Netroots Funding New Democrats, But Not Blue Dogs

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 19:04


Yesterday I argued that the netroots were funneling millions to the Blue Dogs every cycle, and needed to completely turn off the spigot. Today, I spent some time trying to figure out just how much money the netroots were donating to the Blue Dogs every cycle. As it turns out, the totals are not very high.

First, 9.15% of all donations to the 35 House Democrats who were first elected in 2008, and who are still in Congress, came from Act Blue. For eighteen of those House newbies, Act Blue was the top donor overall. For another eight, Act Blue was the second largest donor. Overall, the totals are $5,820,075 was raised for these 35 Democratic Representatives on Act Blue, out of a total $63,583,306 in donations from a source other than self-financing.

Among the six Blue Dogs first elected in 2008 and still in Congress (Bright, Childers, Griffith, Kratovil, Minnick, Nye), $188,374 of the $9,422,494 they raised from a source other than self-financing came from Act Blue. Overall, this represents only 2.0% of their total fundraising.

Among the seven Progressives first elected in 2008 and still in Congress (Carson, Edwards, Fudge, Grayson, Lujan, Pingree, Richardson), $1,348,659 of the $8,800,177 they raised from a source other than self-financing came from Act Blue. Overall, this represents 15.33% of their overall fundraising. This is a far higher percentage than Blue Dog Act Blue fundraising, even if it is heavily concentrated in Pingree and Edwards.

There are at least 15 freshmen members of the New Democrat coalition. However, the only name I can confirm at this time is Andre Carson, who is also a member of the Progressive caucus. Removing both the Blue Dogs and the Progressives from the overall list, but keeping Carson, the remaining Democrats raised $4,374,144 of their $47,012,948 non-self financing from Act Blue. It is likely that this 9.30% is close to the overall percentage of New Democrat freshmen money raised on Act Blue, given that more than half of the 23 freshmen included in these totals are now in the New Democratic caucus.

So, this analysis suggests that the netroots aren't really funding the Blue Dogs much at all, but are instead pumping millions of dollars into New Democrat coffers (they use the term New Democrat, not New Democratic). While the netroots are a higher percentage of Progressive fundraising, overall we give more money to New Democrats.

This situation is not ideal, but it is better than funneling millions into Blue Dog coffers. Although I don't have updated numbers, previous analysis has suggested that the New Democrats are almost precisely equidistant from the Blue Dogs and Progressives in terms of voting patterns, and very slightly to the right of the Democratic caucus overall. Given the disproportionate Act Blue donations to Progressive frosh compared to Blue Dogs frosh, overall this probably means that netroots money is being spent on keeping the ideological balance of the caucus roughly at the status quo. As such, it is not the disastrous situation I made it out to be yesterday, but it is still something that must be improved upon in 2010. Our money needs to be going to push the caucus to the left, not keep it where it currently is.

(Notes: Numbers taken from Open Secrets. Freshman fundraising totals can be seen here. ActBlue contribution totals can be seen here. Candidate self-financing not included in overall contribution totals. Current server troubles have prevented me from uploading the chart I made with all these numbers.)
Chris Bowers :: Netroots Funding New Democrats, But Not Blue Dogs

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Netroots Funding New Democrats, But Not Blue Dogs | 13 comments
Chris (0.00 / 0)
Is it better to have a Republican in a seat or a Blue Dog in a seat?

This should be a pretty simple question to answer.

In most cases a Republican. (4.00 / 5)
It is easier to defeat a member of the opposing party with a good candidate than an incumbent (in most cases, good candidates won't even challenge an incumbent, the power of incumbency is too great particularly in early primary fund raising).

The party infrastructure can fund raise on the gaffes and even just the ideology of a member of the opposite party, at all levels (local, state and federal party orgs raising money off your local official of the opposite party).

Third, that mediocre, corrupt, Blue Dog, or just inept/unqualified Congressman is going to hurt the local party and progress in the district in a number of ways.  They are likely not to be a "party builder" aggressively building and supplementing local infrastructure, they are likely to dampen messaging coming from Strong D's outside the district - going as far as leading the charge calling Strong Dems leading the way "crazy liberals", opposing major party agenda items like Health Care reform, pushing GOP talking points like "socialized medicine"...

If the party has and will hold a majority - there is 0 reason to back a less than worthy Democrat to take the seat, particularly if the seat is held by either a moderate R or a gaffe prone or particularly wingnutty conservative.

See this: http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

[ Parent ]
As I said (0.00 / 0)
It's moving the overton window of the debate one step to the left.

Let's game out some scenarios.

Let's say we have a 20 vote edge on the Republicans but we have 25 Blue Dogs. What happens? You end up having to cater to 80% of the Blue Dogs. You need a lot of them and they know it. That means concessions. That means watering down legislation.

Now let's flip 15 Republican seats to Blue Dogs. 40 Blue Dogs but now you have a 50 vote edge. Suddenly, you don't need the Blue Dogs.

