Skip to main content

Larry Sabato has his last set of House race predictions, and like other prognosticators, predicts a massive Republican wave:

Even at this late date, we see no need to do anything but tweak the total R gains, based on more complete information now available to all. Thus, we are raising the total to +55 net R seats. We consider 47 to be in the ballpark still, but more of a floor than a ceiling. In fact, if you’ll go back to our pre-Labor Day analysis, that’s exactly what we suggested +47 would end up being.

I went through and compared his predicted Democratic losses to the membership of the Blue Dogs, and got the following list: Berry (retired), Bishop, Boyd, Carney, Childers, Dahlkemper, Ellsworth (running for Senate), Gordon (retired), Herseth-Sandlin, Hill, Kratovil, Markey, Marhsall, Melancon (running for Senate), Mitchell, Moore (retired), Murphy (the one in Pennsylvania), Murphy (the on New York), Nye, Pomeroy, Salazar, Space, and Tanner (retired)

Now those are predicted losses. There's several on this list who will survive, and probably several more who Sabato thinks are safe who will not. And of course, Democrats may be in better shape than suggested. As Nate Silver wrote yesterday:

Our projection says that Republicans are favorites in 231 House races, which would reflect a net gain of 52 seats.

But suppose that our forecast is biased against the Democrats by one point across the country as a whole, perhaps because pollsters are overestimating the enthusiasm gap very slightly. Just one point. Well, there are 6 seats in which we have the Republican candidate projected to win by less than 1 full point (it might be a very long election night, by the way). If Democrats hold those 6 seats, the projected Republican gains would be down to 46.

Now suppose that the forecast understates Democratic support by 2 points. There are 8 seats in which we project the Republican candidate to win by a margin of between 1 and 2 points; now these would also be wiped off the board. Now the Republican gains would be reduced to just 38 seats — and the Democrats would hold the House, 218-217!

But still, let's assume Sabato and the rest of the prognosticators are right. Their projections aren't unreasonable.

If they're right, that means that 23 of the 54 Blue Dog members would bite the dust, decimating their caucus. That means that the Blue Dogs would make up 44 percent of Democratic losses, even though they only make up 21 percent of the caucus.

If the worst-case scenario comes to happen, we can enjoy this silver lining -- the brunt of the losses will be felt by the very same people who helped obstruct the Democratic agenda, who fought middle class tax cuts and the Public Option, and who fueled the "Dems are divided" narrative. We'll get rid of the hypcorites who, like their Republican BFF's, scream about "fiscal responsibility" while fighting desperately to cut taxes on the wealthiest.

Some of those Blue Dogs are actually not terrible (like Pomeroy and the Pennsylvania Murphy), but I'll be cheering the losses of the Marhsalls, Bishops and Boyds. We'll have a smaller caucus when the new Congress gets sworn in next year, but it'll be a more ideologically cohesive one. And that can only be helpful moving forward.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  are Blue Dogs moderaret Dems in GOP distrs? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aaraujo, Matt Z, Onomastic, alanday

    ......80% of showing up

    by Churchill on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:57:55 AM PDT

  •  Now, now, kos... (21+ / 0-)

    I seem to recall you cheerleading the election of a number of Blue Dogs when the Dems made big gains in the House the last time around.

    Sometimes, you get exactly what you wish for.

    (Only to regret it later.)

    Even my bot is tired of this shit.

    by Bob Johnson on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:58:48 AM PDT

    •  Make no mistake (22+ / 0-)

      A majority with Blue Dogs is better than a minority without them. This is a silver lining, not something to hope for.

      Proud supporter of nuclear power!

      by zegota on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:04:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fighting to replace shit with compost, hwat u exp (8+ / 0-)

      ect?  The Congress majority pre-2006 was pure evil.  Terry Shavio anyone?  Besides, who would expect that so many politicians would reject doing what was politically popular just to enusre Foxaganda jobs in the future?

      •  Oh, I definitely remember Schiavo (0+ / 0-)

        the vote had 102 Democrats not voting (wasn't most of Congress out of town?), but of those voting, 47 voted for that bill, versus 53 against it.  Even if you assume all the the non-votes would have been against it, that's 25% of all Democrats who supported this intrusion of Congress into a difficult situation.  

        The Republicans who voted, of course, were overwhelmingly in favor of it.  (Hey, Repubs, what ever happened to "states rights"?)

        I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

        by tle on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:47:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You cheer on the cloest thing avaiable (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, Uberbah, Onomastic

      It amazes me how political analysts/strategists think ignoring the precise elements of your victory doesn't doom you to losing next election.

      Independents want to vote for principled leaders, even ones who don't suit them completely.

      The only strength a politician has is their integrity and Independents understand this to the greatest degree.

      When someone is elected as a Democrat or Reepublican the non party voters expect that individual to not be wishy-washy.

      Anything short of that instaantly loses favor with Independents.

      "A functioning Democracy must defy economic interests of the elites on behalf of citizens" Christopher Hedges Econ 3.50&Soc. 5.79

      by wmc418 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:11:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nonsense. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, amk for obama

        Independents are no smarter nor any more concerned with principle than anyone else, they go whichever way the wind least that's what all the polls are finding this year. Of course "independent" can mean anything...which isn't really so different from "Democrat" considering that this party has a range from gun-toting tebagging blue dogs on one end to Dennis Kucinich on the other...."Republican" is the only party tag that really tells you anything, actually...their range is only from far right-wing to far right-wing-lunatic.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:31:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          Tell me how they grade that wind.

          I agree they are no smarter, and they have no ideological roots and are susceptable to any simple sounding solution, sort of "blowing in the wind".

          Independents go to the polls looking for what is promised.

          They vote for the politician who speaks to their needs and desires and who promise to work towards that goal.

          When the promises are not seen as fulfilled they "blow in the wind".

          When the ones they elected begin to waffle (back off their campaign direction) they "blow in the wind".

          As you know in Florida Independents are in a Party they likely don't remember (Ross Perot).

          NPA's only have one real characteristic; they want what they reckon is honesty and character.

          When Dems fail to associate themselves with their own electoral pasts (Republicans too, for that matter) NPAs feel lied to, betrayed and "blow in the wind" as they have no Party anchor.

          Notice how Democrats who are in swing districts fair better whe they remain true to their last campaign positions. Look at the margins of victory and of loss. Judge for yourself, those who are considered principled will get more Independent/NPA votes.

          That is my experience. measure it with what you just said, they are really closely aligned, just nuanced differently.

