Despite narrative, "conservative" and "southern" Dem victories were scarce
by kos
Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 08:32:43 AM PDT
The lie that won't die. In an interview of former Rep. and Blue Dog founding member Glen Browder, the following fantastic claim is made:
The Blue Dogs are back big-time. Of the more than two dozen Democrats who knocked off sitting congressional Republicans on Tuesday, most if not all line up with the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, meaning these new congressmen will be to the right of their more liberal House leaders.
Out of 29 Democrats that have won thus far (barring further recounts), a grand total of five might be ideologically lined up with the Blue Dogs -- the three new Indiana reps, Nick Lampson in Texas, and Heath Shuler of NC. Shuler, however, is far to the left of the Blue Dogs on economic issues. Maybe Harry Mitchell in Arizona. Maybe.
Not to mention the two Blue Dogs who ran for Senate -- Harold Ford and Ed Case (in Hawaii) lost.
So "most" of the new Dem reps are Blue Dog material? Like progressive hero Jerry McNerney in California? Like Ed Perlmutter in CO-07? The two new Connecticut Democrats -- Courtney and Murphy? The two new New Hampshire Democrats -- Shea-Porter and Hodes? Tim Mahoney and and Ron Klein in Florida? Braley and Loebsack in Iowa? Yarmuth in Kentucky, who was supposedly too liberal to win a southern House seat? Tim Walz in Minnesota? Arcuri, Gillibrand, and Hall in NY? Space in Ohio? Altmire, Sestak, and Murphy in PA? Even Carney in the conservative PA-10 doesn't line up well with the Blue Dogs. Kagen in Wisconsin? Giffords in Arizona?
So "most if not all" line up with the Blue Dog Coalition? Can people be more ridiculous?
Browder makes this claim:
The Democrats did not achieve a majority in Congress without Dixie, and “there would be no new Democratic Congress without southerners.
Sounds great, but it's not true.
In the South, we picked up a gift in Texas, two seats in Florida, one seat in North Carolina (thus far), and one seat in Kentucky.
That's five seats. Given that we have a 30-seat majority, I think we'd still have a Democratic congress without the South. Same in the Senate, with the only Southern pickup being Jim Webb in Virginia.
That's not to denigrate the South, but to inject a bit of realism into the discussion, as Tom Schaller attempts to do. There is definitely a CW that claims that Dems can't win without the South. Well, we did. The results are quite clear and uncontroversial on the matter.
[H]ere are the "flip rates" of GOP-held seats, by region: Northeast, 30.6%; Midwest, 15.0%; Far West, 9.5%; South, 5.5% [...]
85% of Democratic gains at all levels in 2006 came outside the South [...]
[T]he only two Democrats who almost lost House seats despite the blue wave--which means we had to waste resources on defense rather than spending it on offense--were in Georgia;
We don't want to abandon the South and we won't. But the short-term path for a Democratic progressive majority runs through our coastal strongholds, and then through the swing Midwest and purpling Mountain West. The South is a long-term reclamation project.
Update: I've just heard that Patrick Murphy in PA-08 will join the Blue Dems. Even if the Blue Dogs get 10 new members out of the 30+ new Democrats (which include pickups and Dems replacing retiring Dems), that's still not "most if not all".
Update II: Ah, I realize I misunderstood Browder's point -- it's true, our 15-seat majority in Congress probably wouldn't exist without white Southern Democrats in the House. There's more than 15 of them (though not much more).
- ::