We need Blue Dogs to win back the House of Representatives

[illegaloperation]

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I was going to write about this, but I found an article which describe the situation perfectly:
http://cookpolitical.com/story/5604

Basically, our Democratic votes are getting more and more concentrated in small number of districts. Although Romney decisively lost the election, he won carried 226 districts while Obama carried only 209 districts.

Perhaps more troubling is that with the decline of swing districts, Democrats are going to have to win a number of Republican districts to gain control of the House of Representatives.

In 2010 when Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives, most of the seats that were lost were held by Blue Dogs.

If we ever get back control of the House of Representatives, it will be because Blue Dogs win back enough of those Republican districts.

As Cook Political Report said: This means Democrats would need to hold all Democratic-leaning seats and win 30 Republican-leaning seats to win a majority.

[DeadEyeDyck]

1. why elect Democrats if they are only going

to vote like Republicans. I got enough people to hate, already.

[illegaloperation]

4. They don't vote like Republicans

You are not going to find Michele Bachmann running as a Blue Dog.

[Jamaal510]

44. +1

[ShadowLiberal]

6. Even the reddest democrats vote with us 70% of the time at worst

I'm basing this on ideology charts of congressional voting from over the years.

The most a republican ever votes with us is 30% of the time, and even that is rare. Usually we'd be lucky to get them to vote with us even 10% of the time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. 5 Words ...

The-Speaker-Of-The-House.

The majority party gets to appoint the Speaker who then gets to appoint the committee chairs who determine what legislation, not only gets to the floor; but what gets to e discussed in the committees and sub-committees.
If we want more progressive legislation ... we need the Blue Dogs ... until such time as progressives can run and win general elections.
.

[illegaloperation]

12. Don't forget the Republicans' majority of the majority rule.

Even if we currently found a bunch of "liberal Republicans" who want to vote with us, we can't pass anything without the majority of the Republicans due to the Hastert Rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. Yep ...

But as a poster pointed out above ... Blue is, in 70% of the cases, better than red ... PERIOD.

Imagine where we'd be if 70% of President Obama's Jobs stuff had been implemented?

[illegaloperation]

14. Agree

If we has kept the House of Representatives, the sequester non-sense wouldn't have happened.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. Exactly. Unfortunately, BlueDogs are a political reality IF we want to get things done

and not continue with this obstructionism until the a-political-but-voting-people get so fed up and are convinced that electing Republicans to power would serve them better. Then we'll really be in a sh*thole.

[Jamaal510]

45. I didn't know about that rule.

Man these people are even shadier than I thought...

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Yep ...

I think they broke the "rule" once in 4+ years.

[VirginiaTarheel]

59. Perhaps hate is the problem

[Doctor_J]

3. but then we will be told that we don't have an actual

Majority because of the presence of the blue dogs. Just another excuse for letting the repukes run over us.

[illegaloperation]

5. A majority is a majority.

If Nancy Pelosi is Speaker again, there's no doubt that we have a majority.

[DJ13]

7. Our country needs fiscal liberals to heal from the last 12 years

Blue Dogs are as much fiscal conservatives as Republicans.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. No ...

we only need a House majority and fiscal liberals to proposal fiscally liberal legislation.

[neverforget]

37. And watch Blue Dogs vote against liberal legislation. My rep is a Blue Dog and is

as fiscally conservative as they come. He supports the Simpson Bowles "Catfood" Commission. He's not going to support any liberal fiscal legislation which means more of what we have now. Austerity.

http://schrader.house.gov/

Check out his positions on the Budget.

http://schrader.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=100077

[DhhD]

43. IMHO, the 2014 election campaign is going to be about specific issues. An example:

Now that the Democratic Platform has become an accomplish to cutting Social Security, every candidate, no matter their party affiliation, must prove truth in writing to campaign issues to the voters. The party can order affidavits. Only some states can recall a congressional member.

[illegaloperation]

11. You are forgetting something.

There's no filibustering in the House of Representatives.

If we can get a simple majority (218 votes), we can push what we want through the House of Representatives.

Currently, we cannot push much through the House of Representatives even if there are 218 votes because Republicans enforces the "Majority of the Majority" rule

[DJ13]

17. a simple majority (218 votes), we can push what we want

That assumes the Blue Dog wants the same thing, doesnt it?

[illegaloperation]

19. That or another way

We can also peel off a few Republicans who want to vote with us.

