Which House Democrats are in danger in 2010? According to the Cook Political Report, mainly it appears to be Blue Dogs and New Dems, and unaffiliated Democrats:
Given how few Progressives are in danger, in the extended entry I discuss how the 2010 elections are likely to increase Progressive power in the House Democratic caucus.
(* With 10% of the country following some form of vegetarian diet, this number is based on the assumption that vegetarians break Democratic 3-1, which is a margin very similar to the LGBT community, non-Christians, and not "white non-Hispanic."
Also note: Women are also disproportionately Democratic. However, unlike all the other groups listed here, women make up a significant percentage of Republican voters, too.)
Even though there is some overlap between these categories, the vast majority of Democrats fall into at least one of these five. And by "vast majority," I mean "over 70%."
Now, of course there is still a not-insignificant straight, meat-eating, non-union, white Christian contingent within the Democratic Party rank and file. However, that group is older than the rest of the party, and as such continues to shrink as an overall percentage of Democratic voters. Non-whites, non-Christians, LGBTs and vegetarians are all disproportionately under the age of 50, which will make future incarnations of the Democratic Party even more skewed toward these groups. This process is accelerated even further by Republicans targeting their messaging, and making the vast majority of their gains, among Americans who do not fit into one of those five categories.
I write--or at least attempt to write this--in a value-neutral sense. It isn't good or bad, it is just who the Democratic Party is at this point. It is significantly not-"white non-Hispanic," and the "white non-Hispanic" segment is significantly vegetarian, non-Christian or non-straight. Among Democratic voters who fit into neither of these groups, it is significantly union. Further, demographic and political trends will only make this more so in the future. The end result will be a Democratic Party that looks much more like that Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a Republican Party that includes the Blue Dogs and Conservadems.
Last night in Quick Hits, art3 alerted the Open Left community to the ugly repercussions of the defeat of the Medicare +5% public option. Now, it appears quite possible that even if the negotiated rates public option passes as a part of the final health care bill, it will not cost any less than private health insurance plans. From the CBO analysis of the House bill (page six, PDF):
Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be about 6 million.
That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO's assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that "adverse selection" on the public plan's premiums would be only partially offset by the "risk adjustment" procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)
Ouch. That is pretty awful. In plain English, it means that the public health insurance option won't cost less than private health insurance options because, on average, the people purchasing it will be sicker and less well-off. So, even though it will save on administrative costs, its risk pool will force it to charge rates very similar, and possibly even higher, than private insurance companies.
After such a loss of momentum, at this point the public option campaign is just about getting a legislative architecture in place that will allow the public option to be improved later on with only 50 votes in the Senate. Unfortunately, however, any such improvement will be dicey, given that we apparently lack simple majorities for a stronger public option in both the House and Senate. So, in addition to still struggling just to get the public option in place, we are going to have to struggle down the road to get a better group of people elected to both the House and the Senate.
In this bleak environment, yesterday the House Tri-Caucus (Congressional Black Caucs, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Asian Pacific American Caucus) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus all met with President Obama to voice their frustration. The White House simply described the meeting as productive:
It was a productive meeting that lasted for about an hour. The President congratulated the members on working so hard to get a meaningful reform bill put together in the House.
In a post-meeting interview with Democracy Now!, Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva used much stronger language:
[We] basically brought out that now that we're in this stage of having to deal with this negotiated rates that came out of the House, and something much worse coming out of the Senate, on a public option, that we felt-set some parameters of what we felt very strongly about, that the bill still needed to be strengthened; that there had to be cost controls on the private insurance companies, especially with negotiated rates, because they get to set the rates and we have to chase those rates with taxpayers' dollar; and no triggers and no opt-outs, that we feel those are detrimental to the public interest and certainly to constituencies that have lacked the ability to access healthcare in this country for so many years.
That is just for starters, as Grijalva also criticized the White House for catering to Olympia Snowe, and not being a strong enough advocate of the public option. Grijalva also indicated that he would not work to defeat the bill, given that he criticized Senators who have threatened to do the same:
We're facing the most historic vote that any of us are going to take in our careers. And for procedural reasons or for other reasons, to threaten to filibuster, to threaten to scuttle, whether it is Senator Bayh, Senator Snowe, Senator Lieberman, I think they're missing their opportunity with history, and I think the White House and leadership shouldn't allow them to be absent in this fight.