People forget the immense value in not having a Republican there. Even if the Blue Dog turns out completely useless, if nothing else they are taking up a seat that would be occupied by a Republican.

But maybe I'm being optimistic. Maybe we only flip 5 seats. 30 seat edge, 30 Blue Dogs. Now you only need to garner the vote of one Blue Dog. Their bargaining power is vastly reduced. Almost no concessions. Better legislation.

(Note: This is what the current situation actually resembles.)

Now, finally, let's game out a situation where all those seats belong to Republicans, a purity progressives wet dream, the Chris-Bowersverse if you will. The Republicans steam roll legislation ala 1995-2006. Total clusterfuck right?

Not at all! You'll be pure and uncontaminated by differing viewpoints within the party and that's what matters in the end. Mission accomplished!

[ Parent ]
your math doesn't work out (4.00 / 2)
Your scenario:
207R
228D, incl 25 BD
D+21

In this, if you have 100% unity from all non-blue dog Dems, you need 15 blue dogs (60% not 80%) to get to 218.

Scenario 2, flip 15 GOP to Blue Dog:
192R
243D, incl 40 BD
D+51

Again, you still only have 203 non-blue dog Democrats, and to get to 218, you still need 15 blue dogs.  Maybe that task is easier since you now have 40 of them to pick from, but they still have a real veto over legislation.  You won't pass your bill if the Blue Dogs oppose it.

Unless you increase the number of progressives, you cannot decrease the influence of blue dogs.  

The D minus R "edge" figure you cite, only matters if the Blue Dogs were to abstain.  I don't see that happening.

[ Parent ]
Your math is absurd. (4.00 / 1)
See below as well.

The Blue Dogs recently announced expansion of their statutory limit to 59, which is self imposed.  Initially the restricted membership to only southern seats, and even recently have only allowed a few non-southerners into the Caucus.  What that means is there are a significant amount of blue dog voters who are not in the caucus.  Some of them are quiet about it, and some more vocal...they may vote with us on the House floor, but they are killing us in committees and cloak room negotiations.

The majority is 76 seats, assuming everyone is in attendance.

How big a majority do you need?  No more blue dogs.

[ Parent ]
With such "victory" its no wonder most Americans distrust Congress (0.00 / 0)
"Even if the Blue Dog turns out completely useless, if nothing else they are taking up a seat that would be occupied by a Republican. "

You will defend the "useless" simply because they are not of the other persuasion. Color me non-plussed.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
What is the difference? (4.00 / 3)
In a Democratic majority house, what actual difference does one more or less Republican make?

In a choice between 218 progressives, and 290 Blue Dogs, which would you pick?  

[ Parent ]
Each additional blue dog (0.00 / 0)
dilutes the bargaining power of the others.
[ Parent ]
But if Blue Dogs lose because of activist money (0.00 / 0)
they will be much less likely to work at cross-purposes.
[ Parent ]
except they dont. (4.00 / 4)
Each additional blue dog works with the Republicans ON THE COMMITTEE LEVEL to ensure that before a piece of legislation gets to the house floor it already has had the progressive life sucked out of it.

Your numbers don't work on the House level (50+ public blue dogs at present, another 20-30 that side with them in negotiations). They really don't work on the committee level where the margins and composition are vastly different.

But all of that is just numbers.  Politics is perception - to have a large groups of powerful vocal members of your own party criticizing pieces of your agenda, to have them mimicking the attacks of the opposition party is very effective in killing legislation and moving the overton window a mile the other direction.

For to long Progressives have been quiet and worked hard at playing nice and being content to get table scraps.  We need to re-learn (or in some cases learn for the first time) to be vocal, aggressive and not at all content with little bits of success.  Incremental does not work, you get an inch, if that inch doesn't show dramatic success, you end up losing 2.5 inches.  You never get the next increment.

[ Parent ]
the power of netroots (4.00 / 3)
has never been money, it is the ability to drive debate.
There are a few assumptions here (0.00 / 0)
1) You may be assuming that the netroots are more ideologically progressive than they actually are.  It's not hard to believe that there is a fraction of the netroots that identifies as Democrats and actually likes Blue Dogs.  I wouldn't be surprised if the ideological median of Democratic voters is much closer to the New Democrats than to Progressives.

2) There seems to be an assumption that all districts are equal.  My perception has been that money is directed towards candidates in potential "swing" districts.  Conventional wisdom (which isn't necessarily true) suggests that Democrats in such districts should be more conservative than Democrats in "safe" districts.  I can't really think of a good way to control for partisan lean of a district, though, since we're working with a small sample size.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

No matter how little money they get, (0.00 / 0)
they shouldn't be on the list.   If the netroots asks me to give money, I should be able to trust that NONE of the candidates they are supporting are Blue Dogs. After 2006, I quit giving money for this very reason. I might make an exception here or there, but not usually.    

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
Netroots Funding New Democrats, But Not Blue Dogs | 13 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox