Open Left - progressive caucus

The 2010 elections will hit moderate, conservative House Democrats hardest

Chris Bowers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:33:19 GMT

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:

Cook Political Report's 34 most endangered Democratic incumbents

Member	District	Blue Dog?	New Dem?	Progressive?
Total	---	12	10	3
Bright	AL-02	Yes	Yes	No
Griffith	AL-05	Yes	Yes	No
Snyder	AR-02	No	Yes	No
Mitchell	AZ-05	Yes	Yes	No
McNerney	CA-11	No	No	No
Markey	C0-04	No	No	No
Grayson	FL-08	No	No	Yes
Kosmas	FL-24	No	Yes	No
Minnick	ID-01	Yes	No	No
Foster	IL-14	No	Yes	No
Hill	IN-09	Yes	No	No
Schauer	MI-07	No	Yes	No
Kratovil	MD-01	Yes	Yes	No
Skelton	MO-04	No	No	No
Childers	MS-01	Yes	No	No
Kissell	NC-08	No	No	No
Shea-Porter	NH-01	No	No	No
Teague	NM-02	No	No	No
Bishop	NY-01	No	No	No
Hall	NY-19	No	No	Yes
Owens	NY-23	No	No	No
Arcuri	NY-24	Yes	Yes	No
Massa	NY-29	No	No	Yes
Driehaus	OH-01	No	No	No
Kilroy	OH-15	No	No	No
Boccieri	OH-16	No	Yes	No
Space	OH-18	Yes	No	No
Spratt	SC-05	No	No	No
Gordon	TN-06	Yes	No	No
Tanner	TN-08	Yes	No	No
Edwards	TX-17	No	No	No
Nye	VA-02	Yes	No	No
Perriello	VA-05	No	No	No
Kagen	WI-08	No	No	No

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.

More in the extended entry.
For hypothetical purposes, if all of these Democrats lost to Republicans, and there was no other switch in the partisan control of any seat in Congress, the power balance within the Democratic House caucus would shift as follows:

Three major Democratic ideological House caucuses as a percentage of overall Democratic caucus (full voting House members, only)

Congress	Blue Dogs	New Dems	Progressives
111th	20.2%	26.4%	30.6%
112th	17.7%	25.9%	33.9%

In this scenario, the overall Democratic advantage drops to a narrow, 224-211. Blue Dogs become a smaller percentage of the overall Democratic caucus, New Dems remain about the same, and Progressives noticeably increase their share.

Now, this would not necessarily weaken overall Blue Dog power. First, they could easily replenish their numbers, as there are many members of the House who want to be in the Blue Dogs but whose applications were rejected. Second, with a smaller overall Democratic majority, fewer Blue Dogs would be needed to create a Republican plus Blue Dog majority.

However, what if we were to tweak this situation with successful activism on behalf of House Progressives? For example, what if Grayson, Hall and Massa were all able to hold onto their seats, if Progressives won primary challenges against Blue Dogs Jane Harman and John Barrow, if Progressives won the open seat in AL-07 and one other Democratic district, and if Progressives were able to take over Republican held seats in LA-02, IL-10, DE-AL, and one other blue district?

In that scenario, Democrats would hold a 231-204 majority. Progressives would become 39.0% of the caucus, New Dems 23.8%, and Blue Dogs 16.5%. In fact, given the significant cross-over between the New Dems and Blue Dogs, there would actually be slightly more House Democrats in the Progressive Caucus than in the New Dem or Blue Dogs caucus combined (although I should note there are a handful of House Democrats who are both New Dems and Progressives).

In a year where Democrats seem likely to suffer at least some House losses, the idea that Progressives could actually gain seats is intriguing and hopeful. We could then follow-up in 2012 by running more Progressives against Republicans, and winning many of the numerous primary challenges that will inevitably result from redistricting. Suddenly, a Blue Dog-proof majority in the House by 2012 actually seems like a possibility.

It will take a lot of work, but the progressive electoral infrastructure to make this happen in strengthening all the time. Certainly, it will be a top project of Open Left over the next three years.

Democrats as a whole becoming more like the Progressive Caucus

Chris Bowers — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:26:10 GMT

What percentage of Democratic voters are one or more of the following?

