Rural vs. urban (0.00 / 0)

One other major difference is that Blue Dogs are much more rural than average while Progressives are more urban (or at least inner suburban).

The Blue Dogs who represent the most liberal districts (at least in terms of % who voted for Obama) are pretty much all California Hispanics. Joe Baca comes to mind.  Their votes are to the left of the BD caucus but for some reason they cling to the label.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 22:17:10 PM UTC

Whites in the Central Valley are pretty damn conservative. (0.00 / 0)

The "Blue Dog" label helps with their white voters, while not hurting with their Hispanic Democrat base.  Why not wear it?

---

by: texas dem @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 22:30:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Strangle hold (4.00 / 1)

This is not a harmless affiliation.

The Blue Dogs have a strangle hold on the country.  Anything that weakens them, including pushing five or six CA Dems out is a huge victory.  They do hurt their Hispanic base immeasurably by being part of the Blue Dog pack.  Do you think Baucus Care ios good for their base?

Having 45 instead of 51 Blue Dogs?  Priceless?

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 02:33:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You said it already: their votes are to the left of the Blue Dog caucus. (0.00 / 0)

Their caucus affiliation does not control their voting.  In fact, it conspicuously fails to control their voting.  It's a label.

Now, the fact that the Blue Dogs can claim 51 does matter when it comes to mindless TV pundits who don't know that six or eight of those are BDINOs.  (There are a few in New York too; Steve Israel and Tim Bishop on Long Island, I think.)  But in that case the underlying problem is mindless TV punditry having a meaningful influence on the national discourse.  When it comes to anything like real politics, everyone in Congress knows that there are really only 43 or so Blue Dogs, and not one vote whipper is fooled by the label that some CA Hispanics are wearing to appeal to white voters.

Caveat: while Costa, Cardoza, Baca, Israel, etc do have a generically lefter voting record than your "typical" Blue Dog, the caucus is actually organized around a particular fiscal pledge I think, rather than just reflexive conservatism.  So it's possible that even the lefter members are adhering to this program on matters fiscal, in which case their membership would be of consequence.  I don't know their voting record well enough to be sure how they're voting on fiscal matters.

---

by: texas dem @ Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 18:34:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not just any whites. Poor whites. (0.00 / 0)

Nonwhites:

Progressives: 47.67%
Other Dems:   32.67%
Blue Dogs:    25.08%

The "Other Dems" are 7.6 points away from the Blue Dogs, and 15 points away from the Progressives.  In other words, they're considerably closer to the Blue Dogs in racial breakdown than they are to the Progressives.  And yet the income of these constituents is significantly higher than either those of the Blue Dogs or those of the Progressives.

What you have, then, are poor white districts (Blue Dogs), rich white districts ("Other Dems", mostly New Dems), and middle-income diverse districts.  

It's not just any whites in these Blue Dog districts.  It's poor whites.  That's the key.
 

---

by: texas dem @ Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 22:27:40 PM UTC