This may be a tough bill to swallow, but with language like this, it sure doesn't sound like Grijalva is looking to round-up Progressives to vote against it anymore.
This bill may very well provide a lot more people with coverage, we may well still get some sort of public option passed, and the Progressive Caucus does appear to have increased its influence. However, the cost of premiums will continue to rise beyond what are already unacceptable levels, and even without the filibuster we apparently still do not have a good enough Congress to pass transformative legislation. It is a hard pill to swallow, and a very frustrating day.
The House Democratic leadership unveiled its health care bill this morning. Some details:
The bill -- a combination of versions passed by three House committees -- includes what is termed a "negotiated rate" public option. It will cost $894 billion over 10 years and extend insurance coverage to 36 million Americans, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office.
The bill guarantees that 96 percent of Americans have coverage, Pelosi's office said. The figure is based on an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
One of the main differences between the House bill and the Senate Finance committee bill is that a significant portion of funding comes from a surtax on wealthy households, rather than on high-cost health care plans (which mainly target unions)
The new bill, like an earlier version, retains a surtax on high-income people, but increases the thresholds. The tax would hit married couples with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $1 million a year and individuals over $500,000 - just three-tenths of 1 percent of all households, Democrats said.
"I will insist on a Medicare-plus-5 [percent] amendment on the floor so that the full caucus can vote on it. We are hopeful that the Rules Committee will allow this amendment, which has tremendous public support, to be voted on for the record."
They will also get a chance Thursday to press their case for a public option in the final bill to Obama in a White House meeting. Many liberals have been irritated by Obama's wavering on the necessity of a public option.
Asked if her caucus would be prepared to balk at supporting a public option with negotiated rates - a threat they made in writing at the beginning of July - Grijalva's fellow co-chairwoman, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), said: "When we see what the bill says, we'll decide if we can support it."
Woolsey added that while Progressives don't intend to sign off on just anything that's handed to them, "this isn't walk-away time."
The problem with an amendment strategy is that the House leadership will likely not allow many, if any, amendments to be offered on the House floor. The reason is because of Bart Stupak, who is trying to defeat the entire bill by rounding up 40 House Democrats to demand that none of the insurance plans receiving subsidies in the exchange are allowed to cover abortions. If such an amendment passes--and the leadership believes that it would if offered on the floor--then the entire bill goes down to defeat, since it will lose the votes of dozens of pro-choice Democrats. As such, the leadership is going not going to allow any amendments, and make Stupak's only move to try and prevent the bill from going to the floor at all. It is unlikely he will succeed.
Floor amendments are approved by the House Rules committee. As such, the next step in the fight will be fought there. The committee is generally thought of as an extension of the leadership, so those fights may already be a foregone conclusion. Still, look for Representatives Stupak, Grijalva, and Weiner to try and get their amendments on restricted abortion funding, a vote on Medicare +5 rates, and single-payer to the floor.
Even though the Senate health care bill merger process is getting more press, the House is undergoing the same process for its three health care bills.
The two main disputes in the House merger process:
The first is over Democrat Bart Stupak's attempt to prevent any health insurance plans from covering abortions. If he were successful, health care reform would lose so many pro-choice votes that the entire bill will die. Fortunately, Stupak's plan seems likely to fail.
The second debate is over whether to include a public option tied to Medicare +5% rates, or one with negotiated rates. Three weeks ago, the Congressional Progressive Caucus was challenged by Speaker Pelosi to demonstrate enough support to pass the Medicare +5% public option. Since, then, the CPC has been engaged in a whip count to do just that.
The second argument is the main event in the House merger process at this point. The general thinking is that if the House passes the Medicare +5% public option, then the conference report is much more likely to emerge with a triggerless public option of some sort (negotiated rates, Schumer's level playing field, or perhaps the opt-out).
A whip count being undertaken by the Congressional Progressive Caucus indicates that support for the liberal public option among House Democrats is just shy of the needed 218. There are "about 200" solid supporters, 15 leaning yes, 20 undecided and 30 "no" votes, according to a Progressive Caucus source. Of the 30 "no" votes, 23 are likely "no" votes on the overall bill, the source said.
With Robert Wexler's retirement, there are currently 255 members of the House Democratic caucus. The numbers above suggest the following breakdown of House support for the Medicare +5% public option:
Using constituent data from Techpolitics and updating the membership for the 111th Congress, here are some demographic comparisons between the constituents of the Blue Dogs and the constituents of the Progressive Caucus:
Blue Dog vs. Progressive, Constituent Demographics
Demographic
Blue Dogs
Progressives
Other Dems
Median Income
$37,798
$41,405
$44,890
% in Poverty
14.02%
16.03%
12.13%
African-American
11.63%
22.35%
12.09%
Hispanic
10.41%
18.28%
14.62%
Other non-white
3.76%
7.04%
5.96%
It is worth noting that both Progressives and Blue Dogs have constituents who are, on average, poorer than the rest of the House Democratic caucus. How is it then that these two groups are on the opposite end of the Democratic Party?
One tempting conclusion is the substantial ethnic difference between the two constituencies. 47.67% of the constituents of Progressive Caucus members are non-white, while only 25.08% of the constituents of Blue Dog House members are non-white. It isn't that the Blue Dogs have wealthier constituents, just that they seem to have whiter constituents. Somehow, in and of itself, that is enough for Blue Dogs to take a more corporate, conservative policy line.
These numbers are pretty disturbing. They remind me of the old saying: "the rich man keeps blacks and whites apart so he can steal from them both." Seems about right.
But Grijalva noted that 46 members recently signed a letter pledging to vote against the centrist plan. In the numbers game of the House, that is significant, because Republicans are expected to unite against the healthcare bill. So if 39 Democrats oppose the plan, it wouldn't get the 218 votes needed to pass. There are 52 Blue Dogs, as well as many other centrist members not in the coalition.
No such letter with 46 names appears on the Progressive Caucus website, so I have placed a call to verify if the 46 Grijalva is referring to here is the number from the whip count.
If the 46 Grijalva refers to is the total from the whip count, then 14 members have left the original group of 60. Further, whereas the original 60 signed their names in public, we don't actually know who these 46 are. So, while the Block is still large enough to block health care reform legislation, it appears to have weakened significantly. Democracy for America and Fire Dog Lake are trying to bolster them.
Also of note, Harry Reid has clarified his remark from yesterday that "we are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk." Now his office says they will have a competition and cost control mechanism of some sort:
Sen. Reid believes that health insurance reform must include a mechanism to keep insurers honest, create competition and keep costs down. He feels that the public option is the best way to do that. While we don't know exactly what that option will look like, Sen. Reid, working with President Obama, will ensure that whatever is included in the final bill does just that.
These two developments muddle my positive feelings from last night.
There will be a full meeting of the Democratic House caucus on Thursday. Both the Blue Dogs and the Progressive Caucus are finishing their health are whip counts in advance of it. Ryan Grim:
The Blue Dog Coalition is engaged in a member-to-member whip operation in the House, beginning with a survey of its 52 lawmakers, to find out where they stand on critical health care issues. The principal focus is the public insurance option, but the canvass also touches on various tax and revenue increase proposals to pay for reform.(...)
The Congressional Progressive Caucus completed its first survey and began whipping back in the spring. They launched a final whip count last week that will be finished by Wednesday evening.
The whip count builds on an earlier letter that 60 members of the progressive caucus signed, pledging to oppose any health care bill without a "robust public option."
Expect both the Progressives and the Blue Dogs to announce the results of their whip counts either tomorrow or Friday morning. Further, expect both groups to declare that health care won't pass the House unless their demands are met. After that, look closely at the language that both groups release, because politicians love wiggle room and will seize on any that is offered them. And then, after that, don't trust quite a few of them anyway, because they could just break their promises.
From that point, expect significantly more pressure on the Progressives from established pundits, prominent Democrats, and the White House. After all, it is simply impolite for the Progressives to upset the order of things. Don't they know that only Blue Dogs and gangs of Conservadems are allowed to alter Democratic legislation by threatening to oppose it? And don't they know that when Blue Dogs do this, it is because the Dogs are common sense, bi-partisan pragmatists? By contrast, everyone knows that when Progressives do it, it is because they are rabid ideologues who just want ponies.
While the Progressive Caucus still has a long way to go to match the media and policy influence of the Blue Dogs, because of the Progressive Block campaign, for the first time in at least a decade they are relevant to the overall Congressional power structure.
At the Huffington Post, Ryan Grimm has a must-read feature story on how Progressives fought their way into relevance. Most of it won't be new to regular readers of Open Left, but it is a great read anyway and should help introduce the new progressive organizing on The Hill to a wider audience.
From the article, there were three keys to the rise of the caucus: be organized instead of just righteous; finding a legitimate way to threaten those in power; and developing better connections with natural allies in the progressive ecosystem. In my experience, those tend to be the three most common reasons progressives have failed to gain relevance in the past.
On Thursday, July 30th, the Progressive Caucus held a press conference to draw a line in the sand when it comes to the inclusion of a strong public option in the health care bill.
Here is the current status of the House Progressive backlash against the health care "deal" negotiated by Henry Waxman and four Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee:
53 House Progressives will vote against deal: In their press conference today, the Congressional Progressive Caucus stated that 53 Progressives will vote against any bill containing the measures in the Waxman-Blue Dog deal. With 218 required for a majority, and 178 Republicans, that is more than enough to block health care reform from passing the House until these Progressives are statisfied.
Medicare rates are the line in the sand: There were several Progressive objections to the Waxman-Blue Dog deal, but the line in the sand appears to be a public option with Medicare rates. From the letter signed by 53 House Progressives:
Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable.
Waxman-Blue Dog deal will pass out of committee. The progressive backlash will not stop the Waxman-Blue Dog deal from passing out of committee. The markup in the committee has continued today, and none of the 53 progressives mentioned above sit on the Energy and Commerce committee.
Progressive plan is to change the bill both before, and in, the Rules Committee. Before there can be a full House vote on health care legislation, the three different health care bills that have / will come from three different committees need to be merged by the Rules Committee. One of the other committee chairs to produce a health care bill, Charles Rangel, has made it clear that strengthening the public option in the rules Committee is his plan.
Rules Committee is relatively progressive. You can see the members of the Rules Committee here. Democrats hold an 8-5 advantage on the committee. There are five members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, plus Doris Matsui. There are also two Blue Dogs, Mike Arcuri and Dennis Cardozza. However, while they are Blue Dogs, neither Arcuri nor Cardozza signed any of the various letters expressing "concern" over health care reform. As such, this is indeed fertile ground for making sure the Waxman-Blue Dog deal doesn't make it to the floor.
Of course, all of this remains contingent upon the ongoing strength of the Progressive Block relative to the Blue Dogs. We have to make it easier for the leadership to break the Blue Dogs than to break the Progressive Block. Keep up the calls--this fight remains very winnable.
And we're back! Thanks so much to Dave, Ian and everyone else for taking care of the place while we were gone. Looks to me like they did a fabulous job!
The big health care news on Wednesday was that Blue Dogs and the Democratic House leadership apparently reached a deal on health care reform. In 2009, this has been the template for how legislative fights end in the House of Representatives. Blue Dogs hammering out the final details with Nancy Pelosi and the relevant committee chair, the rest of the Democratic caucus swallows whatever is served up, and the place of the Blue Dogs as overlords is cemented even further.
This time, however, progressives appear ready to force the House down a different path. The Energy and Commerce Committee's markup of the bill, which was originally scheduled to begin Wednesday at 4 p.m. eastern, has been delayed until at least Thursday:
Waxman Postpones Health Markup Amid Liberal Backlash By Steven T. Dennis and Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff
July 29, 2009, 5:16 p.m.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) postponed the health bill markup that he planned to hold Wednesday afternoon amid a backlash from liberals to the deal that he cut earlier with four conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
It is pretty amazing that an article about liberal backlash was co-written by reporters Dennis and Kucinich, but I digress.
Exactly what, and how much teeth, this progressive backlash against the Blue Dog deal is remains to be seen. Fortunately, we won't have to wait long to find out the details, as the Progressive Caucus will hold a 2:30 p.m. news conference to explain. A few hours ago, I received the following message over email, meant for public consumption:
The blue dog compromise is clearly in direct conflict with one of the core
tenets of the Congressional Progressive Caucus's criteria for a robust public option. The belief appears to be that the progressives will once again just roll over. They won't.
Tomorrow afternoon, the CPC will be holding a press conference in conjunction with their allied caucuses the CBC, CHC, and CAPAC. They are going to draw a very clear line in the sand. We need the largest crowd we can get at the press conference:
Thursday July 30, 2009
2:30 pm
At the triangle on the southeast side of the Capitol
Waxman will face a difficult task if the committee's liberals vote their objections to the Blue Dog compromises. Because Democrats hold a 13-vote majority over panel Republicans, Waxman can afford to lose six votes on any measure. Eight Democrats on the committee are members of the liberal Progressive Caucus, including the chairman and two of his close allies - Health Subcommittee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. , D-N.J., and Edward J. Markey , D-Mass., chairman of the Energy and the Environment Subcommittee.
The agreement Waxman reached with the four Blue Dogs would reduce the bill's cost by trimming eligibility for subsidies available to help the uninsured buy coverage; make it easier for private insurers to compete with a new, government-run "public plan"; and exempt more small businesses from requirements that employers cover their workers.
With only eight Progressives on the committee, getting seven to vote against this bill would be very difficult. Still, it is best to see how events continue to unfold tomorrow before making any proclamations about whether or not a health care deal has been struck in the House.
If you are in D.C., please attend the press conference tomorrow. And no matter where you live, join in the fight with the Fire Dog Lake Whip Count tool
I am growing increasingly excited about the emerging Progressive Block strategy. In short, the Progressive Block is where a critical mass of House progressives threaten to join with Republicans in voting against Democratic legislation unless specific, progressive provisions are included in that legislation. It delayed the Democratic leadership for a few weeks on the Afghanistan-IMF supplemental appropriations bill, and has led Speaker Nancy Pelosi to declare that health care reform without a public option will not pass the House.
I am really pumped about this. In the extended entry, I give six reasons why you should be excited, and willing to help out, too.
Brian Beutler thinks the chances of health care reform going through the reconciliation process are "remote:"
Lingering in the background of the health care debate in Congress has been the possibility that Democrats won't be able to get as much as they want from Republicans through the normal legislative process and will be forced to advance reform (or elements of reform) through the reconciliation process, which can't be filibustered. That may be a remote possibility, but it significantly changes the political dynamic on the Hill--in absence of this alternative route, meeting the expected 60 vote threshold in the Senate would become, to a greater extent than it already is, the guiding force behind the process.
I have to disagree with this characterization of the chances of health care reform going through the reconciliation process. While the cautious Democratic leadership and Obama administration are clearly hesitant to appear willing to use such a process, the political dynamic over health care reform is different than it is on other fights. Specifically, rather than the standard process of a "gang" of center-right Democrats and Republicans weakening a bill at their want, and then having progressives in both chambers vote for whatever the center-right gang decides, on health care reform the emergence of a Progressive Block has all but forced health care reform to go through the reconciliation process.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Huffington Post Thursday that a health care overhaul that did not include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes."(...)
Asked by HuffPost if she would allow a reform package without a public option out of the House, she responded: "It's not a question of allow. It wouldn't have the votes."
Given that there is simply no way the Obama administration could stomach a failure to pass health care legislation ala the Clinton administration before it, this pretty much guarantees that at least some important parts of health care reform will be passed through the reconciliation process.
Earlier today, these five members of Congress - all of whom are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus - were arrested for civil disobedience protesting the expulsion of aid workers from the Sudan. These are our champions, people who have dedicated their lives to human rights and justice, who are, in every sense of the word, leaders.
I have spent nearly all of my time lately thinking about how as progressives we should approach governing - and these and the other members of the Progressive Caucus are our strongest allies.
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.)