          We do need definitions. Like "what do you mean when you say you are conservative but believe in social Security, Medicare, Police & Fire Departments".

          We also need a definition of what is not a middle class income. $1000 per day gets my vote for now.

          Without them, the nation speaks but no one knows what they really mean.

          "A functioning Democracy must defy economic interests of the elites on behalf of citizens" Christopher Hedges Econ 3.50&Soc. 5.79

          by wmc418 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:30:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'll take Speaker Pelosi + blue dog albatross (10+ / 0-)

      over Speaker Boehner any day.

      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

      by sacrelicious on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:20:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How long before we wish Manchin would go away? (0+ / 0-)

      Right now, we're grasping at Appalachian straws.

      The Obama/Biden Inaugural -- the exact moment when the world went from gray to colorful.

      by alkatt on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:59:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Silver liNing, not liMing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Why Daschlism sucks (17+ / 0-)

    Capitulating and rolling over because some idiotic DC Pundit Class says if you do'n do this..., or if you do this...AND fucking impeachment was supposed to hurt the Democrats in 1998. Good riddance to democrats who cock-blocked the progressive agenda.

  •  Stand for something or get out of the way (8+ / 0-)

    Shock.  Voters want the real deal conservative rather than the GOP-lite.  Why not try to build a progressive movement rather than play into GOP memes?  I for one will not miss them, not to worry I bet their corporate friends will take care of them.

    We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

    by Tzimisce on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:00:12 AM PDT

  •  "Silver lining". Um, no (12+ / 0-)


    Losing House = terrible. Period.

  •  Yeah... (7+ / 0-)

    THEN Democrats will be divided, and the media will stop portraying us as a herd of stunned cats.


  •  I'm confused... (19+ / 0-)

    this sounds an awful lot like Jim DiMint's "I'd rather have 41 true Republicans than a majority caucus with a broader ideological sweep."  Particularly in the House, where party discipline is tighter and where who's chairing committees makes a MASSIVE difference, I'll take a majority caucus (and Speaker Pelosi) that includes a significant Blue Dog faction over a minority caucus (and Speaker Boehner) without one.

  •  An ideal outcome would be... (12+ / 0-)

    ...a net loss of, say, 30 Blue Dogs only.

    We'd hold onto the House (albeit with a slim margin) while ridding ourselves of most of the BDs.

    Unfortunately, some good folks are likely to be among the collateral damage, it appears :(

  •  Lemons. Lemonade. (7+ / 0-)

    Yadda yadda yadda.

    "The enthusiasm gap has more to do with abnormally high levels of Republican interest in the election than with despondent Democrats." -Nate Silver

    by malharden on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:00:51 AM PDT

  •  Shorter Version: GOTV!!! (12+ / 0-)

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

    by Gangster Octopus on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:01:05 AM PDT

  •  I thought Herseth-Sandlin was doing well? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    surfbird007, Matt Z, TofG, Onomastic
  •  Hear! Hear! n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, TofG, Onomastic

    "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour." -Julia, 1984

    by pullbackthecurtain on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:02:22 AM PDT

  •  Shorter: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  But Con-Ds losing means u have to be MORE con-D (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, wsexson

    or some such b/s.  Count on that being the media spin.

    BTW, we should start (continue for those who have) ptg out how the spin-zone and spinners have moved pretty much from the campaigns to the media.  It seems like most of what I've seen this year- even on so-called hard news stories like the war- has been pure spin, most in furtherance of the media's 'agenda'.

  •  Add Walt Minnick to the blue dog list. (0+ / 0-)

    I think, therefore I am. I think.

    by mcmom on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:03:50 AM PDT

  •  Add John Spratt to the list. (0+ / 0-)

    He's down by 10.

  •  How does a party that has approval ratings (8+ / 0-)

    as low as the Republicans get 55 House seats in an election 2 years after a Democratic wave? It just doesn't make any sense ...

    •  Economy (12+ / 0-)

      blindly determines election results. People hate the GOP, but they don't care.

      People panic too much on this site.

      by thematt523 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:05:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama could have and should have done more (7+ / 1-)

        Better timing of the stimulus could have definately helped.  

        •  I agree (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell, LordMike, Matt Z, TomP

          but we are where we are. And I did answer the question.

          People panic too much on this site.

          by thematt523 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:15:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Timing had nothing to do with the stimulus (5+ / 0-)

          The second Republicans took aim at it, it was dead in the water politically. They simply repeat, over, and over, and over again that it "did nothing" despite the CBO and 3 independent economist agencies saying if it weren't for the stimulus, 3 million Americans would currently unemployed.

          They never get off message, Democrats do. It's not about who is right or wrong, it's about who says it more often and louder. And that's really the bottom line.

          •  Which was predicted at the time by such as (0+ / 0-)

            Krugman. They were only going to get one good chance, so they should have capitalized on it when they could. They could have done much more with reconciliation ad they not been more interested in capitulation to the idea of a bi-partisanship which no one (who had been paying attention) ever thought existed.

            "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." Oscar Wilde

            by nippersdad on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:06:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  it wasn't just the stimulus (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rick, jest

          it's that Summers and Geithner decided that helping banks was going to help the rest of us.  Then again maybe they didn't care if that would help the rest of us.  They are so fixated on the fact that the banks and wall st are at the "center" of the economy that they didn't bother to spend a few momemnts thinking about what 10% unemployment would do.

          Regardless Summers and Geithner torpedoed this presidency as sure as anything.

          And Obama chose them, and I understand from the daily show that he thinks Summers "did a heck of a job".

          big badda boom : GRB 080913

          by squarewheel on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:56:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Geithner and Summers are symptoms of the problem (0+ / 0-)

            Obama gave over his administration to those establishment types who destroyed Gore's, Kerry's, & Hillary's campaigns. Emmanuel had as much to do with it as those two. Salazar has been an albatross as well.

            He's surrounded himself with out of touch, clueless dolts who are drowning not only himself and us, and he has done it intentionally.

        •  TROLL ALERT (0+ / 0-)

          Have looked at your previous comments and they are designed to discourage us. Go back to watching FOX.

          btw, Obama is not on the ballot!


          by chloris creator on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 07:55:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree. It's money (0+ / 0-)

        If it were the economy, people would be running shrieking from what the Republicans are proposing. They are mostly not even hiding their job-killing agenda and their contempt for working people. I have never seen candidates become this arrogant. It's all about the billions of dollars in attack ads. Period.