Self-identified not-"white non-Hispanic" (39%)
Self-identified non-Christian (28%)
Some form of vegetarian? (14%*)
A union member (13%)
Not self-identified heterosexual (7%)

(* 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.

More in the extended entry
This departs from my prognostications in the past in that I now see it more as a description of the future of the Democratic Party than a likely future progressive governing majority. Through a combination of a long-term decline in immigration (already underway), and by capturing an even larger percentage of the white Christian vote (a process that is long underway), Republicans and conservatives can stay competitive with Democrats electorally for a long time to come. However, this will also necessitate that states and congressional districts currently occupied by Blue Dogs and Senate Conservadems shift toward Republicans, remaking the demographic and cultural composition of the Democratic Party.

Over the long-run, Democrats in Congress will look more like the Progressive Caucus. Right now, the CPC is only group of Democrats in Congress who are representative of the Democratic rank and file. At least 74.7%, or 59 of 79, of the full-voting House members of the CPC are one or more of the following: non-white, non-Christian, or non-straight. Among all other full-voting Democrats in the House, that percentage is only 23.5%, or 42 of 179.

That is an astounding gap. It is also temporary. With such a large percentage of the Democratic rank and file fitting into the five categories described at the top of this post, almost inevitably more Democratic candidates for higher office will fit into those categories, too. Gradually--or maybe not so gradually, if a major Republican wave takes out hordes of Blue Dogs and New Dems in 2010--Democrats in Congress will become demographically and culturally more like members of Progressive Caucus.

This shift is also partially responsible for the current disconnect between Democratic leaders and the Democratic rank and file. The vestigial Blue Dog wing of the party bears little cultural and demographic resemblance to rest of the coalition. In fact, as we have written in the past on Open Left, in this regard it is far closer to the Republican Party than to other the Democratic Party. This is both why there is a major problem in passing progressive legislation right now, and why that wing of the Democratic Party is eventually going to be largely swallowed up by Republicans.

It is in this sense that President Obama can actually be understood as a transitional figure. Obama is able to connect the non-white, cultural progressive, and New Democratic branches of the Democratic Party all at the same time. He has also altered the national political landscape, in that the areas with the largest concentration of white Christian Democrats--which happen to coincide with the areas represented by Blue Dogs--are now the most Republican voting areas in the country. It wasn't long ago that Democrats were competitive in places like Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia were competitive in Presidential elections. Now, those are 5 out of the 14 states that John McCain won by 13% or more. Don't expect them to come back to the fold on the national level anytime soon, either (although the situation is very different in most other parts of the South).

Finally, this shift will also result in figures like Sarah Palin will playing a larger role in the future of the Republican Party. Digby points out that, despite her shortcomings as a candidate in other ways, Palin is good at making jokes about liberal cultural adherents, such as vegetarians, and how this endears her to the social conservative base. As the two parties become even more divided along cultural and demographic lines, more of the successful, conservative, Republican figures will demonstrate this ability.

It is also possible that the coalitions will rearrange themselves, and new dividing lines may form. In fact, this is inevitable, as it is a process that has occurred throughout American history. But from the vantage point of the now, the outlook of the two major coalitions over the next twenty or thirty years points almost entirely to an expansion of the cultural and demographic divide we are already witnessing.

A Major Setback On The Public Option

Chris Bowers — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:40:00 GMT

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.

House Unveils Health Care Bill; Next Steps for the Progressive Caucus

Chris Bowers — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:19:41 GMT

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.

Expect this funding mechanism to make it through to the final bill, given that the tax on high-cost health insurance plans has fewer supporters in 2the House than single-payer. If the Baucus funding mechanism is sent back to the House after the conference committee, then the entire bill will go down to defeat.

The Progressive Caucus appears to be moving toward an amendment strategy, rather than a defeat the whole bill strategy. They will make this case today in a meeting with President Obama:

"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.

House Whip Count on Robust Public Option

Chris Bowers — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:27:13 GMT

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).

This dispute is balanced on a knife edge. Here are the exact CPC whip count numbers that I hinted at last night:

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:

House Medicare +5% public option whip count
218 needed to pass
Solid yes: 184
Lean yes: 15
Incoming yes votes: 1 (maybe two)
Leadership: 6
Undecided: 20
Lean No: 7
Solid No: 23

Full explanation in the extended entry.
Deducing the state of the House Medicare +5% whip count:

The numbers listed in The Hill only add up to 250, even though they were taken at a time when there were 256 members of the Democratic caucus. So, six members were not whipped.
I was told earlier that the leadership was not included in the whip count (the leadership whips itself, and hardly ever voted against the majority of the caucus). The very top Democratic leadership means six members--Speak Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Whip Clyburn, DCCC chair Van Hollen, Caucus Chair Larson, and Caucus Vice-Chair Becerra. They are the gap of six in the whip count.
The CPC is clearly including the "lean yes" supporters in the 200 overall supporters they are claiming. This is because:
- 256 House Democrats
- Minus the six top leaders makes 250
- Minus the 30 no and "lean no" makes 220
- Minus the 20 undecided makes 200

So, there are 185 House Democrats solidly behind the Medicare +5% public option, 15 leaning toward the Medicare +5% public option, and six House leaders who can be counted on to support health care reform with a Medicare +5% public option if it goes to the floor.

That makes 206. Minus Robert Wexler, and it drops to 205. Add the winner of the CA-10 special election on November 3rd, and it goes back up to 206. The remaining 12 votes will have to be culled from the 20 undecided Representatives, and the 7 "lean no" Representatives. Speaker Pelosi made an overture to that group yesterday, floating a Medicare +5% public option with $20 billion for rural hospitals:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is seeking to modify the House healthcare legislation to bring centrists around to the more liberal government-run insurance option, hoping that will give her the strongest negotiating position with the Senate.

In a closed-door session with a diverse group of Democrats on Wednesday, Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered a $20 billion tweak in hospital reimbursement rates to rural lawmakers.

It is a positive sign that the leadership is trying to bring the Medicare +5% public option home. The CPC's whip count must have convinced her it was worth an effort, which is an improvement from last week:

In a meeting today between House leaders and rank and file Dems in the capital, Nancy Pelosi frustrated many liberals by suggesting that they consider a watered-down public option as a way of getting health care through the House, a top House liberal says.(...)

In an interview with me, Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva described the scene in frustrated tones. He said House leaders acknowledged the popularity within the Dem caucus of the robust public option, but asked them to consider a public option where reimbursment rates are negotiated individually with providers. That's a solution Blue Dogs favor but liberals reject.

"Unfortunately, the discussion was about negotiated rates," Grijalva told me. "We continue to be very much opposed to that."

On October 7th, Speaker Pelosi was floating the negotiated rates public option to the Progressive Caucus. One week later, she was floating a tweaked version of the Medicare +5% public option to the entire Democratic Caucus. This shows the public option campaign is gaining ground in the House, and close to a real breakthrough.

Blue Dog Vs. Progressive Constituent Demographics

Chris Bowers — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:53:34 GMT

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.

Progressive Block Down To 46; Reid Backs Down

Chris Bowers — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:49:29 GMT

Three weeks ago, the Progressive Caucus began a whip count of their membership to see how many were willing to oppose a health care reform plan that did not contain a public option. It appears the number they came up with is 46:

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.

Dueling Whip Counts

Chris Bowers — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:00:00 GMT

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.

The Rise of the Progressive Caucus

Chris Bowers — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

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.

Much more in the extended entry.
Here are the three keys:

Just being righteous wasn't enough: One of the great frustrations I have had with some progressives is they seem to think that just being right is enough. Given the nature of our opposition, it's not:
"We're the group that speaks to the righteousness of an issue, [but] inevitably the decisions about how that issue's going to be addressed are conducted somewhere else," said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), describing the traditional fecklessness of progressives in Congress.(...)

In March, Grijalva did something unusual for the progressive caucus: he began organizing. Caucus leadership sent a questionnaire asking members if they would be willing to oppose any health care bill that didn't include a public option. A majority said they would.

Attendance at caucus meetings - which had dipped to just a handful of members - began rising as the group hashed out what message to deliver to House leadership.

"I really felt that we needed to be righteous about the things that we believe in, but we also needed to practice the craft a little better," said Grijalva. "As a bloc we were getting beaten to the punch all the time."
Organizing isn't enough either: Further, just being right and just getting organized isn't enough, either. You have to be willing to make a power play, such as blocking Democratic legislation. This was not feasible when Bush was still President, but Progressives have been willing to seize the moment once it became available:
For Woolsey, it's the issue that allows the caucus to stand unified. "It's the issue. We agree on this," she said. "We have never had the luxury of saying, 'Either go with us, or we'll go with the Republicans. We don't believe what the Republicans stand for at all. So it's been more difficult when Bush ran the White House. Nor have we had the majority of the progressives drawing a line in the sand as they are now."(...)