The Hastert Rule makes this impossible right now.

[illegaloperation]

9. House Democrats are underperforming

There are 17 districts that Obama won, but is being represent by Republicans and there are 9 districts that Romney win, but is being represent by Democrats.

If Democrats can win those 17 districts and keep the 9 districts, they will have a majority in the House.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. So they lost mass seats in 2010 yet you think only they can win those seats? Makes no sense. None.

All I hear about is how all those Blue Dog states could not manage to turn the voters out in 2010, and they want a repeat of that?
Here in Oregon, our 2010 turnout was record breaking. Not sure what you are doing wrong, but you should consider that the candidates that lose might be the problem, you know? If you give the people what they want, they beat path to the polls. Give them the choice of a real Republican and a Democrat posing as a Republican, they pick the Republican. 2010 proved that.
If you love your Dogs Blue, why didn't you freaking elect them in 2010 or 12?

[illegaloperation]

16. Read below

In a lot of these conservative districts, we don't have GOTV operations running.

A lot of people who would have voted for Democrats decided to stay home.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. And whose fault is that, exactly? Why the doldrums, the lack of energy?

Perhaps the stagnation comes for the choices. People don't decide to stay home, they decide not to bother voting for that no good so and so. Year in and year out.
Give the people what they want, maybe they will show up? Or, keep serving them plates of steamed GOP labeled Democrat and keep getting that low turn out.

[illegaloperation]

24. Who cares whose fault it is!

If we can get those people to show up and vote for the Democratic candidates, we should.

Maybe someone wasn't too thrill how their rep. voted, but if we persuade them to vote, they vote for the Democrat anyway.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. So why don't you get them to vote? We do.

What if you put up candidates that motivated voters to go to the polls? That's what works. But do something.

[illegaloperation]

33. I will tell you why

The people who run the local GOTV operations are mostly volunteers without much experience and there're no database to go by.

[BethanyQuartz]

72. This is what I keep hoping for too

Give me something worthwhile to fight for, hope for, and vote for. And then I'll turn up at the polls. And I won't stop there. I'll work year round for anyone or any party, regardless of political party, that represents my views on the issues that matter most to me. Otherwise I don't even think I'll stay in the country much less participate in its elections anymore. Because I am unrepresented by both major parties on what matters most to me.

[LTG]

39. "Turnout" due mostly to not having to "turnout?

Oregon has very high percentages of voters voting, how much of that is the result of the switch to mail voting? When every voter automatically gets a ballot in the mail, and a 45 cent stamp and a walk to the mail box is all it takes to "cast" it, isn't the GOTV effort greatly simplified?

Hopefully Washington's adoption of mail voting and the deletion of the need to stand in line at the polling place, after a long day at work and in rotten weather, will foster a similar rise in local and mid-term election voter participation.

[blkmusclmachine]

18. Elect more Blue Dog/Third Way/DLC/ New DEM wanna-be Repub's, & force the Party ever rightward ?!?!?!

NO THANKS!!!

[bottomofthehill]

20. That's right, we are better with republican control of the House

[Bluenorthwest]

23. That is not the full list of choices. If people elected Blue Dogs, we'd have a majority right now.

They lost many seats over the last two cycles and there is a reason for that, like it or not. Want to keep losing, keep nominating right wingers with a D on their tee shirt.

[illegaloperation]

25. You don't get it do you?

A lot of people in those districts would have voted for Democrats if they were asked to vote, but they weren't.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. And again I ask you whose fault is that? Was no candidate running to ask for their vote?

Where was the local Party? Where were you, with your fleet of electable Blue Dogs? I mean, no one calls me and asks me to vote, I am motivated by the candidates and issues. No issues where you live?
If you don't get turn out, the fault is local. If you keep running a type of candidate that keeps losing, try another type. People here vote. So what's the matter with your district, county, State? Do you think turn out is magical? It takes effort.
Talk about not getting it. We have large turnout and loads of liberal Democrats elected. You have shitty turn out and Republicans in the House. I'll stick with my methods and results. You continue to lather, rinse, repeat and lose.

[illegaloperation]

30. That is just it!

Republican voters are more self-motivated to vote that Democratic voters are. This is an indisputable fact!

To get pass this disadvantage, we have huge GOTV operations in swing states.