        De-orangify Congress: Justin Coussoule for Oh-08

        by anastasia p on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:59:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because the Democratic wave ... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, IM, Matt Z, TomP, implicate order

      ... encompassed a lot of seats with moderate and Republican voter bases.  That's what happens in a wave.

    •  The Democratic wave in 2006 and 2008 (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IM, jfdunphy, wsexson, Matt Z, TomP, Loli

      had a lot to do with G.W. Bush in the White House screwing up the country.  The political skills of Democrats as a whole have not improved since 1965, so without Bush as a factor the red-leaning districts that went blue in '06 and '08 will probably go back to red.

      Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

      by Greasy Grant on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:18:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are only two choices n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Turns out that talking about abstinence is a lot easier than practicing it.

      by kayebee on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:33:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  incompetence of Democratic leadership (11+ / 0-)

      Even if the Democrats were actually blocked by Republicans - a lame excuse since Bush never needed 60 Senate votes to do anything - they could at least have forced Republicans to take ownership of inaction and weak policies.

      Instead, Obama and Reid embraced needless compromise and happily accepted Republican ideas, only to have Republicans vote against them in the end every. single. time.

      Case in point: giving away expanded offshore oil drilling to the Republicans without a single concession in return, while actually losing the support of Lindsey Graham.

      Case in point: sitting on an executive order halting DADT after Congress fails to pass a repeal.

      Case in point: killing the public health care plan that Obama campaigned on while embracing the mandates and excise taxes that Obama ran against, but had to pass it via reconciliation anyway to break a Republican filibuster.

      Case in point: letting Republicans strip out parts of the financial reform bill, only to have those same Republicans vote against the bill on the floor.

      Whereas imagine if Obama came into office and said this to Beohner and McConnell:

      Hey guys, I just wanted to let you know that I'm proposing a massive stimulus bill that will create 15 million jobs in 2009, and another 15 million before 2012.  And I just wanted to ask you to do one thing: please try and obstruct me on this.  Because I would like nothing more than to add another 20 Democratic votes to the Senate and another 60 to the House while finishing off the Republican party for good, including the two of you.  So please tell me you are going to stand in the way of bringing jobs to American citizens.  Ciao!

      ThAnswr "If the administration can't fight for it's friends, don't expect us to fight their enemies."

      by Uberbah on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:39:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And he is STILL under the impression (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rick, jfdunphy, Uberbah, Wolf10, jest

        that there will be common ground in the next Congress! In his interview last night with those bloggers, it sounded bi-partisanship will still trump policy.

        One has to wonder if he really wants to get anything done or just get some people from the Daddy Party to love him. This unhealthy obsession just seems positively neurotic to me.

        "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." Oscar Wilde

        by nippersdad on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:11:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh man... when you word it like this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rick, Uberbah

        it is just brutal. Unfortunately it's also true.

    •  Dem incompetence and hippy punching. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pengiep, Uberbah, jest

      They will get what they deserve: minority status.

      To discuss Republican policies that hurt the less affluent and favor those that need no favors is class warfare.

      by Diebold Hacker on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:44:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good riddance to Conservadems (10+ / 0-)

    In the long run (and I suspect not so long run) it will be addition by subtraction.

    Two things are universal--hydrogen and stupidity. --Frank Zappa

    by AustinCynic on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:04:36 AM PDT

  •  I've said this several times here, (12+ / 0-)

    so sorry to those who have seen it before: this is NOT
    the last election on earth, and with an electorate this fluid the opposition could well be in a bottomless dumpster in two years. Any frickin' thing could happen. There was enormous enthusiasm for a Perot ticket a few years back, and look at where that went.

    So gird up your loins, screw your courage to the sticking place, skip the gutter, and press on, no matter where the political winds might blow.

    Here's hoping in two years that they blow up Newt Gingrich's rectum.

    (Ewww. Sorry about that last image.)

    Oh, make me wanna holler /And throw up both my hands--Marvin Gaye

    by Wildthumb on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:04:55 AM PDT

    •  I expect heavy losses (6+ / 0-)

      but I will not be surprised in the least if the GOP peaked too soon and for those voters just tuning in the sheer amount of GOP insanity has to give one pause.

      Also keep in mind this is a redistricting year, and with all the downturns in the economy and the boom-bust of real estate, some of the projections for districts could be way way off.  Maybe that's just wishful thinking, and it could just as well hurt Dems as much as help.

      We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

      by Tzimisce on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:12:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lately every election is described in (6+ / 0-)

        sort of an infuriating vacuum.

        It's been common for the in-party to take a waxing in the off-years, and there is far too little mention of this in the so-called "analyses" of the geniuses out there.

        Oh, make me wanna holler /And throw up both my hands--Marvin Gaye

        by Wildthumb on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:14:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          a sort of inparty hang-over, which can be exacerbated by two record elections for the Dems and a bad economy.

          Given those conditions short of 50 seats in the House and retaking or making it a tie in the Senate should be failure, but it won't be.  It will be "Obama Overreach" and the need for more bipartisanship, whatever that means.

          We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

          by Tzimisce on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:19:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ewww indeed! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Newt, the brute.

      Yes, I'm het, but I'm NOT a Mad Hetter!

      by Diana in NoVa on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:16:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No tears for Allen Boyd here either (7+ / 0-)

    But let's not lose sight of the fact that these guys are losing is often not that they torpedoed our agenda, but because their districts are as red as a stop sign and the only reason they got elected in the first place was by hugging the center or acting Republican.

    If it were true, they couldn't say it on Fox News. -6.62 -5.90

    by PBCliberal on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:04:59 AM PDT

    •  But was that not a part of the Dean 50 state (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      strategy make every race competitive..i guess in some of these very red had to happen for 2006 wave to happen.

      •  How do you make a race competitive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        in an R+6 district? You usually do it by playing the Democrat off as a common sense moderate who doesn't kowtow to his party's dictates and votes the will of the constituents. You play the other guy off as an extremist who will vote the republican agenda even when it costs his constituents money or jobs.

        You can't run an Alan Grayson in an R+6 district and expect to win. We're having enough trouble in his R+2.

        Down here in Florida, the rednecks delight in voting against their own interests. We usually make inroads in the conservative districts by smart positioning or happy accidents (like Mark Foley caught in a scandal after the ballots were printed).

        The generic ballot is going to take a lot of democrats out in districts where people are just voting "agin' it." That's the way we picked up a lot of these seats in the first place (though not Boyd's) thanks to Bush/Cheney. We're losing them the same way.