Grijalva said he and others been eying the health care fight as a chance to establish the authority of caucus since the beginning of the year. "People have understood that this was not only a value statement that we had to stick to, but it was also, to put it in a really blunt sense, an opportunity to show that the caucus was going to be a real player in how policies get shaped and that's what we're trying to do," he said.

Without the threat to sink important Democratic legislation, the Progressive Caucus has no real power. This is, after all, how the Blue Dogs managed to amass so much power. Rather than just complaining about them, we needed to learn from them.
Working with outside groups: Realizing that there are many new progressive groups and leaders who would stand with the Progressive Caucus if they choose to pick a major fight was another key:
Ellison cited Rep. Alan Grayson's (D-Fla.) hiring of prominent blogger Matt Stoller. "He brings all of his perspective and his technical expertise with him," said Ellison.

The caucus also brought on Darcy Burner to help with outreach to progressive groups. Burner had twice run for Congress and is a hero of the Netroots community of bloggers and activists. She arranged for Jacob Hacker, the intellectual architect of the public option, and Diane Archer co-president of the Health Care for All Project, which is run by the Institute for America's Future, to brief the caucus.(...)

The caucus also reached out to MoveOn.org, which notified its members of the letter and encouraged folks to go to the press conference announcing it. "We let [our members] know there were people standing up for them," said MoveOn's Ilyse Hogue. "Looking from the outside in, I'm definitely seeing an increased understanding of the power progressives can wield on the inside working in coordination with outside progressive forces."

"There are certainly some of us who have come from those outside groups and have made a point in increasing communication with the outside groups," said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), a caucus vice-chair who previously worked for Public Citizen and The Arca Foundation, among others.

Much of the Progressive Caucus, including the leadership, really was oblivious to the potential support they could receive from new online groups. At the same time, much of the progressive netroots never trusted the Progressive Caucus to make a real play for power. Now that the netroots and the Progressive Caucus are blending, the strength of both is increasing.

There is a lot more where that came from. Go read the whole thing.

The main reason Progressives are not taken seriously in the media, The White House or The Hill is because they have usually been more righteous than organized, either unwilling or unable to make a power play, and not working with their natural allies outside of D.C. As such, they were rightly perceived as irrelevant. The campaign for the public option, if successful, will change that. What I have termed The Progressive Block is the biggest play for real progressive power in D.C. in at least two decades, and possibly since Ted Kennedy's primary challenge to President Carter.

Over the weekend, Nate Silver has used a poker analogy described the strategy: "going on tilt." I don't think that is the right poker analogy. In addition to the huge importance of a public option, this is nothing short of a campaign for permanent Progressive relevance in D.C. for as long as Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress. As such, this is like going all in order to earn a seat at the final table.

(VIDEO) Congresswoman Donna Edwards Speaks Out at Progressive Caucus Press Conference

Rusty5329 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:41:43 GMT

Originally posted at Sum of Change

A special thanks goes out to shevas01 for giving us the heads up about this press conference.

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.

Just before talking to reporters, Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD, 4th District) handed us this letter that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has sent to the Democratic leadership in Congress:

July 30, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Henry Waxman
Chairman
House of Committee on Energy and Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Charles Rangel
Chair
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable George Miller
Chair
House Committee on Education and Labor
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madame Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller:
We write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. 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. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of "keeping insurance companies honest," and their rates down.
To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members of the Committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to low- and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.
In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying even higher rates to insurance companies.
We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.

Progressive Health Care Backlash Update

Chris Bowers — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:07:20 GMT

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.

Progressive Backlash Over Health Care "Deal"

Chris Bowers — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:24:00 GMT

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

Let's help them out.

I do not know at this time what the specific demands from the CPC and allied caucuses will be, but it cold prevent the bill from being passed out of committee this week.

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

Why You Should Help Build The Progressive Block

Chris Bowers — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:24:46 GMT

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.
Here is why the Progressive Block strategy is one of the most exciting new developments for progressives in 2009:

1. It is a new strategy based upon conditions that only recently have appeared
The Progressive Block strategy has only become possible in the last six months. That is is even possible is a sign of real political progress in America. As mcjoan summarized on Sunday, in order for the Progressive Block strategy to work, you need all of the following conditions to me met, and that only happened in 2009:

A Democrat in the White House, and Democratic majorities in both branches of Congress. (Achieved in November 2008) Lacking this condition, the working conservative majority, as expressed by Matt Stoller and Paul Rosenberg, will take over again.
A piece or pieces of legislation that the Democratic leadership in Congress and the White House both consider absolute necessities to pass, either politically or structurally. (Good examples include health care and the Afghanistan-IMF supplemental.). Unless you are threatening something that the leadership highly values, they won't care about what progressives do.
A clear, easily understood demand from the progressive grassroots that can be included in the must-pass legislation. The public option is a good example of this, whereas the percentage of emission allowances sold at auction in a cap and trade bill is not. Lacking such a clear line, the idea will be much more difficult to sell both to members of Congress and to progressive activists who will supply the pressure to help hold the Progressive Block in line.
A Republican caucus that will reflexively vote almost unanimously against any must-pass Democratic legislation. It is increasingly obvious that this is the case for health care.
Enough Democrats in Congress who, unless the demand is met, are willing to vote against the must-pass legislation so that they form a majority when combined with Republicans. This obviously requires lots of coordination and pressure with the progressive grassroots. It is also why this strategy is called the Progressive Block, rather than the Progressive Bloc.
The final condition, which mcjoan did not mention, is a Democratic leadership, in either the White House or Congress, that is able to get conservative and centrist Democrats to fall in line with the progressive demand. As ineffective, or unwilling, as the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership often appear to make right-wing Democrats fall in line, they have previously demonstrated an ability to do so on the legislative efforts they value most highly. Examples include the stimulus, the budget, and even the second $350 billion in bailout funds from the Senate back in January. When they really want the votes, they can get them.

In the specific case of health care, it also helps that the reconciliation process is still available, circumventing the filibuster.

2. It narrows our target range
Rather than needing to pressure 218 members of the House to hold a hard line, the Progressive Block strategy only requires 40-50 members of the House to hold a hard line. This allows for more narrowly targeted and concentrated activism. This will allow our activism to have more of an overall impact.

3. It gives us a more receptive audience
In this strategy, we are primarily calling and emailing more progressive members of Congress. This is a big step up from the often futile fight to convince Blue Dogs and conservodems to do the right thing. These members of Congress are our ideological cohorts, and might just listen to us.

4. It has already been proven effective by the Blue Dogs
Ever since Democrats retook Congress in 2007, the Blue Dogs have proven that this strategy works. By consistently threatening to throw their support with Republicans unless their demands are met, the Blue Dogs have won concessions on Iraq, FISA, the stimulus, EFCA, and much more. Further, rather than animosity, it has gotten them nothing but praise and coddling from the Democratic leadership.

5. It doesn't require outside approval
I am so tired of haring excuses from the Democratic leadership, futilely trying to encourage conservodems to do the right thing, waiting for advocacy groups to finally become more aggressive, and pretending that bipartisanship is getting us anywhere. Perhaps the best part about this strategy is that it doesn't require the approval of the Democratic leadership, the White House, the media, or the progressive advocacy infrastructure. Given current political conditions, it only requires the approval of the Progressive Block.

Now, moderate and corporate Dems can stop lecturing progressives about the vagaries of "political reality." This is because, through the Progressive Block, we are creating political reality, rather than merely suffering its effects.

6. It is being driven by new progressive forces
In addition to Representatives Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, who chair the Congressional Progressive Caucus, some of the principle architects of this strategy include Darcy Burner, Jane Hamsher, and Matt Stoller (who even suggested the idea last June). It didn't come from the Democratic leadership, and it didn't come from cautious advocacy groups. And none of it would be possible without the grassroots activists who make blogs possible through their donations, commentary, and readership. I love that. It was about time that the new and / or more aggressive progressive members of Congress, operatives, organizations and grassroots came upon a workable strategy of our own.

We are no longer just pawns and supplements in the legislative process. We are no longer just a bunch of lefties howling into the wilderness. We really are coming into our own. And I honestly believe that if enough activsts buy into this strategy and help build the Progressive Block, that we are going to get a public health insurance option as a result.

