Whie there's no *direct* correlation between Blue Dogs losing and progressive policy...

[joshcryer]

...there is certainly an *indirect* correlation.

For instance, one could argue that Blue Dogs lost their seats because of the economy. Progressive policy would have likely made the economy better, sooner, with tangible results, therefore giving those Blue Dogs a somewhat better chance of retaining their seats.

I of course don't buy the implication that Blue Dogs lost their seats because these states wanted more progressive policy, because the fact is, they voted for even more regressive policy. Part of it is due to voter ignorance (sorry, when my sister in law claims that Bush was a fucking Democrat, one has to concede some voters are ignorant fools). Part of it is almost certainly due to how the economy is going, with the *implication* that Republicans are "better" for the economy (nothing could be further from the truth of course).

But by no means is this a direct indictment against the Administration.

It's one thing for the country to go "We want progressive policy!"

And it's another thing entirely for the country to go "We want things to be better!"

Voter ignorance tends to be used by the latter, and it may or may not result in voters picking the regressive position. The Administration must implement progressive policy to make things better. Force the Republicans to either vote on progressive policy or not vote at all. If they don't vote, they lose (especially if we can get them ranting about fixing the problems, which in the case of teabaggers is an easy task). If they do vote, we get the credit.

In no time in the history of our modern government has progressive policy been more important.

[joshcryer]

1. Kick to see if anyone else agrees with this simple analysis.