I, personally, am on the left wing of the Democratic party. On that political compass thing, I get about – 9 on social and – 8 on economic issues. I like my rep (Nadler, NY-08) pretty well. But NY-08 is not the country. And, although I wish I lived in a country where Nadler was a typical representative, and Sanders a typical Senator, I don’t.
In this diary, I will attempt to use data and analysis to answer several questions. Using data and analysis is what I do for a living (I’m a statistician) and I find it fun (I’m a geek). The questions:
Who are the Blue Dogs?
Why are they Blue Dogs?
Should we get rid of Blue Dogs and if so, Which ones? and How?
Are Blue Dogs as bad as Republicans?
more below the fold
Who are Blue Dogs?
There seem to be two common uses of the term. One is for a group of self-identified members of congress – Democrats in the House who have centrist voting patterns. But not all these people are the most conservative Democrats, and some very conservative House Dems are not self-identified. Another use is for any conservative Democrat, especially in the House. I’m going to use this second definition. So, who are they?
First, we need some measure of conservatism vs. liberalism. There are several possibilities, but one I like a lot is the scale developed by Keith Poole and his colleagues called optimal classification, and available at VoteView. I gave more details on this, and why I like it, in this diary. Next, we need to decide how conservative a person has to be to be a Blue Dog. Any decision is arbitrary, so, let’s look at the 50 most conservative Democrats in the 110th House. (The list is below, in the table).
Why are they Blue Dogs?
I think the positions a representative takes are going to be some mix of his or her own views and his or her perceptions of what voters want. I’m not sure how this mix is balanced, and it probably varies from person to person. Certainly there is some overlap. But people who are way out of step with their district are likely to face strong challenges, and may lose.
So, people are Blue Dogs from a combination of their own views and their constituents. We don’t have good ways of looking at the representatives’ own views, but we do have some for constituents. One good look is how they vote for POTUS. The nice thing about this is that it doesn’t depend on polls, it isn’t issue by issue specific, and it’s easily available. I’ll look at Obama % and Kerry %.
If a representatives votes (represented by VoteView rank) are out of line with the constituents’ views (represented by the Cook number), then it’s likely that those views are personal; and those are districts where challenges are more likely to succeed. If the rep’s views are too conservative, they may get replaced by a Republican; if too liberal, they may get replaced by a more progressive Democrat.
Should we get rid of Blue Dogs; which ones?
Clearly, if we can replace a BD with a progressive, we should. But BDs are better than Repubs (see below). One way to judge the likelihood of this is by the POTUS vote; a district that went for Obama may be ready for a progressive.
So, let’s look at some data:
Rep and district Rank Obama % Kerry % Notes
Lampson TX-22 1 41 36 Now R
Cazayoux LA-06 2 41 40 Now R
Childers MS-01 3 37 37
Barrow GA-12 4 36 34
Marshall GA-08 5 43 39
Altmire PA-04 6 44 45
Donnelly IN-02 7 54 43
Carney PA-10 8 45 40
Ellsworth IN-08 9 47 38
Shuler NC-11 10 47 43
Giffords AZ-08 11 46 47
Mitchell AZ-05 12 47 45
Hill IN-09 13 48 40
Foster IL-14 14 55 44 Native son O
Matheson UT-02 15 40 31
Bean IL-08 16 56 44 Native son O
Boren OK-02 17 35 41
Gillibran NY-20 18 51 46 Murphy (D)
McIntyre NC-07 19 47 44
Mahoney FL-16 20 47 43 Now R
Davis TN-04 21 34 41
Tanner TN-08 22 43 47
Taylor MS-04 23 32 31
Melancon LA-03 24 37 41
Space OH-18 25 45 43
Cuellar TX-28 26 56 46 Native son B
Herseth SD-AL 27 45 38
Peterson MN-07 28 47 43
Ross AR-04 29 39 48
Boyda KS-02 30 43 40 Now R
Chandler KY-06 31 43 41
Cramer AL-05 32 38 41 Griffith (D)
Gordon TN-06 33 37 40
Skelton MO-04 34 38 35
Salazar CO-03 35 48 44
Wilson OH-06 36 48 49
Boyd FL-02 37 45 46
Perlmutt CO-07 38 59 51 Primary!