Chances of Health Care Going Through Reconciliation Not "Remote"

Chris Bowers — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:57:03 GMT

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.

Keep in mind what Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said about the chance of health care reform that lacks a public option passing through the House--there is none:

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."

And this is because the significant majority of the 77 members Progressive Caucus with full voting rights in the House have said they will not vote for health care that lacks a public option.

At the same time, Kent Conrad has said there are not 60 votes in the Senate for a public option. I don't doubt him when he says this, given that at least two Democrats, Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan, are opposed.

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.

As such, it is time to keep pushing Senators to make it clear where they stand on health care. Keep emailing your Senators asking for specifics on where they stand on the public option. You will be joining over 20,000 others who have done so. Keep asking them until they make their stances clear, and until we have at least 50 Senators for the public option.

Commitment, and bending the arc of the moral universe

Darcy Burner — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:00:52 GMT

This is Congressman John Lewis, looking out the back of the police van after being handcuffed and arrested. Accompanying him were Congresswoman Donna Edwards, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Congressman Keith Ellison, and Congressman Jim McGovern.

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.
I had a meeting on my schedule today with Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, to discuss the new non-profit I'm now the executive director of. The American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation's mission is to bring together progressives inside and outside of Congress to advance the things we care about - to build the infrastructure that allows the CPC and the progressive movement to work together.

Congresswoman Woolsey was enthusiastic, as all of the Members and Congressional staff I've talked to have been. But she was also clearly having a very good day, because she had spent much of the day tangibly fighting for our shared ideals. She and Donna and John and Jim and Keith and the 72 other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus get up every day to try to bend the arc a little bit further towards justice.

I was, I admit, even more inspired about my new job after today. But my new job involves y'all. So here are my questions to all of you:

In an ideal world, how would you want to work with these progressive champions?

What kinds of tools and ideas do you have about where we should go from here?

Finally, to quote President Barack Obama about the man in the picture, who is a personal hero of mine and who has spent his life as a working champion of justice and hard social change:

(h/t to commenter Partially Impartial on DailyKos)

Thank you for reminding us that in America, ordinary citizens can somehow find in their hearts the courage to do extraordinary things. That in the face of the fiercest resistance and the most crushing oppression, one voice can be willing to stand up and say that's wrong and this is right and here's why. And say it again. And say it louder. And keep saying it until other voices join the chorus to sing the songs that set us free.

Netroots Funding New Democrats, But Not Blue Dogs

Chris Bowers — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:04:57 GMT

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.)

Blue Dogs Do Not Have the Power to Block Legislation

Chris Bowers — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:15:00 GMT

This is the second of a two-part series. Part one, Progressives are to Blame for Progressive Irrelevance," focused on congressional candidate fundraising

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.

More in the extended entry.
All of Blue Dog power comes from a constant, implied threat to join with Republicans. That should never be forgotten. Without House Republicans, Blue Dogs are entirely powerless. It is a simple fact that 49, and now 56, members of the House have no ability to sway House legislation on their own. However, rather than earning them scorn, it earns them vast media attention:

In the past 90 days, the Blue Dogs were mentioned 933 times in national press coverage according to Lexis-Nexis. The progressives were cited just 99 times.(...)

And the Blue Dogs wield this power with just 51 members, as Matt Stoller pointed out. Meanwhile, the Progressives claim 71 members and an impressive group of House committee chairmen in their ranks: Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers (D-MI), George Miller (D-CA), and leadership member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).

And administration concessions

House Democrats won a key procedural vote Tuesday on the stimulus after a last-minute promise from the Obama administration to return to "pay-as-you-go" budget rules after the stimulus is approved.

In a 224-199 vote, the House approved a resolution allowing the stimulus bill to come to the floor for debate. Twenty-seven Democrats - 24 of them members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition - bucked their leadership and voted against the measure.

But according to Democratic leadership sources, the number was almost much higher - and could have been high enough to hand the Republicans a monumental victory - had it not been for a letter from President Obama's budget director Peter Orszag.

The letter addressed to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David promised to return to "pay-as-you-go budgeting," and stressed that the stimulus was an "extraordinary response to an extraordinary process" and thus subject to different rules.

