Better Democrats Outperform Blue Dogs

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 18:30


Ed Kilgore writes that the candidates on the Better Democrats page actually outperformed the Blue Dogs this cycle:

According to Chris Bowers of OpenLeft, five members of ActBlue's BetterDemocrats list of reliably progressive House candidates were among those who won Republican seats last night: Alan Grayson of FL, Eric Massa of NY, Joshua Segall of AL, Tom Perriello of VA, and Gary Peters of MI. Two others, Darcy Burner of WA and Charlie Brown of CA, are in very close races that haven't yet been decided.

Meanwhile, according to an email from Blue Dog Coalition communications director Kristen Hawn, they're claiming Bobby Bright of AL and Walt Minnick of ID, who won Republican seats, plus Frank Kradovil of MD, who's in an undecided race. But of the four incumbent Democrats who lost, two (Nick Lampson of TX and Tim Mahoney of FL) were officially Blue Dogs, while the other two (Nancy Boyda of KS and Don Cazayoux of LA) were closely aligned with the Blue Dogs.

Now, turns out I was wrong, and Segall lost. Also, Charlie Brown wasn't on our list of candidates. Still, that makes four House victories, with Burner's campaign still pending. That tops the Blue Dog's performance, as they actually netted zero seats in Congress.

Further, according to an email I received earlier today, the Progressive Caucus projects eleven new members:

U.S. Representatives Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey,  Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), anticipate  adding up to 11 new CPC Members  in the 111th Congress.  This  could increase the size of the CPC to at least 84 Members, making it  by far the largest and most diverse sub-group among all Democrats in  the new 111th Congress -- an increase of up to 27 new House Members since Lee and Woolsey became CPC leaders.

Also, if Burner wins, all six of the original signers of the Responsible Plan to End the War In Iraq will be in Congress next year. Alan Grayson, the twelfth endorser, will join them.

With the Blue Dogs staying even while Better Democrats, the Progressive Caucus, and Responsible Plan candidates all gaining, it sure seems to me like we made not only more Democrats yesterday, but better ones too.
Chris Bowers :: Better Democrats Outperform Blue Dogs

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Better Democrats Outperform Blue Dogs | 22 comments
I bet the gal who beat Musgrave will be a Blue Dog (0.00 / 0)
as Ken (I'm the new Joe Lieberman) Salazar was her mentor.

It's still fun to beat Musgrave though.

John McCain won't insure children

Blue Dogs (0.00 / 0)
I was actually just looking that up

Boyda's not a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, and received no money from the Blue Dog PAC, so I doubt she would "count."

However, Cazayoux, Lampson, and Mahoney did and do.

The Blue Dogs endorsed ten candidates:

Minnick (ID-01), Bright (AL-02), and Griffith (AL-05 Hold) won. Kratovil (MD-01) appears close to winning

Derby (NV-02), Tinklenberg (MN-06), Cravins (LA-07), Jennings (FL-13), and Boswell (KY-02) lost.

Carmouche (LA-04) is still pending.

So the Blue Dogs held 1 Open Seat, lost 3 incumbents, and won 3 challengers (assuming Kratovil holds on), with one race pending.

But a note of caution: The Blue Dogs had 5 endorsed challengers win on election night in 2006. By the Mid-November organizing meeting they had convinced 3 more freshman to join.

Blue Dog Math (4.00 / 1)
Since my post led to Chris', thought I should weigh in on the Caucus math.

Boyda wasn't a Blue Dog, but she applied for Blue Dog membership, and wasn't accepted because of some arbitrary limit that had on their size. She certainly called herself a Blue Dog, and that's why I said that she was "closely aligned" with them.  

Yes, they endorsed Griffith, but I didn't include him in my post because he replaced another Blue Dog, Bud Cramer, and thus wasn't relevant to the discussion.  

And yes, as in the past, the Blue Dogs have added two incumbents to their membership: Henry Cuellar of TX and Harry Mitchell of AZ.  But again, that has zero net effect on the ideological composition of the Caucus.

Most importantly, since Chris didn't mention this part of my post, this accounting doesn't deal with many new members of the Caucus.  My comparison of BetterDems with the Blue Dogs was primarily designed to challenge the CW that a larger Caucus means a tilt to the center or right.  Maybe so, but probably not.  

Ed Kilgore  

[ Parent ]
Oh, yeah, Bush Dog Cuellar shouldn't be forgotten! (0.00 / 0)
Certainly one of the most horrible examples of Bush ass kissing in the whole bunch. Voted so often with the rethuglicans that it's almost a fraud to call him Democratic. I mean, anybody who endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 should be kicked from the party:
http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Let's hope he will face a strong progressive challenge in 2010 and finally lose his seat. It's about time.