Klein FL-22 39 52 53 Primary?
Costa CA-20 40 60 51 Primary!
Cardoza CA-18 41 59 49 Primary!
Edwards TX-17 42 32 30
Davis AL-07 43 74 65 Retiring!
Spratt SC-05 44 46 42
Cooper TN-05 45 56 52 Primary!
Moore KS-03 46 51 44
Pomeroy ND-AL 47 45 36
Boswell IA-03 48 53 48
Holden PA-17 49 48 42
Lipinski IL-03 50 64 59 Primary?
Native son O indicates that the vote for Obama in Illinois districts may not be indicative of a trend to Democrats; similarly, native son B indicates that TX districts may be less conservative than Bush’s numbers appear.
The two most conservative Democrats were replaced by Republicans. And of the ten most conservative, only one district voted for Obama or for Kerry.
The most conservative representative to be replaced by a Democrat was Giilibrand, and Murphy’s election was, as you may recall, very close.
The most conservative Democrat whose district went for both Kerry and Obama is Perlmutter, in CO-07. This looks like a primary possibility; especially since CO-07 gave Obama a considerable margin. We also have Klein and Costa being too conservative for their districts. Davis (AL-07) is way too conservative for his district, but he’s running for statewide office ….let’s get a real progressive in there, pronto! Lipinski (IL-03) looks like a perfect person to primary, and we tried in 2008.
This list gives us 6 races to concentrate on; if we can replace those 6 with more progressive people, that would be excellent for us. It is unlikely that any will be lost to the Repubs.
How should we get rid of Blue Dogs?
There are two ways, I think. Above, I outlined a strategy for identifying BD who can be safely and sensibly primaried. But that’s just one way to get rid of Blue Dogs. The other way is to get on the ground and work to convince the people that liberal ideas are good. Get them writing to their congress people. Get them active! While I found 6 people above who do not represent their constituents’ views; there are an unfortunate number who do represent their views, because there are too many conservatives in the USA. It’s hard to convince a RWNJ that liberalism/progressivism is good. But, people who are centrists are halfway there already.
This works two ways: First, if the BD hear from a lot of people, they might change their votes (it could happen!). And, if they don’t change their votes? Well, elections come every two years.
Are Blue Dogs as bad as Republicans?
The short answer is “no”.
The slightly longer answer is to look at the Vote View methodology and notice that it perfectly separates the parties (this is usually not the case; prior to the 109th House, there was usually some overlap).
Another slightly longer answer is to say that the most conservative Democrat is somewhat similar to the most liberal Republican; but more similar to typical Democrats than to typical Republicans.
The really full answer is to look at individuals. None of the Blue Dogs is anywhere near as bad as, say, Flake of AZ-06, or any of the other RWNJ. A lot of votes in congress are lopsided; if a bill passes 400-20 then voting for it is not a big deal. In general, voting on close votes is more crucial. In the 110th Congress, here is a list of votes with close margins. But the list is mostly not too informative, as it doesn’t give much detail about the bills; still, we can probably assume that we would want people to take the Democratic position rather than the Republican one.
Let’s look at those 50 Blue Dogs again, and their votes on some close bills that were about policy and of general interest.
I’ve listed: Vote 189 on taxpayer assistance, which was tied (21 D in favor, 207 opposed; 3 R opposed, 189 in favor).
vote 316 which amended appropriations for Homeland Security; passed by 3 votes (209 D in favor, 16 opposed).
vote 814 which was a broad appropriations bill, failed 212-216 (216 opposed, 14 in favor; R unanimous in favor).
