For purpose of this discussion, I’ve included the following states as “Southern”. They are TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, TN, KY, and AR. I left out some states such as MO,WV, and OK, where some would include as part of the South. I think they are better suited elsewhere.
After the 1970 House elections, the Democrats had a whopping advantage of 84-29. Here are the numbers for the following elections:
1972 Dems 79-36 edge
1974 Dems 86-29 edge
1976 Dems 86-29 edge
1978 Dems 81-34 edge
1980 Dems 73-42 edge
1982 Dems 86-37 edge
1984 Dems 77-46 edge
1986 Dems 81-42 edge
1988 Dems 81-42 edge
1990 Dems 81-42 edge
1992 Dems 81-50 edge
1994 GOP 68-63 edge
1996 GOP 76-55 edge
1998 GOP 76-55 edge
2000 GOP 77-54 edge
2002 GOP 81-56 edge
2004 GOP 87-50 edge
2006 GOP 81-56 edge
2008 GOP 76-61 edge
As a note, it’s interesting that under Jimmy Carter’s presidency, we lost (net) 13 seats and under Clinton we lost (net)27 seats.
Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, it was quite acceptable for a Southerner to vote for a Democrat. Some of it has to do with the old Yellow Dog mentality (or better yet, because of some silly argument that Lincoln ruined the South). Anyway, when the Dems had a large advantage in the South, there were very few who would be called a true progressive, albeit a liberal. Yet, they did provide some assistance in some progressive economic issues. Around 1992, many Southerners truly demonized Bill Clinton, saying that his morals and his big-government friends were going to ruin the US. The moral majority joined the fray by stressing cultural issues that were imortant to many Southerners. It’s somewhat ironic that it was under a Southern President’s watch that the GOP gained a stronghold of the South.
There have been plenty of party switching during the last 38 years, with many conservative Dems leaving the party and joining the GOP ranks. The last time we had a US rep from the South leave the party was in 2004, when Rodney Alexander of LA and Ralph Hall of TX left the party. I’m hoping the exodus from our party is over.
Currently, we have 21 Blue Dogs that reside in the South: 4 in GA (Barrow, Scott, Bishop, Marshall), 2 in AR (Berry, Ross), 1 in FL (Boyd), 2 in AL (Bright, Griffith), 1 in KY (Chandler), 2 in MS (Childers, Taylor), 4 in TN (Cooper, Davis, Gordon, Tanner), 1 in TX (Cuellar), 2 in NC (McIntyre, Shuler), 1 in LA (Melancon), and 1 in VA (Nye).
Most of these Reps are culturally conservative, but some are willing to help the Democratic party on economic issues. Even a few (ex. Shuler) will vote for some pro-environment legislation. Yet, many of us on SSP have mixed feelings about the Blue Dogs. We like them for being in our ranks and occassionally supporting some progressive legislation, but then we get quite mad on other issues (cultural issues, healthcare, etc.). So what should we do with the Blue Dogs?
First, if the current Blue Dogs in the South bolted our party, the GOP would have a huge advantage (97-40). That, my friends, is shocking, since prior to the civil rights act of 1964, there were only a handful of Republicans in the South.
Anyway, I wanted to open this up to discussion, because the South could end up losing several Democratic Rep seats in 2010. My questions are:
1. Are we willing to support Blue Dogs in the South when very vew are willing to support us on key issues (i.e. healthcare)?
2. Is there a way to triangulate our ideas with the Blue Dogs whereby we can get some meaningful legislation passed without having to “water down” the importance of the legislation?
Loading ...
You can’t expect them to vote every single time with the majority on every single issue. But most of these are pretty reliable votes anyway, particularly Scott, Bishop, Chandler, Cuellar and even Melancon.
Of the others you only really have Childers, Bright and Griffith who regularly oppose Dem legislation but they are still better (especially Childers) than any Republican in those seats. I say the Democratic party are lucky to have them.
If anything it shows the downside of the 50 state strategy – competing, let alone winning in inhospitable places means candidates are needed that are much more conservative than the mainstream of the party.
Now, if we are talking about how to get more reliable progressive votes then lets look elsewhere in more evenly balanced districts currently held by Republicans and conservative Dems alike. The Cao, Kirk, Gerlach and Castle seats are a good place to start.
There is no need for Dems from GA-2, GA-12, and GA-13, TN, 5, or TX-28 to be in the Blue Dog Caucus.
I’ve also read that several Blue Dogs are from California in heavily Democratic districts. I don’t know if that is true, but there is no excuse for that.
Well, as a pretty poor working man, I simply won’t spend money on Blue Dogs’ campaigns, period. So if that’s what you mean by “support,” forget it.
However, it certainly makes sense for the Democratic leadership in the House to negotiate whatever reasonable tradeoffs they can, in order to make it easier with sincere Blue Dogs who aren’t simply paid agents of the insurance industry (e.g.) to support bills important to the leadership. One example would be making sure that rural health needs are well served in any health care bill, which is not only politically helpful for rural Blue Dogs but also just plain good policy. But by the same token, Blue Dogs who are opposed to guaranteed health insurance are not sincere and are ill-serving the interests of their real constituents – that is, the ones who actually vote for them and don’t give big campaign contributions to them from outside their districts.
What’s eye-opening about those 61 Dem-held “Southern” (as defined by Tarheeman) seats is that Obama carried 40 of those districts and lost only 21. And he carried 3 more districts in these dozen states won by Republicans: the soon-to-go-bye-bye Anh Cao in New Orleans, and in Virginia Frank Wolf’s and Randy Forbes’ districts. Wolf’s seat should go Democratic upon his retirement, it leans blue now but he’s a popular incumbent who knows how to hide his conservatism. Forbes’ seat is really more conservative, and it’s a big surprise Obama carried it. It really was a product of abnormally high black turnout downstate, and that will be hard to replicate any time again except in 2012…although the lines will be different then anyway.
So most of those Southern Dem-held districts, specifically about two-thirds, are not conservative at all, they’re either solid blue or Dem-leaning purple.
Now, it’s important to recognize that Democratic Members outside the South face the exact same right-wing constituent pressures as the Southern Dems in red districts. That’s certainly true of Matheson in Utah; Minnick in Idaho; some members in places like Indiana and elsewhere.
Ultimately we gain more than we lose by having these conservaDems in our caucus. But it’s a net gain, not all pluses with no minuses. Without ’em, Pelosi doesn’t win the cap-and-trade vote (although it was inexplicably dumb timing for that vote, but that’s a different story). And we’re going to get a health care bill passed because we have enough people with “D” next to their names that we can afford the defections that come.
What’s happened since 1994 that really kills the Republicans is that they picked all the low-hanging fruit back then, and there’s not very much left today. Demographic changes and majority-minority redistricting have ensured that even in some red states, we have truly blue seats with members who can and should vote with us unapologetically. That wasn’t the case in my very early adulthood. We’re gaining over time in making the entire country bluer, and that’s what it takes.
in the south I could take or leave. They’ll never produce anyone worth supporting IMO.
OTOH, including most of Florida in the in the south is probably a mistake. The south starts somewhere in central Virginia and extends to somewhere north of Orlando. The western boundary is somewhere in Oklahoma (“little dixie”).