During the final weeks of the presidential campaign, then Senator Obama had a high profile meeting with the Blue Dogs. After the meeting, the Blue Dogs made a patently false claim about their power. Even though it takes 218 votes to reach a majority in the House, the Blue Dogs claimed they were important because, with 49 members, they supposedly had the power to either block or clear legislation:
But the three could play a big role in the success or failure of the next president, one reason Obama took a break from campaigning last week to call each of them, among the leaders of the "Blue Dog Coalition," a group of conservative-leaning Democrats who are committed to balancing the federal budget. The group's 49 members already wield significant power in the House, and their ranks are expected to expand in the next Congress.
"He said he planned to be the next president and he wanted to work with us," Ross said in recounting his conversation with Obama before the House approved a $700 billion economic rescue package. "He also recognized that we had the numbers to block or clear" legislation coming from the White House if he is elected.
How could 49 members of the House claim that they have the power to "block or clear" legislation, even though it take 218 votes, or 169 more than the Blue Dogs possessed at the time, to actually block or clear legislation? There is only one answer: they will join with Republicans.
As David already discussed earlier today, President Obama has not yet met with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, even though he has met with every other group in Congress (Blue Dogs, New Dems, House Republicans, etc). Some Progressive (capitalized because it signifies a member of the caucus, rather than just anyone who calls him or herself a progressive) are feeling slighted by this. I am going to chime in and agree with the general sentiment in the comments to David's post: rather than feeling slighted, Progressives need to start throwing more weight around so that such a meeting is required, rather than an act of politeness.
There are lots of ways that Progressives could be throwing their weight around, but are not. The most obvious current misuse of Progressive strength is the inability to maximize their, and our, strength among small donors. Progressives have enormous potential fundraising ability that can match the large donor and corporate PAC money other ideological caucuses and networks can provide to their members. This fundraising is a major reason why candidates join these groups, and progressives can do the same thing. Unfortunately, we don't use our networks as well as we should.
The blogosphere gets pretty angry at Blue Dogs and New Democrats on a regular basis. This isn't surprising since, according to the best information I have seen (some of which is not public) about 80% of the people who read progressive blogs and / or who are members of progressive email list organizations self-identify as either "liberal" or "progressive." However, from 2004-2008, and even in the excitement over the NY-20 special election next Tuesday where the Democrat has already declared himself to be a Blue Dog, I'd wager that a similar proportion of netroots congressional donations have gone to electing Blue Dogs and New Democrats (specific numbers are not available right now because the current caucus membership lists are not available). It is kind of a perverse cycle: we give huge amounts of money to Blue Dog and New Democratic candidates, and then we spend a huge amount of our time complaining about Blue Dog and New Democratic members of the House. We are funding our own complaints.
What does it take to get a meeting with President Obama? It is becoming easier to cynically answer "threaten to block his legislation." If you are a supporter, you might have to wait in line:
The House Blue Dog Coalition continues to wield outsize political power, thanks to a canny willingness to leverage its votes on key issues, while the Congressional Progressive Caucus must fight to be heard.
Case in point: the Blue Dogs are meeting directly with President Obama this afternoon on the stimulus bill. The Progressives have yet to hear back about their request for a meeting, which was issued almost a month ago.
Arguing against David Sirota, Nate Silver argues that voting in favor of the bailout was progressive, and opposing it was conservative:
Nevertheless, the vote may be interesting from the standpoint of figuring out where the different coalitions in the Congress stood. There is a notion, which I think is a misguided notion, that the proper "progressive" stance is to oppose the bailout. Occasionally, you'll come across an issue that splits the political spectrum literally down the middle, with the most progressive members and the most conservative members of the House uniting on one direction on a measure, and moderates in both parties taking the other stance. Is the bailout one such issue?
No, it isn't. On the contrary, this was a fairly conventional vote in which the more a Congressman tends to define themselves as liberal or progressive, the more likely they were to vote to extend the bailout. The Congressional Progressive Caucus voted in favor of continuing the bailout by a 49-15 margin; by contrast, the more conservative Blue Dog Democratic Caucus voted 27-17 to block the bailout. And nearly every Republican voted against the bailout.
The problem with these claims is that Nate only looks at one of the three bailout votes in the House, and the one that he admits was "entirely symbolic" at that. Further, he leaves out one of the three ideological caucuses: the moderate New Democrats who are affiliated with the DLC. Looking at all three votes and all three ideological caucuses, the picture becomes a lot more complicated.