        If it were true, they couldn't say it on Fox News. -6.62 -5.90

        by PBCliberal on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:17:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  That's more of an argument for a prog. blitz (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, nippersdad, m00finsan

    and another reason Rahm went running back to Chicago.

    But then again, it's too late.

    Thanks O!

  •  More than 23 of them will lose (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, wishingwell, IM, Matt Z

    That's a certainty. I only see 16 who are locks to win at this point, of their 54 members.

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:07:18 AM PDT

  •  The reason they are "Blue-Dogs"... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, vitovee because the represent conservative districts.  And that's why they are losing now.   Most of them came to office in a Dem wave, and now they'll go out in a GOP wave.

    In any event, they only won in those districts because they were conservative candidates.  In most of those places, a progressive wouldn't have stood any chance at all in most any year.

    "We understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned."-President Obama

    by Alisa Rosenbaum on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:09:22 AM PDT

  •  Of course the narrative will b somewhat different (8+ / 0-)

    and Andrea Mitchell will be all too happy to tell us that we (Democrats) have to govern more from the middle.

  •  Some of these folks were going to lose either way (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Swordsmith, IM, TomP

    I'm in favor of more and better Democrats in Congress.  In some of these districts, it's true that the Blue Dogs are just about the best Democrats we could hope for, especially considering they barely won in the best of circumstances in 2006 or 2008.

    But that said, the fact is that these folks were going to lose either way in the midterm.  Some of these Blue Dogs stood against Obama on virtually every issue and they are still going to lose because it's a Republican year and they have a (D) next to their name on the ballot.  

    And we all saw this coming -- so why not take a stand and do something good for the people while you are in office (like Tom Periello, for instance)?  I would rather be a one-term Congressman who voted on historic reforms and then lost in a wave election than one that can't point to a single thing that you did in the brief time you had the honor of being a member of Congress.

    Some of these Democrats may have had some progressive beliefs but were irrationally timid.  But many of them of course were never progressive in the first place.  They were useful on some procedural votes, but that's about it.  I'd rather have a ConservaDem than a Republican, but if we're losing seats either way, I'm not a bit sad that these cowards are the ones who bite the dust.

    •  Yet there is Tim Holden who is a blue dog in PA (0+ / 0-)

      who  runs ads tha he is the conservative with conservative values ...I think he is doing well...could be that he has a weak Republican opponent then? As Holden voted against Healh care and mostly everything else.

      •  Holden is an interesting case (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The guy is just plain durable.  It's a very Republican district that always votes Republican at the national level.  He was elected in 1992.  He survived the 1994 wave.  They redistricted him to try to beat him in 2002, that didn't work.  Bush and Cheney made him a top target in 2004 and campaigned against him, and they still couldn't beat him.  And he's expected to cruise on Tuesday again.

        He did vote for the stimulus though, and he's supported the unions on several issues, so he's not as far right as some of these guys.

        •  Maybe Carney who voted for Heallth Care in a red (0+ / 0-)

          district that went McCain 56 pct and Bush 60 pct is too new or something.  As he has only been office since 2006.

        •  Teabaggers also made Carney in Red PA-10 a top (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          target and Chamber of Commerce and Rove's groups have poured huge amounts of money into this district against Carney. RNC is running ads against him.  

          He was one of the people Palin drew a target over his face last year.  

          It may be Republicans feel it easier to pick off Carney who voted for healthcare reform than Holden who is Teflon and who voted against it. ?

          But our districts are very, very similar..yet Holden prevails and Carney is in trouble.

  •  This should be an object lesson to the Democratic (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rick, LordMike, cybersaur, Matt Z, TomP, m00finsan

    Party ... but it won't be.  It's hard to weep for the fates of the Blue Dogs - especially when people like Bobby Bright are getting lots of money from the Party to film ads undermining the President and Speaker.

    Ideological Purity is a creepy sounding term and certainly ideological diversity is good ... but the "big tent" that Tim Kaine mentioned at least a dozen times in his short interview with Lawrence O'Donnell?  It makes it very hard to change fundamental conversation in American politics, and it dooms progressive ideas to the alleged fringes of discourse.

    By no means should the Democratic Party embrace a teeny sliver of ideological ground like 2010's GOP does ... bit when you run to the Blue Dog side enough, it fatally injures the ability to create a brand.

  •  We'd better have that 2% (or more) (7+ / 0-)

    I'd like to see the Blue Dogs go, but it's no silver lining when I think about the consequences to the U.S. if we can't hold the House.  We can't stand another 2 years of unemployment north of 10%. We could be headed for a full-scale, deflationary depression. The Fed is out of bullets, they can't stop it. Without Congressional action to at least keep the states from defaulting and keep those unemployment checks going out to folks, the bottom falls out.

    And I have a strong feeling that's what the Republicans want.

    It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness - Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Fish in Illinois on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:14:06 AM PDT

    •  Either way gridock (0+ / 0-)

      Obama has said as much. It doesn't matter if the Dems maintain the House or not. Either way nothing is going to happen for the next two years. The only way anything could happen is if the Senate eliminates the filibuster, the Dems maintain the House AND Obama  insisted on new legislation.

      I think ObAma wants a Republican House so he can blame the next two years of sucky economy on them because he sure doesn't seem to have a real plan to significantly improve anything over the next two years.

      •  No (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        Obama cares about this country a hell of a lot more than John Boehner does. He has a plan - infrastructure, for example - but he can't get anything through the Senate without nuking the filibuster. If he'd had a clearer path to getting legislation passed, we would have had a larger stimulus and a public option.

        Don't be so cynical. I'm 61 years old, and I've still got a little bit of faith left.

        It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness - Eleanor Roosevelt

        by Fish in Illinois on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:43:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Remember that many of the blue dogs are from more conservative districts (hence why they are elected in the first place and vote the way they do...), so this might be predictable.

    I can't give you a brain, but I can give you a diploma- Wizard of Oz; If you have half a brain you won't need a diploma- Frank Levey

    by weathercoins on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:15:02 AM PDT

  •  As Harry Truman said: (12+ / 0-)

    Given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican,  
    people will vote for the Republican every time.

    Imagine if Dean's vision had been fulfilled and we were giving people in these districts a real choice.  It would have been worth a shot.