The problem is that a lot of these blue dogs are running in districts in red states (and possibly in the midterm elections) so they don't have huge GOTV operations to depend on.

[tabbycat31]

34. I've run GOTV operations in Blue Dog districts before

And it's not as easy as it is in a blue district or state. Last year, I was in a swing state with a competitive senate race. It was a given that Obama was going to get his ass kicked in the district (he did in 2008) and the senate would go GOP in the district. As much as I wanted to join forces with those campaigns, I could not as it had the potential to backfire.

Three campaigns were competing for the same set of volunteers. We had our base, but I had to use creative thinking (ie getting my dad to make calls from NY for me) and we did not get through as many passes as I would have liked to.

[LeftInTX]

32. My old district vascillated between blue dogs and Republicans

And those Republicans have been nasty ones: Henry Bonilla who was a Neocon and Francisco Canseco who was a Tea Partier. Both of them were nasty and since they represent military base areas they are very very pro war.

In 2012 the seat was just won by Pete Gallego who is a blue dog. In 2006 it was won by Ciro Rodriguez who is also a blue dog. Rodriguez lost to Canseco in the Tea Party take over.

There is no way that district will ever elect a liberal. It's military, suburban, rural and conservative parts of Texas.

Maybe you live in a district where a true liberal stands a chance, but South West Texas does not. You tell me how South West Texas will elect a Bernie Sanders or even a Lloyd Doggett (Austin) and I've got a bridge to sell you.

[illegaloperation]

50. I am quite surprise that the 23rd district is oscillating.

TX 23rd district is 55% Hispanic. I would have though the district would be solidly Democratic.

[LeftInTX]

52. I know. Redistricting comes into play

The Republicans tend to come from the San Antonio suburbs and rural areas west of San Antonio.

I'm guessing rural/military Mexican-Americans can be about 25% Republican.

Also, along the border a lot of people don't vote. That is another reason why the district trends Republican. Either way, it tends to be a somewhat conservative district as opposed to inner city San Antonio which tends to be liberal.

[illegaloperation]

22. Really?

You want to go through more debt ceiling fights?

[antigop]

40. If we keep pushing the Dem party rightward, we end up w/ the Republican agenda.

It just may take longer to get there.

So we'll have a slower slide to oblivion instead of a quicker one, but the end result will be the same.

[illegaloperation]

51. Not really

For example, we could have a blue dog who is fiscally moderate, but socially liberal.

[antigop]

55. post #41 nt

[BootinUp]

28. Thanks for reminding me.

not. lol.

[TeamPooka]

29. That is a strategy devised to win house chairmanships but not have to accomplish anything. imho nt

[Progressive dog]

31. In 2012 Democratic House candidates received more

votes than Republican candidates and still lost the House. The RW scum have gerrymandered every state they control.
That chart shows the results of that gerrymander. If we take back STATE governments in 2020, we can make this fairer.
These RW people are authoritarian, they will anything necessary to win. The blue dogs subvert the majority party (Democratic) from within.

[illegaloperation]

35. Not only that

Democratic votes are concentrated into smaller area (ie. big cities) so we need to win a lot of these Republican leaning districts.

[brush]

36. For them to only turn on us and vote repug when we need them on critical votes? No thank you. nt

[Beacool]

38. In 2010 the purists were wishing that all Blue Dogs would lose their reelections.

They got their wish and those seats went to Republicans. What's worse, some went to Tea Party members. I kept saying back then that it was ridiculous to hope that the Blue Dogs lose. Why were they Blue Dogs in the first place? They came from mostly conservative districts, that's why.

Well, they got their wish. Many here were jumping on their graves when these people lost. How did that turn out?

Karma is a bitch..............

[BlueCaliDem]

54. I was one of them. I've learned my lesson since. Brief moments of *elation quickly fade when

we're faced with TeaBaggers in the House that kill every single bill the president and the Senate send through. It used to be that the Senate was the place where good legislation went to die, now it's the House thanks to TeaBaggers.

In my defense, though, that although I wanted to boot all the BlueDogs out, I voted straight Democratic ticket. California, along with another state, were the only states that gained seats for the Democratic Party, and we've been doing very well since. Unemployment has gone down, the $27 billion dollar budget deficit Schwarzenegger left behind shrank almost immediately and will be gone in 2014, and houses are being bought up faster than they can build them. California is on the rebound, thanks to Democratic policies.