vote 382 on the budget (passed 214-210, 214 D in favor, 14 opposed; R unanimous opposed)
and
vote 658 which is (I am pretty sure) the big Obama stimulus package (passed 213-208, 213 D in favor, 16 opposed)
A D indicates the person voted the way most of the Democrats voted; R Republican, and ? no data or not voting
Rep and district 189 316 814 382 658
Lampson TX-22 R D D R R
Cazayoux LA-06 D ? ? R R
Childers MS-01 ? ? ? R R
Barrow GA-12 R R R R D
Marshall GA-08 R R R ? D
Altmire PA-04 R R R D D
Donnelly IN-02 R R D R D
Carney PA-10 R D R D D
Ellsworth IN-08 R R R R D
Shuler NC-11 R R R ? R
Giffords AZ-08 R R R R D
Mitchell AZ-05 R R D R D
Hill IN-09 R D R R R
Foster IL-14 R ? ? R D
Matheson UT-02 R R R R D
Bean IL-08 R R R ? D
Boren OK-02 R R R R D
Gillibran NY-20 R D D D R
McIntyre NC-07 R D R D D
Mahoney FL-16 R D D D D
Davis TN-04 D D D D D
Tanner TN-08 D R D D R
Taylor MS-04 D D R D R
Melancon LA-03 D D D D D
Space OH-18 R R D D D
Cuellar TX-28 D D D D D
Herseth SD-AL D D D D R
Peterson MN-07 D D D D D
Ross AR-04 D D D D D
Boyda KS-02 D D D D D
Chandler KY-06 R D D D D
Cramer AL-05 D R D D D
Gordon TN-06 D D D D D
Skelton MO-04 D D D D D
Salazar CO-03 D D D D D
Wilson OH-06 D D D D D
Boyd FL-02 D D D D R
Perlmutt CO-07 D D D D D
Klein FL-22 D D D D D
Costa CA-20 D D D D ?
Cardoza CA-18 D D D D D
Edwards TX-17 D D D D D
Davis AL-07 D D D D D
Spratt SC-05 D D D D D
Cooper TN-05 D D D D R
Moore KS-03 D D D D D
Pomeroy ND-AL D D D D D
Boswell IA-03 D R D D D
Holden PA-17 D D D D D
Lipinski IL-03 D D D D D
That is, of the 50 most conservative Democrats, every one voted with the Democrats on at least one of these 5 close and key votes.
If even a large handful of these Democrats were replaced by Republicans, some of those bills would have failed.
Than liberals in the United States. I think sometimes people forget this. Dems have a fine line to tred across the country and need many of these Blue Dogs for a majority. I think most SSP’s like you are very liberal but I like unlike most of the blogosphere the membership here is very realistic. Netroots should pick and choose their fights very carefully. I’m dismayed by much of what is being said over health care. I think the left is playing right into the GOP’s hands with some of these demands.
Like most people here, I have mixed feelings about the blue dogs. However, I sort-of cringe a little bit when I hear almost constant talk of “let’s primary so-and-so.” I really don’t think that’s our place to do that as much as it is the voters of a particular district!
Let’s take Indiana-02 for example, currently represented by Blue Dog conservative Dem. Joe Donnelly. This was a district drawn in 2000 as part of a sort-of Democratic gerrymander to elect a conservative Democrat — something it finally did in 2006. True, it did vote 54% for Obama, but those were not people who were all of a sudden liberals, but moderates and even conservatives supporting a candidate to the left of where they are at. If you tried to primary someone like Joe Donnelly, two things are going to happen: 1) You’d lose, and 2) Create an image in Indiana that only liberals are Democrats — something we work hard to overcome here, and if the image of the Democratic Party becomes only one of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi and even President Obama, we’re screwed here. And if you want to pass any kind of progressive legislation, you need at least some help from us here in flyover country.
Our three Blue Dog Congressman represent their districts very well, and are at about the center of where most Democrats in the districts are. And think of the alternatives — Congressmen Chris Chocola, Mike Sodrel, and John Hostettler — that’s who represented the districts before 2006.
Great work. I especially like the crucial vote summary as it shows quite clearly that conservative Democrats are better than Republicans. And, considering most of these conservative Democrats are in Republican leaning districts, the Republican replacement would not be a moderate Republican, but would almost always be a right winger.