    The blue dogs and their enablers in the Village have squandered an historic opportunity to turn things around... maybe for a generation... maybe longer... - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

    by chuckvw on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:15:11 AM PDT

  •  I don't hate to see the Blue Dogs go (8+ / 0-)

    so much, but it hurts my heart to think that Pelosi wouldn't be Speaker. Even the thought of Reid being replaced by Durbin (hopefully) or Schumer (less hopefully) has a silver lining; losing Pelosi would be most unfortunate.

    Pionta Guinness, le do thoil!

    by surfbird007 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:15:53 AM PDT

  •  What about NC's Heath Schuler? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, LordMike

    Ex-Redskin, that's the only reason I know who he is.  Isn't he a Blue Dog as well?

    When will these blue dogs realize the truth of the Harry Truman saying, "When voters have the choice of a real Republican or a fake Republican, they'll pick the real one every time?"

    Yes, I'm het, but I'm NOT a Mad Hetter!

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:15:58 AM PDT

  •  Problem is: after the mid-terms there's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uberbah, Tzimisce

    going to be a lot of Dem pragmatists who are going to tack to the center and become 'blue dogs.'

    "You can never sink so low in life that you can't be a bad example for somebody." - My Dad

    by briefer on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:17:36 AM PDT

    •  They never miss a beat (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, Uberbah, nervousnellie

      to miss the next beat.  You are so right, there will be some that buy wholesale into the Village spin and will do just that.  How hard is it to stand for something because it is the right thing to do?  Really.

      We all went to heaven in a little rowboat, and there was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. --Radiohead

      by Tzimisce on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:25:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent analysis Markos! (0+ / 0-)

    Even if the Republicans have the majority, there would only be up to 30 Democratic Blue Dogs voting with the Republicans in the majority, which puts us in great shape as a people powered progressive movement.

    i didn't give a dime to any of those filthy Blue Dogs and I am glad Markos didn't support them. yeah, maybe Markos could have put on his boys size L army uniform and went lisping into some of those blue dog districts with a picture of his wife and kids to show his heterosexual bonafides, but those bastard blue dogs weren't worth it. Once again, excellent analysis by our people powered leader.

  •  strange analysis (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, ManhattanMan, Tzimisce

    The Blue Dogs are mostly Dems in red districts, and we will support them in 2012 if they try to regain their seats, or another of similar ilk.  Maybe instead of trying for better Dems, we should educate Americans to get smarter voters.  Being a conservative FOXNEWS idiot might be a reversible disease--and the cure would have lasting societal benefits.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:19:47 AM PDT

  •  Some of these are also VERY TOUGH losses (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, jfdunphy, TomP

    For example, Dahlkemper, who voted for health care reform knowing it would hurt her electability.  Pomeroy, for sure, but even Mitchell and Nye who did hat they could in very tough districts.  And Kratovil?  Man, MD-1 is brutal.

    If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him.

    by jhannon on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:20:13 AM PDT

    •  and what I do not understand is Holden in PA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      voted against Health Care Reform and quite strongly opposed it. Carney voted for Health Care Reform and some other key legislation.

      Carney and Holden are both in red districts that border each other..not a lot of differences in those districts. Yet Carney is bashed more often by all sides and people give Holden a pass. I do not get it. One or two people here have defended Tim Holden but not Chris Carney.  

      Holden seems safe in his district and is running ads bragging about how conservative he is.

      Carney has not.  I do not get it.

      •  I think Kos is trying to soothe himself (0+ / 0-)

        and I don't blame him.  We should all do a little self-soothing this week.

        And I think the difference in how Holden and Carney have been treated is that people are used to Holden and have seen him in tight races before.  Carney is relatively new, people had hopes for a semi-progressive, the district may SEEm like it should be more blue than Holden's, but I agree with you.  We should not be bashing Dems just because they joined an internal caucus.

        If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him.

        by jhannon on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:00:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We need to make sure the Hebrew Hammer wins (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Any polling from the Hebrew Hammer, Alan Grayson's district. I have to think he wins easily given the power of the American Taliban meme and Markos's expert analysis. People power!

    •  are you serious? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, alanday

      He's a goner. He was 7 points behind and only 30% think he deserves re-election. Grayson would be fine in a very liberal district but not Orlando.
      Webster will win but he is also to far right so hopefully a moderate democrat can take him out in 2012.

    •  Grayson is Finished (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      All the major papers have endorsed Webster and hammered it in by coming down hard on the Taliban Dan ads. Those ads went over the line, wether true or not. To call out another American as a terrorist don't sit well with people. Grayson is down in the polls by a good margin but his unfavorables are way up. Not where you want to be just before an election.

      •  That makes no sense. (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        Seneca Doane

        And, again, I am basing this on Markos's brilliant analysis and book. The Democrats who will lose will lose because they failed to support the people powered progressive agenda. And, clearly, as Markos illustrated in his book backed by polls conducted right here at DailyKos, the rightwingers like Webster are just like the Taliban in their mistreatment of the LGBT community and their insistence on religion. People power!

        •  OK, on second thought, I'm done with this troll (0+ / 0-)

          And I tried to be so patient.  Who's with me?

          I think that at some point the sort of facetiousness that you see repeatedly here becomes "simply inflammatory" and "disruptive to the community."  And I look forward to not having to argue with this yutz about it.

          To Troll Rate something has exactly one meaning. When you Troll Rate something, as a trusted user, you are stating that the comment should be made invisible to all site users. You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie. Remember that, because that is the only use of the troll rating. It is an editorial vote to delete a comment from the conversation.

          If he could have kept it at a very low level, it would be bearable, but he can't, because he thinks that he is considerably smarter than he is and wants us to know it.

  •  my Blue Dog is probably going (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, nervousnellie

    to retain his seat. I suppose having Harrisburg in his district helped: the only real industry here is government.

    It's like we're all part of some avant-garde role playing story called "The Election" by Franz Kafka.

    by terrypinder on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:21:01 AM PDT

    •  Is that Holden ? Does Harrisburg help him ? As (0+ / 0-)

      he is running ads that he is a conservative with conservative family values. Your district borders ours and Carney voted for Health Care Reform yet he is in danger.
      I am just confused why some blue dogs in red districts that neighbor each other, one is safe and one is in trouble. ?

      •  I think it has to do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        with the candidates the GOP chose.

        here they chose a state legislator elected pre 2005. They're not popular regardless of party.

        I have not yet decided if I'm writing someone in or holding my nose for Holden. I genuinenly don't like the man, and wish he'd just switch parties.