The key source of Blue Dog power comes from threats to join with Republicans. It wins them media attention, meetings with President Obama, and administrative policy concessions. There could be 180 members of the Progressive caucus, and they still wouldn't wield the same power as Blue Dogs, because they never threaten to join with Republicans.

The same can be said for New Democrats. When they held up the housing bill a few weeks ago, their policy demands were met, and in return President Obama called himself a New Democrat. Once again, it was achieved by threatening to vote with Republicans.

Given all of this, it is extremely difficult not to conclude that the current path to power in D.C. is to be a Democrat who threatens to vote with Republicans. Unless progressives start to do exactly the same thing, and start to threaten to vote with Republicans on bills that Blue Dogs and New Democrats support but Republicans oppose, then they will continue to stay subservient to the Blue Dog and New Democratic caucuses. Hell, we all all stay subservient to those causes unless there is a left-wing block in Congress that threatens to vote no on important legislation from time to time.

As it stands, the Progressive caucus is the most unified, most pro-Democratic voting group in the entire Democratic caucus. The end result is that the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats are the ones getting policy concessions, and meeting with / declarations of affinity from, President Obama. The housing bill was a perfectly good instance where the Progressive caucus could have taken a stand, blown up Ellen Tauscher's housing bill, and forced the chamber to vote on their bill. However, they chose not to do it. Now, we get quotes in Roll Call about the Progressive caucus feeling slighted because President Obama hasn't met with them yet. Gee, I wonder why.

Progressives have to start making real threats to blow up legislation prized by other members of Congress. The next best chance is Afghanistan policy. The Progressive caucus has been holding a number of events opposing and / or questioning the Afghanistan escalation. Further, news reports indicate that "the Armed Services Committee... would have to approve any increased spending to carry out the new strategy" in Afghanistan. As such, why isn't the Progressive caucus threatening to oppose any new spending in Afghanistan, unless it comes with a promise to withdraw troops in, say three years time? Given their numbers in the House, they could probably join with Republicans to block anything on this matter. At the very least, public declarations of "we vote no unless you give concessions" would increase their visibility quote a bit. And I guarantee it would get them a meeting with Obama.

In much the same way that the progressive grassroots has to make it clear that our money comes with strings attached, members of the Progressive caucus frequently need to make it clear that their votes come with demands attached. Just as there is no reason to take seriously the criticisms of people who donate to you no matter what, there is no reason to take seriously the criticisms of people who vote for your legislation no matter what. Because our financial and legislative support has too often been of the "we support you no matter what" variety, it isn't a surprise that Progressives in Congress are so often overshadowed by Blue Dogs and New Democrats.

Progressives Are To Blame For Progressive Irrelevance

Chris Bowers — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:30:00 GMT

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.

More in the extended entry.
By this point, with huge Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, the largest progressive blogs and emails list organizations should, at the very least, stop raising any money for Democratic candidates who refuse to rule out joining the Blue Dog or New Democratic caucus. Further, we should be giving special consideration to Democratic candidates who promise to join the Progressive caucus. We need to offer both a disincentive for candidates and members of the House to join the New Democrats and / or Blue Dogs. Just as importantly, we need to offer an incentive for candidates to join the Progressives, and for more progressive candidates to run in the first place. Unfortunately, right now, as a Democratic member of the House, it simply makes more financial sense to join the Blue Dogs or New Democrats. Not only does it tie them into corporate PAC and large donor networks (which it does), but it doesn't hurt them when they come asking for money from progressive grassroots donors.

If being a Blue Dog or a New Democrat means that you can, and do, get money from everyone willing to donate to Democrats, why wouldn't members in competitive districts join the Blue Dogs and New Democrats en masse? The answer is that there is no good reason. As such, this year, the New Democrats captured 15 freshman members, the Blue Dogs netted 9 new members (from 47 to 56), and the Progressive only netted 6 new members (from <71 to 77). That the netroots keeps raising money for Blue Dogs and New Democrats en masse is a key factor in this disparity. If the largest progressive donor networks in the country offer no disincentive for Democrats to join the Blue Dogs or the New Democrats, and also offer no incentive for people to join the Progressive caucus, should there be any surprise that the Blue Dogs and New Democrats again netted more members?