But I was one of them who was so furious with the BlueDogs that I wanted to see them all booted out. Now, I regret that position.

[Beacool]

61. We all make mistakes.

I'm glad that CA is rebounding. It was in bad shape when the Terminator left office.

[BlueCaliDem]

65. Thanks, Beacool.

Yes, I'm happy CA is on the rebound, too. I didn't expect it to happen this quickly, but I'm glad it is.

[Beacool]

69. It's a beautiful state.

I don't know it too well, but I have gone before and hope to go in the future. I still have never been to San Francisco and everyone that has gone there loves it.

[treestar]

66. + 10000000000000000000000

They expect a very liberal candidate to be elected in Podunk, Missouri or Montana, don't get it and then cry and blame the President, claiming FDR or LBJ could have forced those states to come up with a progressive.

[Beacool]

68. Some people prefer the ideal to the reality.

I get that, but we live in a democracy and we have to accept that not everyone is going to think alike. Therefore, we must try to do our best to work with what we got. While still in Congress the Blue Dogs were marginalized by Pelosi and the more liberal members who aligned with her. IMO, that was a mistake. They were trying to push them out and some did choose not to run for reelection. The Republicans won the majority in 2010 and she lost her Speakership.

This is my very personal opinion, but I think that when Obama won in 2008 there was a sense of hubris among Democrats. I remember he and Pelosi saying to them "I won", "we won". Too true, but also self evident, there was no need to rub it in. I think that the Republicans would have opposed him anyway, but that attitude did not engender good will.

[Blue_Tires]

41. Ferfuxake not THIS shit again...

Did everyone get amnesia all of a sudden? I'll spell this out once and for all:

1. Simple math = Blue Dogs tend to push the party rightward, which means the GOP en masse pushes further rightward...It is a NET loss

2. Yeah, blue dogs usually vote with the Dems for the easy, inconsequential stuff, but for the contentious, absolute gotta-have votes, they will line up on the other side in the name of keeping their seat...If the party can't count on the vote when it is *really* needed, what good is he/she?

3. GOP strategists LOVE blue dogs, because they are so laughably easy to intimidate in office, and later campaign against and unseat (all you have to do is run endless commercials pointing out his/her inconsistent voting record)..

4. So is anyone getting the pattern now?

Run a blue dog candidate who wins by needle-thin margin, endure his constant sucking-up to conservative/corporate interests, the party (and this site) bends over backwards to defend him because we're a big tent and "would you rather have a republican in the seat?"; and 18 months later the GOP run an even further right candidate who "stands for something!" and "presents a CLEAR choice!" and the blue dog can't get decent funding, endorsements or popular support because the left has abandoned him, and the right just saw him as a useful idiot and always hated him; so he loses by 20+ points and the new extreme RW congresscritter feels emboldened and turns the crazy up to 11 and because he's such a intellectual freakshow he's great theater so he gets nightly spots on FOX-CNN-MSNBC-whatever, and then it's another 3-4 terms before we have a chance to unseat him or thwart his senate run (if we're lucky)...If that wasn't enough, GOP strategists feel emboldened and run carbon copies of this clown in every district they can and naturally our wise DNC leadership's heavily-researched, focus-grouped solution is to run an even more conservative, well-funded blue dog next time...Rinse and repeat; and then this forum has the nerve to complain about how there aren't any real liberal candidates anymore, and folks start falling in love with pseudo-outsiders like Rand Paul and Chris Christie...

This month marks the TENTH year I've been posting regularly on DU...I'd have thought people would have been tired of this process by now, because we've seen the road it is taking us down...

[antigop]

48. I don't think it's "amnesia". nt

[Fuddnik]

42. No thank you.

I'll vote otherwise. If at all.

[OmahaBlueDog]

46. Need Blue Dogs! Who'd Have Thunk!

[woo me with science]

49. No. nt

[MSII]

56. NO to blue-dog dino-scum.

If "merican" politics is ever going to get fixed there is one single central thing that must happen and that is the campaign finance situation HAS to change! We desperately need PUBLIC finance, as long as we have this CORRUPT at-it's-"heart" system owned and operated by "special interests" it won't really matter who (except the RARE exceptions) is elected, both parties are to lesser or greater extent OWNED by the special interest money. When member of both teams freely admit to how much of their time is spent whoring for election/re-election money your "system" is a walking-corpse. A zombie shambling around as if it were a living Democracy.