        It's like we're all part of some avant-garde role playing story called "The Election" by Franz Kafka.

        by terrypinder on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:22:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's not just Patrick Murphy and Earl Pomeroy (6+ / 0-)

    A lot of people here see the term "Blue Dog" and have a knee jerk negative reaction, but many of them supported Democratic bills in Congress. Looking at the list of predicted losses, Hill, Markey Dahlkemper, Ellsworth, Gordon, Moore, Murphy(NY), and Salazar all supported the healthcare bill, in addition to Patrick Murphy and Pomeroy. I think we will miss some of these Blue Dogs more than we realize.  

    •  Absolutely right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alkatt, wishingwell, jj32

      Murphy in NY can be frustrating at times on economic issues but he is actually a fairly solid progressive on social issues unlike some of the other blue dogs that give them such a bad name.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:27:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'd hate to lose Pomeroy or Dahlkemper or others who voted for the health care bill and stimulus etc. As for the predictions, I'm a bit skeptical.  The margins are so narrow in so many races, and I think the polling trends have shown clear and consistent Dem stablization and/or momentum over the past month almost across the board, that it is equally conceivable that the Dems lose less than 38 seats and retain control of the House.

      I think the Dem are likely to do much better on election day than pundits predict because people don't like the GOP and a lot of people, not just Dems, are unnerved by the teabaggers.  Most voters do not see a huge distinction between the tea party and the GOP except in the relative level of ignorance.  

      Alternative rock with something to say:

      by khyber900 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:27:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes Murphy in PA and Carney too yet they are (0+ / 0-)

      at risk while Holden voted against it and brags he is a conservative in his ads...yet he looks to be OK. I do not get it.

  •  GOTV-ing for a Blue Dog right now (6+ / 0-)

    Baron Hill, IN-09.

    And proud of it. Hill may describe himself as a Blue Dog, but he voted for the Stimulus, Wall St reform and was a critical vote for Health Care Reform, pushing for the Public Option. Stands by it all too.

    If only all Blue Dogs could be this Blue...

    "No, I still got *my* saber, Reverend. Didn't turn it into no plough-share, neither."

    by brooklyns finest on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:21:42 AM PDT

  •  It also helps dispel (5+ / 0-)

    the political fiction generated by the DCL end of the party that says populists and progressive real Democrat's can't win. No doubt they will not figure this out but instead pursue their rightward woking with insanity, but candidates who actually are Democrat's and offer a real choice do win. People are not angry about right middle or left they are pissed off with the whole lot of them who refuse to do what they were voted into office to do, represent them. you know the common good and policy and legislation that isn't by and for the owner's of the place.  

  •  Getting the blue dogs out of office will be the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    only positive thing this current crop of republicans will do for the country, and the funny thing is that the democrats could have pulled the plug on the blue dogs any time but refused to. It at least gives the democrats in those districts the opportunity to vote up the next cycle, something that, sadly, many of us will not get.

  •  Markos doesn't understand. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    2 kinds of blue dogs.  1 that stand with us on 95% of the issues and then 1 kind that say they will never vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker.  Those should be kicked out of the caucus.

    We don't need them.

    Big tent whatever, the key is, if you are a democrat you need to follow what the majority of dems want.  enough sternly worded letters.  If you want to cry, run for senate.

    Republicans===the party of the 1% rich people in America. Or in other words..The Party of NO!

    by jalapeno on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:24:01 AM PDT

    •  Yes we have 2 different kinds of blue dogs in PA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      People like Holden and Altmire who voted against Health Care Reform and are running on that proudly.
      And Patrick Murphy and Chris Carney who voted Yes on Healthcare Reform.

      There are 2 different types, in many clutch situations, we would bug Carney and in the end, he would vote with Pelosi. We had no luck moving Holden one inch.

  •  Scott Murphy in NY-20 is far from defeated (5+ / 0-)

    His people are confident they are going to win a squeaker just like they did in the special election and I think they are right.

    Also, Murphy in New York is not bad for a Blue Dog. He aggravates me every once in awhile but over all is a good solid Democrat... particularly on social issues where is a frankly a pretty strong progressive.

    NY-20 was the 15th seat to flip into Democratic hands on election night in 2006. It was NY-20 and Kirsten Gillibrand that gave the Democrats control of the House of Representatives that night.

    If Republicans are to retake the House they will need to retake the seats we took from them in 06 and 08. We in NY-20 are the Democratic firewall. We are not handing it back.

    Rove and his buddies have 6 different outside groups that have fired over $2,000,000 in  attacks ad at Scott and he is holding his own but it is neck and neck.

    Keep the House Democratic. Support Scott Murphy in NY-20.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:24:45 AM PDT

    •  That 1 Sienna poll is killing Murphy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They moved nearly 30 points in the last month. Murphy was up 17 last month, now down 9 according to Sienna.

      Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

      by Scarce on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:40:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Siena is not particularly good (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alkatt, wishingwell, Matt Z

        they had Sweeney beating Gillibrand at this time in 06 when we knew we were winning and the only question was by how much.

        They had Lazio beating Paladino.

        They had Murphy up 17 and even his own people were saying no frickin way. Normally a campaign would jump all over that as good news but they knew it was too far off to be worth claiming as real.

        And now they have Gibson up 9 while their own says Murphy by 3.

        It's neck and neck but I suspect a narrow Democratic victory of 1-3 points.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:48:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I suspect we will miss those dogs on some votes (4+ / 0-)

    Even blue dogs are better than Republicans.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:25:59 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, I won't be cheering their losses (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, Matt Z, blue aardvark

      I won't be crying over a select few of them but I won't be cheering... as much as they piss me off.

      It is also important to remember that the Blue Dogs have a waiting list. So even if a bunch get defeated that doesn't mean they'll be decimated or any less powerful. It just means the Democratic caucus will be smaller and less powerful.

      The answer to the Blue Dogs is a stronger progressive caucus and better promotion of progressive ideals and policies as well as building a stronger infrastructure to elect more solid progressives like the Pelosi's and Greyson's and Franken's and Gillibrand's of the world. This is what the Blue Dogs do well and a big part of why they are so powerful. They fund raise and they support candidates of their own ilk in a very meaningful way.

      "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

      by Andrew C White on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:32:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Real Republican... (5+ / 0-)

    ..will beat a Fake Republican, any time, any place.

    The sooner Democrats learn this, the fewer elections we will lose.

  •  And we need to primary the existing Blue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Dogs and replace them with actual Democrats. Then run actual Democrats, not Blue Dogs, against Republicans.

