Blue Dog Coalition Crushed By GOP Wave Election

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Amanda Turkel

WASHINGTON -- Tuesday was a tough night for Democrats, as they watched Republicans win enough seats to take back the House in the next Congress and began to ponder life under a likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). But one group hit especially hard was the Blue Dog Coalition, with half of its members losing their seats.

According to an analysis by The Huffington Post, 22 of the 46 Blue Dogs up for re-election went down on Tuesday. Notable losses included Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), the coalition's co-chair for administration, and Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), the co-chair for policy. Two members were running for higher office (both lost), four were retiring and three races were still too close to call.

The Blue Dogs, a coalition of moderate to conservative Democrats in the House, have consistently frustrated their more progressive colleagues and activists within the party, especially during the health care debate. Blue Dog members pushed to limit the scope and the cost of the legislation and resisted some of the mandates of the bill. Last summer, seven of the eight Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee even threatened to block health care reform unless it met their cost requirements.

Other areas where Blue Dogs have helped put the brakes on ambitious progressive priorities are global warming measures and legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize.

"Since they can vote with the Republicans in order to get their way around here, that doesn't sit well with progressives -- who don't want to vote with Republicans ever," Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Cali.), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, told the Wall Street Journal in July 2009.

In fact, some progressives blamed the Blue Dogs for losses on Tuesday across the ideological spectrum within the Democratic Party.

"From our perspective, our members did all that they could do and really left everything on the field," said Levana Layendecker, communications director of the progressive grassroots organization Democracy for America. "Of course we are disappointed with the results tonight, but not surprised. Unfortunately, progressive champions became collateral damage tonight in a toxic environment created by Blue Dogs who refused to stand up for real change."

The Blue Dog Coalition formed after the Republican Revolution of 1994, with some lawmakers believing that Democrats lost so many seats because the party drifted to the left. It remains to be seen whether the remaining lawmakers will be able to find new members, or whether the Progressive Caucus -- which lost far fewer members, in part because many of them are in solidly liberal districts -- will instead see its hand strengthened.

BLUE DOGS WHO LOST (22)

Mike Arcuri (NY)

Allen Boyd (FL)

Bobby Bright (AL)

Christopher Carney (PA)

Travis Childers (MS)

Kathy Dahlkemper (PA)

Lincoln Davis (TN)

Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (SD)

Baron Hill (IN)

Frank Kratovil (MD)

Betsy Markey (CO)

Jim Marshall (GA)

Walt Minnick (ID)

Harry Mitchell (AZ)

Patrick Murphy (PA)

Scott Murphy (NY)

Glenn Nye (VA)

Earl Pomeroy (ND)

John Salazar (CO)

Zack Space (OH)

Gene Taylor (MS)

Charles Wilson (OH)

http://www.huffingto...s_n_778087.html

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yeah, blame it on the blue dogs....

Damage control much Steve?

Edited November 3, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[luckytxn 2,263]

Life is good.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't buy into that assessment at all. Blue Dogs are typically representing more conservative constituencies and would necessarily be at odds with the more progressive crowd. However, for progressives to claim that they were "collateral damage" yesterday is dishonest at best.

The Democrats want to pride themselves as a big tent party and chastize the GOP for leaving the middle and focusing on the right end of the spectrum too much. When Progressives now come out and say that they want to polarize on the far left of political spectrum then their tent will necessarily shrink. As much as some want to pretend that you can build majorities on the fringes, I don't see there being much evidence to support any such thing.

Bottom line is that the crowds aren't that big on either end of the spectrum. The majority typically swings to either side of the center - though not far from it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't buy into that assessment at all. Blue Dogs are typically representing more conservative constituencies and would necessarily be at odds with the more progressive crowd. However, for progressives to claim that they were "collateral damage" yesterday is dishonest at best.

The Democrats want to pride themselves as a big tent party and chastize the GOP for leaving the middle and focusing on the right end of the spectrum too much. When Progressives now come out and say that they want to polarize on the far left of political spectrum then their tent will necessarily shrink. As much as some want to pretend that you can build majorities on the fringes, I don't see there being much evidence to support any such thing.

Bottom line is that the crowds aren't that big on either end of the spectrum. The majority typically swings to either side of the center - though not far from it.

Threatening to block legislation from its own party base is bizarre. You don't see that happen within the GOP. However conservative their constituents may well be, they should simply vote 'no' on whatever legislation they don't like but at least support their party's base with bringing legislation to a vote.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Threatening to block legislation from its own party base is bizarre. You don't see that happen within the GOP. However conservative their constituents may well be, they should simply vote 'no' on whatever legislation they don't like but at least support their party's base with bringing legislation to a vote.