Hmm, what do YOU think about Cuellar, Ed? After all, you're well known for being on the right wing of the Dem party yourself. I seem to remember you once filled in for a week or so for Kevin Drum at his blog, and the commenters there flamed you for your views. Well, being to the right of Kevin and still be a Dem really takes an, uh, wide stance...

[ Parent ]
"well known" (0.00 / 0)
Well, Gray, if you think I'm "well-known" for being on the "right wing of the Democratic Party," seems you don't know me that well. If that were the case, would I be drawing attention to the very findings that are the subject of this post?

I've actually never subbed for Kevin, though I have written pretty often for The Washington Monthly; maybe you're thinking of a guest gig I did for Josh Marshall at TPM. Since he doesn't have comment threads, I didn't get "flamed," though that has happened at TPMCafe and Salon, but everybody gets flamed at those two sites.  

As for Cuellar and other Blue Dogs, I'm a big tent kind of Democrat, but with definite limits.  I'm as frustrated as anyone when Dems obstruct progressive legislation.  

Ed Kilgore

[ Parent ]
Mike Arcuri (0.00 / 0)
Michael Arcuri is a member, but I don't think he took PAC money. His race got basically no press, no attention, no targeting and no polling, and it was assumed he had token opposition. And yet he barely won his re-elect race, squeaking in with a less than 6,000 vote margin.

He's not a freshman anymore so he'd better do something to distinguish himself in the next electoral cycle. The NY GOP is in tatters right now but I'm sure they smell blood here and he'll be a big target, along with Maffei and Massa.

[ Parent ]
A new Bush-Dog Criteria? (0.00 / 0)
So Chris, any thoughts on changing the bush-dog criteria?
Perhaps a clean slate?  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
'10 (0.00 / 0)
Are we going to target Bush Dogs with primary challengers in 2010?
I think they need a new name (4.00 / 3)
and I also think it would prudent to see who acts to undermine President Obama's agenda.  Blocking Bush or trying to sneak through things that he'll sign is a fundamentally different game than passing real progressive legislation under Obama.  

As much as voting for FISA pisses me off, I'd rather target the guys who try to kill Universal Health Care.  But that's just me.  Perhaps look for the five worst on stuff from the 2006-2008 term and on the 2008-2010 term.

[ Parent ]
We should put them on (0.00 / 0)
Double Secret Probation!!
[ Parent ]
Or try to run primary challengers (0.00 / 0)
Not all of them can run off and pull a Lieberman
[ Parent ]
I think they earned the name (4.00 / 1)
and should have to wear it.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree with you (0.00 / 0)
but average voter isn't going to give a damn about bush in a year.  We'll loo out of touch if we're still comparing people to him.
[ Parent ]
Interesting post (0.00 / 0)
More Better Democrats won then Blue Dogs. But that doesn't necessarily mean more progressives. Let's take a look at the new members, via SSP.

   * AL-02 (Bobby Bright) (Blue Dog, hardcore)
   * AZ-01 (Ann Kirkpatrick)(Not Blue Dog endorsed but a Blue Dog type)
   * CO-04 (Betsy Markey) (Same, tough district and worked for Blue Dog Salzar)
   * CT-04 (Jim Himes) (Progressive, don't know why you didn't put him on Better Dems list, better then some you did put on)
   * FL-08 (Alan Grayson) (VERY progressive)
   * FL-24 (Suzanne Kosmas) (Kind of moderate New Democrat type)
   * ID-01 (Walt Minnick) (Blue Dog)
   * IL-11 (Debbie Halvorson) (Establishment type, not real progressive or conservative. A little like DWS)
   * MI-07 (Mark Schauer) (Progressive)
   * MI-09 (Gary Peters) (Also progressive and BD)
   * NC-08 (Larry Kissell) (Progressive blue dog? An odd mix of progressive stances and conservative ones, we'll see how he votes)
   * NJ-03 (John Adler) (Progressive, likely on the PC's count)
   * NM-01 (Martin Heinrich) (Same, leader of progressive wing in ABQ)
   * NM-02 (Harry Teague) (Conservative oilman, prob Blue Dog)
   * NV-03 (Dina Titus) (Attacked as too liberal but seems pretty moderate.)
   * NY-13 (Mike McMahon) (Big time Blue Dog though not endorsed)
   * NY-25 (Dan Maffei) (Progressive I think, worked for Rangel and prob on the PC list)
   * NY-29 (Eric Massa) (Same, likes single payer!)
   * OH-01 (Steve Driehaus) (More conservative, anti-choice)
   * OH-16 (John Boccieri) (Same, both econ populists)
   * PA-03 (Kathy Dahlkemper) (Anti-choice PA Democrat)
   * VA-02 (Glenn Nye) (Seems pretty progressive, hard to tell)
   * VA-11 (Gerry Connolly) (Establishment crook but not too conservative from what I can tell. Very corporate friendly though.

Also I think BD's Burner and Perriello will pull it out and Blue Dog Carmouche will as well. So assuming that we've got about 10-12 progressives 4-5 suburban moderate types. A few populist Blue Dogs and a few hardcore Blue dogs.

And in the Senate you've got T. Udall and Merkley who are progressives. The rest are pretty much moderates unless Franken pulls it out.

Overall a lot of our gains were progressives. We need to push that hard.


John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Mark Udall is also progressive (0.00 / 0)
Its been a pretty good election for the Senate so far:

3 Progressives with the Udalls and Merkley and 3 Moderates with Warner, Hagan, and Shaheen.

This is a lot than 2006 when we picked up mainly moderates in Tester, Webb, McCaskill, and Casey and only 2 progressives with Brown and Whitehouse.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

[ Parent ]
Eh (0.00 / 0)
He was in the House. He moved a lot to the right when running for Senate. We'll see what he votes like the Senate.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Hmm, should "anti-choice" be a criterium for the category "Blue Dog"? (0.00 / 0)
Imho this goes a bit too far. I haven't checked this, but I guess there are lots of true progressives who are somewhat "anti-choice" because of honest concerns. I think you can both be pro choice and anti late abortions, for instance (uh, ok, well, I am). Don't think it's helpful to use this single issue as an indicator for leaning blue dog...
[ Parent ]
fine with me (4.00 / 1)
I'm okay with a Democrat being anti-choice, because they would be just a drop in the bucket.  At no point will enough Democrats hold that position to put choice in jeopardy.  That isn't true for many other things, though, like warrantless wiretapping.
[ Parent ]
Perriello Not in Yet (4.00 / 1)
Still undecided and he needs help:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/...
I'm not a political professional, (0.00 / 0)
but I think this is an outstanding thread, and the list of elected progressives shows very substantial gains, and I also think a lot of the credit for it goes to this website. Chris and Matt and Paul should be given a large slice of pie for the excellent and sorely-needed focus they provided on the realities of the political situation. I'm very pleased to be a member of this community, and I want us to keep on doing what obviously is working.  Our task is immense, but we actually made recognizable gains this time.  Go Darcy!  
Please allow me to register a complaint about Better Dems process (0.00 / 0)
Late in the campaign I made my first donation.

Now I find that about 15 Very Good Democrats immediately put me on their email lists, adding a new dimension to mailbox flooding.

In my opinion, Better Democrats should not give out email addresses of their donors.  Also, now I'm waiting for the spike in my snailmail box.

Is there no better way this can be done?


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Democratic PVIs (0.00 / 0)
Six (and possibly 7) of the 15 districts with Democratic PVIs that were represented by House Republicans switched on Tuesday: Chris Shays of CT-4 (D+5), Jon Porter of NV-3 (D+1), NJ-3 (open, D+3), NM-1 (open, D+2), NY-13 (Open, D+1), NY-25 (Open, D+3) all switched.  Darcy Burner may eventually take out Dave Reichert in WA-8 (D+2).  These are all seats that should not be represented by a Blue Dog but Mike McMahon on Staten Island is an ovious slip up.  Once the Vito feeding frenzy started, the search for a "sure thing" led to a Blue Dog.

The other eight districts should be areas to mount challenges in 2010.  Four received fairly stiff but unsuccessful challenges in 2008: IL-10 (Mark Kirk, D+4), IA-4 (Tom Latham (D+0), PA-15 (Charlie Dent, D+2), and it seems PA-6 (Jim Gerlach, D+2 who won 52-48).  The other four received nominal attention.  Mike Castle (DE-At Large, D+7), C. W. Bill Young (FL-10, D+1), Peter King (NY-3, D+2), and Frank Lo Biondo (NJ-2, D+4) went untouched this cycle and really need strong, progressive opponents.  Young got a local mayor but the other three received less notable foes.  The hope seems to be that the aging Castle and Young (both in their 70s) will retire and King will run for Governor in 2010.  Unless a better Democrat is lined up for these seats any last minute decision is likely to produce a Mike McMahon type.

How weird is it that the two Republican House members with the most seniority after this election are both named Young (Bill and Don of Alaska).

Better Democrats Outperform Blue Dogs | 22 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.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
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