That all being said I don't see much point in electing the blue-dog dino's (Democrat in name only), they're at best a very slightly lesser evil. What about the underlying CAUSE of what the report is talking about, just as election finance, gerrymandering needs to be ATTACKED nation-wide! As the deeply UN-american, UN-democratic thing it is! It is like the election finance situation CORRUPT and NEEDS to be ELIMINATED!

[TeamPooka]

58. welcome to DU!

[JustAnotherGen]

57. Rec

[meow2u3]

60. Better conservative Dems than far right repukes

At least the Blue Dogs are loyal to the Democratic Party.

In some Southern districts, liberals are unelectable; the area is too conservative, so there's no point nominating a lefty there.

[Generic Brad]

62. And how exactly would we "win" with Blue Dogs?

They would just vote with the Republicans anyway. That strikes me as a net loss.

[illegaloperation]

63. No they don't

We have someone like Gabrielle Giffords voted for Obamacare and voted for the Dream Act.

Does that sounds like a Republican to you?

[MFrohike]

64. Ask them to stop losing elections

Blue Dogs are going extinct because they keep losing to Republicans, not because they get primaried. Maybe if they were better campaigners or offered a better platform than me-tooing half the GOP platform, they'd do better. I honestly have no idea and I don't much care.

I don't know Cook Political Report, but it strikes me as pure amateur hour thinking if their brilliant strategy is to try to win safe GOP districts in this political climate. The focus to elect Democrats to Congress begins in the state house. If you lose the state house, you get a Republican House. It's quite simple though virtually nobody ever seems to get it. Put simply, if you want to end Republican gerrymandering, worry about the state races, not pandering to red districts.

[mikekohr]

67. Blue Dogs Gave Us Nancy Pelosi, Mrs. Nancy Gave Us the Most Productive House in 40 Years

No Blue Dogs gave us the tan man with no plan and the least productive House in 40 years. Your call.

[illegaloperation]

70. Bingo

(read the title)

[PotatoChip]

71. I agree. In addition, I think that Blue Dogs are often unfairly given a bad rap.

Many times they (blue dogs) have to vote more conservatively than they'd like, in order to hang on to the seat. Frequently, many would prefer to vote with their liberal/progressive colleagues, but simply cannot.

Case in point: A progressive democratic state legislator friend of mine faced this very same dilemma. The seat she held was not even considered 'swing'... it was solidly republican. As a result of this, she'd many times be forced to vote as her district wanted, though it was not at all what she would have liked to do.

Behind the scenes however, she worked closely with the Democratic Whip to ensure that the votes were there to pass D bills and/or kill R ones, to the point of basically shaming colleagues in safer seats into voting the right way... if it came to that. Iow, as long as the votes were there to pass important democratic legislation; for the sake of her district, she maintained a voting record that kept her constituents placated. This, coupled with an excellent constituent service record allowed her to hang on to a seat that otherwise would have been Republican.

Furthermore, whenever it was clear that her D vote was necessary, she was there for it, thus serving all 3 of her terms with an 84% average progressive voting record. Thanks to her, the district she served had a 6 year reprieve from what otherwise would have been Repug controlled. (As an aside, she was the first Dem in over 2 decades to capture that seat and no Dem has managed to take it since she retired from serving, nearly a decade ago )

So the point here, is that there is often much more going on behind the scenes with blue dogs than people realize.

-Just my 2 cents.

[DFW]

73. I just want that Speaker's gavel back

I remember how Gabby Giffords was reviled on DU for being a Blue Dog. By the skin of our teeth, we held on to that seat.

So who out there says having Gabby is no better than having a Pete Sessions (my current clown who replaced the very able Martin Frost) or a Louie Gohmert?

Since Jan. 2, 2011, John Bonehead has been setting the agenda in the House. How has that worked out for us?

[mikekohr]

74. DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING.

"Don't let perfection get in the way of the possible." -president Barack Obama-
"You don't need to be smart to be successful in politics, but you do need to be able to count." -Robert F. Kennedy-

Far too many people on this board are willing to ride over the cliff with their banner held high than are willing to be pragmatic. Far to many cling fast to ideology and are ready to forgo accomplishment. And far too many ignore the fact that when we lose people in this country suffer.

I'd rather have someone that votes my way 70-90% of the time than some asshole that votes my way 0% of the time.