I don't disagree with that but you know the message war out there - and the GOP truly masters that one. You have the opportunity to block a vote (and hence defeat a measure you oppose) but you actually allow that vote which you know leads to assured passage of said measure. This will stick on you like a YES vote. It matters not how you voted on the issue if the message to the public is that you allowed the matter to be voted on in the first place knowing good and well that majorities to pass it exist.

Is that right? No. Is it good? No. Is that the reality the Blue Dogs are up against? You know it is.

Progressives want to hammer the Blue Dogs for their losses while it was their own base that stayed home yesterday.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't disagree with that but you know the message war out there - and the GOP truly masters that one. You have the opportunity to block a vote (and hence defeat a measure you oppose) but you actually allow that vote which you know leads to assured passage of said measure. This will stick on you like a YES vote. It matters not how you voted on the issue if the message to the public is that you allowed the matter to be voted on in the first place knowing good and well that majorities to pass it exist.

Is that right? No. Is it good? No. Is that the reality the Blue Dogs are up against? You know it is.

Progressives want to hammer the Blue Dogs for their losses while it was their own base that stayed home yesterday.

But see, where did that get the Blue Dogs? I mean, if you're going to walk like a duck and quack like a duck, might as well be a duck. The ones that got ousted had more to do with the (D) beside their name than whether they had well represented their constituents. As a more liberal Democrat, I have no qualms about moderates in the party as long as they don't try to actually block key votes on the party's legislative agenda. That's where I'll draw the line.

[SMR 368]

But see, where did that get the Blue Dogs? I mean, if you're going to walk like a duck and quack like a duck, might as well be a duck. The ones that got ousted had more to do with the (D) beside their name than whether they had well represented their constituents. As a more liberal Democrat, I have no qualms about moderates in the party as long as they don't try to actually block key votes on the party's legislative agenda. That's where I'll draw the line.

Unless I missed something, we're talking about the House, not the Senate. And in the House, they don't call cloture votes (filibusters don't exist in the house). The Speaker just calls the vote. Yes, the Speaker doesn't call the vote if he doesn't expect to win. And if his own party members don't support him, it's hard to have the votes to win. But that doesn't mean that these Blue Dogs were blocking key votes other than by threatening to vote against them. The speaker could call the vote anyways. He would just lose. So basically, what you're saying is, you're fine with moderates being moderates as long as they don't vote like moderates. I get it.

As far as the whole point of this article, it doesn't at all detract from the fact that people voted against Obama's agenda. If voters were punishing these Blue Dogs for being too conservative, they would have been beaten in the primary by more liberal contenders. But those more liberal contenders didn't exist because everyone who was paying attention knew that, if anything, those Blue Dogs were losing support in their districts because they were too blue in spite of being dogs.

I suppose that strategically this analysis could hold some comfort for democrats since some of the democrats who lost were voting with republicans anyways. Thus, the total swing in vote totals is less than the swing in party changes. All the same, it'll be hard for Obama to pass the types of things he was passing before.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As far as the whole point of this article, it doesn't at all detract from the fact that people voted against Obama's agenda. If voters were punishing these Blue Dogs for being too conservative, they would have been beaten in the primary by more liberal contenders. But those more liberal contenders didn't exist because everyone who was paying attention knew that, if anything, those Blue Dogs were losing support in their districts because they were too blue in spite of being dogs.

So the people that voted for Obama's agenda 2 years ago have suddenly become ideologically opposed to it? That's quite a spin. This was an anti-incumbency election for the most part. Those who rejected Obama's agenda (or actually the Democratic agenda) 2 years ago hadn't changed their ideology. The polls over specific policies show that. If the economy were doing a lot better, we would have seen a different outcome.

As for liberal contenders - you must be talking about why some of these Blue Dogs weren't challenged in their Primaries? Some of them were, however, these are congressional districts that have traditionally been conservative. Without jerrymandering these districts differently, the results will continue to be essentially the same.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Blue Dog Democrats are mythical creatures, much like California Conservatives, and New England Republicans.

[^_^ 5,021]

Blue Dog Democrats are mythical creatures, much like California Conservatives, and New England Republicans.

Tell that to the members of the Blue Dog Caucus. They'd be happy to know they didn't actually exist.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Tell that to the members of the Blue Dog Caucus. They'd be happy to know they didn't actually exist.

It made them feel good to have their own club house, where they could eat Twinkies and drink Sanka in peace.