. You can only sell Blue Dog bullshit for so long, then it catches up with you. n/t

[Skidmore]

49. It's still a 64 seat deficit.

No matter which way you cut it.

[SoCalDem]

58. "Mommy, I'm thirsty"

"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"
"Mommy, I'm thirsty"


friend walks into kitchen , sees the red-faced crying child & asks Mommy "what's all the ruckus in here"..

Mommy stops texting & hands the baby a cookie & says "There you are..now go play..Mommy's busy"..

[NorthCarolina]

62. There you have it. The silver lining in the 2010 election debacle. eom