Membership in the New Democratic or Blue Dog caucus should become an automatic disqualifier for large, small donor grassroots fundraising networks. This is just one of the ways in which progressives need to start building more power for themselves. No one is just going to give us more power because we are good soldiers for the Democratic Party as a whole. We need our networks to be valuable, and we need clear requirements in order to partake in the benefits of those networks. That is how we start building actual power.

Tomorrow, I will discuss a second avenue: voting against, or at least publicly threatening to vote again, Democratic legislation.

Maybe Progressives Should Start Blocking Legislation

Chris Bowers — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:30:00 GMT

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.

More in the extended entry.
During the stimulus fight, Blue Dogs extracted a restrictive PAYGO promise from President Obama and a "fiscal responsibility summit" in exchange for votes on the stimulus. And yet, despite this, six Blue Dogs still voted against the stimulus package. Further, four of the other five Democrats who voted against the measure are freshmen who will probably become Blue Dogs soon (they did indicate there are now 51 Blue Dogs, even though their website only lists 47 members, none of whom are freshmen). In return for this awesome loyalty on the stimulus package, Blue Dogs get a meeting at the White House, while Progressives--who extracted no promises or summits, all of whom voted for the stimulus, and who even had many of their programs cut from the bill--stay on the waiting list.

Given this, it isn't hard to think that supporting President Obama isn't actually the best way to gain access to him, or to influence his legislation. Right now, threatening to block his agenda by joining with Republicans appears to be a more fruitful tactic. As such, it is easy to wonder if Progressives would be better off if they started threatening to vote against President Obama's legislation, and only came around to grudgingly, and incompletely, supporting his legislation in return for specific promises.

I am not going to draw any conclusions based on these developments, but if there is another lesson to learn from all of this, I am open to hearing it.

A More Complete Look At House Bailout Voting

Chris Bowers — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 07:23:54 GMT

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.

BooMan echoes these claims, and calls me a Blue Dog.

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.

More in the extended entry.
Consider the first bailout vote:

New Democrats: 62.71% yes
Blue Dogs: 59.57% yes
Progressives: 47.76% yes

This first vote, which was not symbolic, and actually resulted in a temporary defeat of the bailout, saw Blue Dogs voting for the bailout at a higher rate than Progressives. This is not surprising, since the bailout could just as easily be viewed as corporate welfare, rather than, as Nate terms it, spending money on reinforcing infrastructure.

Here is the second bailout vote, which passed due to lobbying from Obama:

New Democrats 79.3% (46-12)
Progressive Caucus 69.4% (50-17)
Blue Dogs 63.8% (30-17)

In this case, direct lobbying from Obama swayed Progressive and New Democratic votes, but made little impact with Blue Dogs. This is more of an indication of which caucuses are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt than it is about ideology.

Now, here is the third vote, including the New Democratic caucus:

Progressives: 76.6% (49-15)
New Democrats: 75.0% (42-14))
Blue Dogs: 38.4% (17-27)

Rather than support of the bill increasing the more liberal a Democrat becomes, Progressives and New Democrats actually supported the bill in equal measure. This is despite the fact that New Democrats and Blue Dogs share more than a dozen members. Further, it is pretty obvious that the sudden anti-bailout shift of the Blue Dogs had everything to do with the third vote being symbolic. Amazing how they went from strong support of the bailout to strong opposition, just at the moment when the vote moved from being meaningful to being symbolic! In the end, the Blue Dogs stand for nothing if not symbolic, as opposed to real, fiscal austerity.

The increased Republican opposition is also obviously political, rather than ideological. Even though 91 of House Republicans supported the bailout back in October, only 4 voted for it this time around. Clearly, House Republicans are now voting against Obama for the sake of voting against Obama.

Overall, when bailout voting wasn't symbolic, when Obama wasn't President, and when Obama wasn't Obama making direct appeals to the Congressional Black Caucus to support the bailout, opposing the bailout was in fact more a more common Progressive position than a Blue Dog position.

Personally, not having received a direct phone call from President Obama urging me to change my position on this matter, and with no increased conditions on TARP actually being passed into law, I remain at the original progressive position. Further, over the course of all three bailout votes, the strongest and most consistent supporters of the bailout were the DLC New Democrats. As one would expect, bailout supporters are all corporate-welfare loving DLC types.

While I know it is a lot more complicated than all that, I wanted to show how easy it was to dismiss Democrats with whom you disagree as conservative tools.