One quibble–there is no reason to limit the analysis to the most conservative Democrats. If the goal is to move Congress to the left, then we need to identify the Reps who are most out of alignment with his or her district. This could just as easily be a moderate Democrat in a liberal district. Just as your vote list shows we picked up lots of votes from Blue Dogs in close votes, I’d be willing to be we lost some votes from Democrats who are not on the list and by virtue of their district easily could be more supportive.
Being a resident of IN-09, I can tell you that pretty much every other Democrat that could run in the district would lose. Standing for progressive principles doesn’t mean anything if you can’t win an election.
We don’t want the netroots to become our Club for Growth; The Democratic Party needs support of moderates and conservatives in order to remain a national party.
While I agree with the basic premise of your post, that progressivism=good, the reality is that the United States as a whole is not majority “progressive”. At least not yet.
I don’t think the argument here should be about the blue dogs….I think thats barking up the wrong tree.
Many of the blue dogs are blue dogs because thats what their district needs. Ellsworth is a perfect example of that.
I think the argument needs to be who is more conservative than their district, which I believe a list was created on here a while back for just that purpose.
When it comes to a primary challenge, it takes a lot more than just being well funded. Sestak would have an easy time convincing Democrats that Specter isn’t one of them simple because he was a Republican until very recently. Specter needs to prove that hes a moderate and that he fits in the moderate section of either party. He actually has to embrace the fact that he was a moderate Republican and then turn that into, but the Republicans have shifted too far right and you are where I was then, am now, and always will be.
However, the things that people like Mark Pera, who ran a well funded campaign against Lipinski have a problem doing is painting the incumbent as out of touch. It took Donna Edwards two tries to get Al Wynn but she managed it.
The netroots as a whole needs to stop this primary everyone attitude and focus on where it really counts.
plf515 is saying to remove all Blue Dogs. Yes that kind of “club for growth” metality is stupid. The Netroots is asking for the removal of Democrats who are too conservative for their diatricts. Yes the Indiana dems are just right for their districts. But their are a number of Blue Dogs across the country who are more conservative than their districts. For example Joe Lieberman only survived in Conn. because 1) The state didn’t have a sore loser law 2) He was allowed to register a political party that was an obvious violation of the law, but his friends on the court refused to acknowledge this what has he done with CTFL since?). If not for this Conn would have had a more liberal Senator.
In my thought process the idea of primary reps should go like this. 1) Are they to the right of their districts? 2) Is there a sore loser law in place? 3) Is there one candidate who can unite the opposition? Think Donna Edwards in Maryland defeating Al Wynn as a perfect example.
Lastly the New Republic hardly a “hard left” publication recently ran an article arguing for more of this. They support more primaries of Democrats! They cite that when incumbants have the fear of a primary in the back of their mind they tend to show more party unity. Remember self preservation is a pols number one concern, what good does it make to lose a primary, then you definately lose the general (you don’t make it).
I think critics need to realize that those of us calling for primaries are pragmatic everything is balc or white. There is a middle ground between challenging everyone and no one.
PS. There are far more self identified conservative than liberals in America. But when it come to how people vote and what they believe it’s almost equal. Many liberals from the Reagan genration don’t call themselves that because the word was so tarred. Millenials didn’t live though those times and are far more likely to call themselves libs. The opposite effect of this was during the 1960’s. Johnson won with 61% of the vote, Conservatives were outnumbered 3:2 by Liberals, and 4 years later Richard M. Nixon was president.
rather than primary him out, I would give him lots of Republican territory in the Chicago suburbs in the next redistricting. If he wants to be a Blue Dog, then he should run in such a district.
I wont say that he is a great fit for his district in and of itself (as he is economically probably very to the right of his very, very poor district) but at least on social issues hes probably a good fit. A district can be solidly Dem, on a Pres. level, while still being centrist in ideology. Not too many of those left but it was definitely the case not too long ago. Remember the days when West Virginia was solidly Dem in Pres. elections? And while economically populist they were and still are very socially conservative.