    I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

    by slinkerwink on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:29:32 AM PDT

    •  Well, when the forces of Status Quo (5+ / 0-)

      fight for Blanche Lincoln instead of a real Democrat, how does that happen?

      The US Senate is begging to be abolished. Let's fulfill its request.

      by freelunch on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:32:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Holden is as good as it's going to get in PA-17. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A progressive will never win in this GOP strong hold. There's not enough Dems to make it happen and the Independents in this area are too conservative. It's a nice thought but welcome to reality.

      •  But Carney next door in PA-10 is in a red (0+ / 0-)

        district, quite Republican, why is he in danger and not Holden? The demographics are very similar for PA-10 and PA-17.

        ???? Carney votes for HCR and Tim does not.

        Is Tim safe because he voted with Republicans and Carney did not that on health care for instance?

        As I still say these 2 districts are quite similar.

        •  Holden pulled in slightly over 60% of the vote in (0+ / 0-)
          1. He gets all of the Dems in the area, a significant portion of the Indeps and some GOPers. In the past he has been conservative on the votes that matter most to GOPers and Indeps(all bad for Dems) and he has been very successful in bringing the pork home to his district and the  GOPers and Indeps like that. Personally I'd like to see him go, but he is hands over heels better than Gekas was and apparently everyone, regardless of party, seems to feel the same way. When  you look at some of the other races in this district GOP takes it by 60-65%. He demolished his Dem primary challenger and the GOPer is trailing him badly. As soon as the pork dollars decline or he votes more liberal on issues close to conservatives hearts, he will be gone.
          •  Thanks that explains a lot and also why Carney is (0+ / 0-)

            at risk because Carney has voted with the Democrats on some important legislation. I think then he probably knew it would be hurt him politically but he did anyway..I have to give Chris props for that although I do not always agree with him.

            So it will be sad to see Chris go and for this corrupt Marino get in. Trust me, Marino is horrible.

  •  I hope some of the "New Democratic" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    members lose also.

    According to this investigation by Probublica, The New Democrats: The Coalition Pharma and Wall Street Love

    I didn't want to post this before the election since it tweaks one's enthusiasm.

    It's a great investigation, but I hope no-one does a diary on it, maybe until after the election?

    A man's character is his destiny.

    by Jaleh on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:31:23 AM PDT

  •  I couldn't agree more!! (0+ / 0-)

    I am a Marshall constituent and as blue doggy as he is and at the same timeconceding that many of  his votes really make me angry, he is so much better than his GOP opposition. I too want Pelosi to still be speaker and that means a few more bluedogs need to win.

    Further, on KOS's endangered Blue Dog list are two from my red red state.  It's hard enough being governed solely by GOP'ers as it is.  I will be truly depressed if we become totally under the thumb of the party.  I genuinely believe that what's good for the country may not necessarily be what's good for the Democratic party in the short term.  Remember, we are a big tent and frustrations go along with that.  The reason I won't even consider  voting for a Republican at state or national levels is that not a single one of them is able to cast an independent vote, notwithstanding that they are controlled by the crazies. We don't need a Democratic party cast in that mold.

  •  Some concerns about this (0+ / 0-)

    First of all, Kos needs to develop some consistency. I agreed with him about Crist being the lesser of evils in Florida, despite not even being a Democrat, given Meek's inviability and the threat of Rubio. However, on the same logic, I do not root for the defeat of moderate Dems in split/red-leaning districts, because they are generally a net gain for the party, proportional to the turf they represent and horrible their opponents are. However, Kos does. There are those on here who hate Crist and the Blue Dogs alike, who I strongly disagree with but can understand the worldview of. There are those like me who support Crist and the Blue Dogs alike, based on electoral pragmatism. Kos seems to diverge oddly, in a way I cannot explain.

    And now I'll just repost something I wrote on a similar thread a few days ago, if no one minds;

    Worth noting for counts; there are a few moderate/conservative Democrats who aren't formal members of the Blue Dog Coalition, despite often voting with them. These include Chet Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Teague, Skelton, Perriello and Kosmas, among others. These ones may be aligned with the New Democrat Coalition instead (while some of the official Blue Dogs are members of both groups, e.g. Giffords). Point is, just counting official Blue Dogs doesn't give you the full picture in terms of the influence of moderate/conservative Dems.

    Looking at the VoteView House ideological rankings, I'd say the rough point of departure between the progrssive/liberal wing of the Dem caucus and the moderate wing seems to vaguely begin at around 160-180, and becomes pronounced from 180 onwards, and gets more conservative from there until you eventually reach Taylor, Childers, Minnick and Bright at the top, and you've got 255 Dems overall in the House (look at the rankings and you'll see what I mean). Now bear in mind the vulnerables aren't exclusively moderate Dems, some hail from below that 180 line (Grayson, Hall, Obey Delahunt & Sestak's open seats, Shea-Porter, Kagen, Kilroy, Hare) and some of the "vulnerable" moderates are showing a lot of staying power in the polls (Bright and Minnick, e.g.). The Blue Dogs and the more conservative DLCers will still be quite well represented, even though they'll be taking the brunt of the losses, and there's more progressives/liberals in the firing line than people are recognizing.

    by Elliot341 on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 06:15:33 PM PDT

  •  "unheralded blue dog losses decimate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, TKLTKL94

    right wing of Democratic machine"

    "Most democrats on street appear not to really give a shit about losing the moles; Village wonders if Dean will start making a stink again."

    Mark Halperin says, "I guess I was full of shit with my latest piece."

    In reality, I think there is zero hope that a massive loss of blue dogs translates to better legislation without their sellout watering down effect, but I'm hoping.

    His name was mentioned in the Tom Tom Club song "Genius of Love"

    by rasfrome on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:36:03 AM PDT

  •  Going forward? (0+ / 0-)

    This idea of ideological cohesion has one serious flaw. As we have seen, to get anything major done, the Dems need a not just a majority in the House, but an ideologically coherent majority...or teh ability to formulate a compromise that would command a majority. In the Senate, it requires even more than that, since it must be a filibuster-proof supermajority.

    Here's where the problem arises. Losing the Blue Dogs may help narrow the ideological spectrum of the remaining Dems, but it also narrows the number of remaining Democratic seatholders. If there's no majority there, "ideological cohesion" means nothing.

    Going forward, the question is whether Dems can build a useful, effective majority with "ideological cohesion. Alternatively, BlueDogs may be right about what it takes to win in their districts. If the latter is true, the Party is weakened by losing current incumbents without any prospect of replacing them or finding another way back into the majority.

    Mourn the BlueDogs? Hardly -- but mourn the loss of a Democratic majority....and realize we might need a new generation of BlueDogs to get it back.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

    by FischFry on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:37:24 AM PDT

    •  Or Maybe they start looking for a different (0+ / 0-)

      approach. I knew plenty of Blue Dog Democrats in Texas at the end of the day trying to Out crazy the right wing was a losing strategy. It disaffected the base and produced either weak incumbents or outright losses. At the end of the day you have to sell your ideology not someone else's ideology.

      Last night's Daily show interview Obama lamented that he could not even get 1 Republican vote to break filibusters. Why keep electing Bluedogs for a non functional majority

  •  OK, explain this to me.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Matt Z

    2006 House Election- Dems win by 8% = +31 Net Seats

    2008 House Election- Dems win by 11% = +21 Net Seats

    BUT, This year the GOP leads by 6%...and that translates into +55 Net Fucking Seats???

    Seriously, am I missing something?

    "We don't differentiate between them and us. It's just us." --- President Obama September 10th 2010

    by Darnell From LA on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:38:13 AM PDT

  •  I can't think of any better candidates... (0+ / 0-)

    for sacrifice.  Karmiccally they deserve it!  

    Republican Teabaggers who make it into power this go around will be forced to make hard decisions, they will fail, and the Independent voters will realize how wrong they were and start voting Dem again.  2012 Dem candidates will be more true Dem and less Blue Doggish.

    "Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives" - Paul Wellstone

    by mademedia on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:42:34 AM PDT

  •  Blue dog Dems and Republicians.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfdunphy, TKLTKL94

    Same thing, no difference !!! Would rather see ALL of them go, at least I know where their Republican replacements stand.

    "Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, a fanatical criminal" -- Logical Song -- Rick Davies & Roger Hodgson

    by Over50Lib on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:44:39 AM PDT

  •  Dear Blanche... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, TKLTKL94

    Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.



  •  This is the world's tiniest violin (0+ / 0-)

    The United States Senate has lost its political legitimacy and should be abolished.

    by TKLTKL94 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:01:53 PM PDT

  •  Bishop and Boyd (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, jayskew

    They both supported HCR, at least - what is the reason for wanting them out?

  •  Bishop voted for health care reform (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The stimulus, and climate legislation.  Why would anyone cheer his defeat?  You know, other than the Republicans?

    Maybe you're confusing him with Barrow.

  •  Markey is a good liberal -wins re-election easily (0+ / 0-)
  •  Patrick Murphy better than "not terrible" (0+ / 0-)

    I don't really see why you would include Patrick Murphy(PA) as part of this. It's unfair. I can't think of one major party issue he voted against. And he's been leading the charge on DADT repeal from POV of a Iraq war veteran.

    Plus I think the overall point is these candidates are in trouble because they are in swing districts and/or districts traditionally represented by Republicans. That would explain why they would lean to the right on some issues (they are representing their district, as well as the national goals of the party) and also since the economy is terrible and even Dems in some of the bluest of blue areas aren't that popular right now, it's only natural that any politician in a swing district in this environment would be in trouble.

  •  Exactly! Have to cut out cancer if you want to (0+ / 0-)

    live and get better.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    Obama needs to channel TR+FDR: Walk Softly, Carry a Big Stick and Welcome Their Hatred. Walk Softly, CHECK. Time to get on with the rest already, Barack!

    by FightTheFuture on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:08:21 PM PDT

  •  Unless the Dems can redistrict to increase True (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Blue Dems, Blue Dogs are going to exist. And we have to learn to coexist with our moderate (R-lite) brothers.

    What the party needs to establish is that the Blue Dogs have to support core Dem/Progressive tenets and we'll throw them some Blue Dog bones for their district and constituency. The Progs have to recognize the Blue Dogs have a balancing act to perform, but what we can not abide is wholescale undercutting of our goals (I'm looking at you, Max Baucus).

    We also need to reduce the intraparty sniping and save primarying for deadweight, sellouts and Arlen Spector.

    And most of all, no capitulation to the Repugs. Spine up, Dems, be you Progressive or Dog of Blue.

    "Reason is six-sevenths of treason," said one of his neighbors. "Intelligence is what the enemy uses," said another.

    by Misterpuff on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:25:16 PM PDT

  •  When I expressed this sentiment I got flamed (0+ / 0-)

    Glad to see Kos recognizing the silver lining. We will be a better nation with real Democrats rid of the blue dog albatross.

    We can move to a more progressive agenda in 2012, and the voters will move with us!

    Is it not written "There's a lot goes on we don't get told."? (Lu Tze)

    by MakeChessNotWar on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 02:19:57 PM PDT

  •  Filibuster and the House (0+ / 0-)

    One happy effect of losing the House might be a stronger incentive to do filibuster reform.  In order to win back the house in 2012 Dems would need to make inescapable the conclusion that Republicans are holding the country back.  

    The best way to do that is to send bill after bill from the Senate to the GOP-led House and watch it die.  In order to do THAT Dems would need the ability to pass bills out of the Senate which would be easier with a de-fanged filibuster.

    I liked what Obama said on the issue on The Daily Show...hopefully this reflects a Democratic strategy.

  •  Blue Dogs not that important (0+ / 0-)

    The house as a whole passed all the reforms that were far more progressive only to be watered down in the senate.  The public option in the HCR bill was in the House version for instance.
    So have control of the house is more important even if it includes blue dog Dems so really no silver lining.

  •  Aww, what a shame. (0+ / 0-)

    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

    by lockewasright on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:12:22 PM PDT

  •  Not all Blue Dogs are created equal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I don't think it is very helpful or even fair to lump together Blue Dog democrats campaigning against their own party or who voted against all major democratic legislation with democrats like my own representative Harry Mitchell, who voted for the original House version of the Health Care bill as well as for the final reconciliation bill. Many years from know the first two years of this administration will be remembered only for the Health Care breakthrough, and Harry, with whom I disagree on most issues, was on the right side of history when push came to shove. So for this cycle I donated all what I could to his campaign.

  •  Bishop backed HCR; will you back Bishop in GA-02? (0+ / 0-)

    "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." --Hypatia of Alexandria, c.400

    by jayskew on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 08:11:43 PM PDT

  •  Pedantry alert (0+ / 0-)

    Strictly, decimation would be a loss of five or six blue dogs. How about their caucus being "cleaved in two"?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site