We always hear that the Blue Dogs come from districts that are nearly red.

[madfloridian]

We hear that they have to vote the way their constituents would want. That they can't vote along with the rest of the Democrats on a lot of things.

I found this post at MyDD. Someone has done an excellent analysis of the Blue Dogs and their districts.

The natural assumption is that many of the 43 members of the Blue Dog Coalition would be from these "marginal" districts and constantly legislating in fear of whisker-close elections. However, most of these legislators had large margins of victory in 2006 (including three that ran unopposed) and many have been members of the house for significant periods of time (allowing them the almost insurmountable advantage of incumbency).

I am not familiar with the politics of any of these districts and do not know how important conservative positions on the war are to continuing electoral success in the district. It is certainly reasonable to assume that these congresspersons are popular in their districts (often overwhelmingly so) at least in part because of their conservative positions. Indeed, some of these members may, in fact, genuinely believe in the positions they espouse. However, we are also entitled to wonder what the results would be if a candidate with more progressive positions ran in these districts. And, at least, this information raises the question of just how "marginal" these districts really are.

He has done a good analysis here:

How Marginal are the Blue Dog Districts?

There is a chart, which does not lend itself to copy/paste. But there is this list.

31 Reps (72% - including 3 unopposed) had margins of victory in double digits

16 Reps (37% - with an asterisk *) were mentioned by Matt in an earlier article as refusing to vote for a supplemental appropriations bill with a fixed withdrawal date)

15 Reps (35%) are from southern states (11 states of the CSA) - contrary to the myth that the Blue Dogs are a southern phenomenon

14 Reps (33%) have been serving 10 years or more and NONE of them had close races in 2006

8 of the 12 Reps (18%) with margins of victory under 10% opposed a fixed withdrawal date

7 Reps (16% - with a $) were released to vote against the compromise supplemental appropriations bill (HR 1591)

Be sure to read the chart. Allen Boyd, one of the most conservative, has been unopposed for 10 years.

Gene Taylor of MS won with a huge margin: 80% of the vote over his opponent.

Jim Cooper of TN won with 69% of the vote.

Earl Pomeroy won with 66& of the vote.

Ellsworth and Salazer each had 61% of the vote.

Many were much closer. Be sure to read the chart.

Good post with thoughtful stuff.

[Dr Fate]

1. Thanks! Very informative. n/t

n/t

[Rusty MacHenry]

2. Yes the blue dog incumbents win in large numbers

Cause there constitutents like how the way they vote, conservatively.

But look at the numbers presidently, they represent districts that Bush have won in,mostly. I highly doubt Bush won Jim Cooper's District in TN cause it's highly Democratic since it's engulfed in the city of Nashville. And I know Bush won big in Gene Taylor's district.And in Melissa Bean's district of Illinois Bush won there with 56 precent of the votes.

But overall the districts are red and the reason why these voters keep voting these Democrats back into office every two years is because of there conservative voting record, these people just don't vote for Dennis Kucinich type Dems, you have to realize that.

You brought up Allen Boyd and how he hasn't been challenged in a decade. Well that's because he's a real popular figure there but when he retires that district will be a main target for the GOP.

Just because the Dem incumbent won big there dosen't make it a high blue district. It just means that the conservative voters there likes the way there representives voting record and they never really got a big challenger.

[madfloridian]

3. Read the post. No one said it made their districts blue.

It means to me that there is some wiggle room.

[Dr Fate]

4. Sure- no one said it wouldn't be more competition if Blue Dogs run to the center...

...and away from the right. I agree that it would make the races tighter.

I think the OP's presentation of the numbers acknowledge that it wouldn't be a cake walk in every instance...

The good news is even conservatives are starting to agree with anti-Bush and anti-war positions.

[KoKo]

18. A "Cautionary Reply" ....that I'd agree with.........n/t

[mile18blister]

5. No excuse for Blue Dogs in CA

California districts were carefully redrawn in 2001 to be non-competitive. The gerrymandering is ridiculous. My zip code is split into three congressional districts, and I got stuck in a blue district with a Blue Dog. :puke:

[Rusty MacHenry]

6. And who's that?

Mike Thompson, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa who?

[mile18blister]

7. Jane Harmon. n/t.

[Rusty MacHenry]

8. Oh, the AIPAC Queen

My heart goes out to you.

[sampsonblk]

10. Nail. Head.

I agree with you.

[skipos]

9. But how much did their districts go for Bush?

I don't see that info, and THAT is what tells me the most about their district.

The most conservative Dem senators tend to come from red states (like Nelson of Nebraska), while the most progressive tend to come from blue states (like Boxer of CA). I am curious about the districts of the blue dogs.

[madfloridian]

11. So we actually run near-Republicans in districts that support Bush?

I am trying to wrap my head around the logics of that. I guess that is what it is all about after all.

That is why we are in Iraq, why women have to beg for their contraception pills, why gays are being treated as 2nd class citizens.

If a district supported Bush then we put no demands on the Democrats to act like Democrats?

[skipos]

12. I am not sure why you have addressed this question to me

as you didn't address anything in my post.

Regardless, if you don't understand why conservative Democrats win primaries and elections in conservative districts, I am not going to take the time to explain how.

[madfloridian]

13. I don't expect you to explain. We all understand.

But right now with the polls so huge with getting out of Iraq, I wonder just how much some are playing to constituents and how much they are playing to lobbyists who funded them.

Same for the bankruptcy bill they loved so much. It was not meant for the good of their constituents...their "people" constituents. It was meant to benefit the credit card companies. It hurt so many people, people who were victims of Katrina, people who are caregivers for ill relatives, people who have huge medical bills....they could lose their homes.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1163

So with the numbers in the OP, I do question why some vote so conservatively. I highly suspect it is habit or loyalty to their big donors.

[Rusty MacHenry]

14. Ever think there just voting there consience?

Jeez. These are the only type of Dems that can win in these Bush Districts cause there the ones that are more inclined with the opinions and views of there constituents. I know if there was ever a time I would vote for a Republican if he was a tad inclined with my views, if he's alittle liberal i'll considerate it, that's the same with these people in these conservative districts, they'll only vote Democrat if the Democrat that is running is a tad inclined with there conservative views.

John Murtha is a social conservative Democrat and we all like him, so why can't we just respect the blue dog Democrats we have in office.

[madfloridian]

15. I thought they were saying they had to vote for their constituents.

.

[rinsd]

17. No you are saying that.

You can't generalize either conscience or constituency as each issue must be looked at individually.

[madfloridian]

20. Just repeating what we have heard so much.

That they take stands like the one on the war and the bankruptcy bill because they have very conservative districts. Thus I was assuming they were voting that way because of that.

So when it was said it was conscience voting, I got confused. I would think constituents come first. :shrug:

[rinsd]

16. That's good analysis?

"I am not familiar with the politics of any of these districts and do not know how important conservative positions on the war are to continuing electoral success in the district"

Which would actually help one answer the next question

"However, we are also entitled to wonder what the results would be if a candidate with more progressive positions ran in these districts. And, at least, this information raises the question of just how "marginal" these districts really are."

"
15 Reps (35%) are from southern states (11 states of the CSA) - contrary to the myth that the Blue Dogs are a southern phenomenon "

Ummm the Blue Dogs began as a Southern phenomenon of socially conservative Democrats who were mainly from southern states and Texas. In the 13 years they have been on the scene they have expanded to every region in the country taking Democrats from IN, KY, CA, ME, etc.

[madfloridian]

19. The main thing I have heard about the Blue Dogs....

are the close races and the conservative districts they represent. This guts the argument about all the close races.

Now we need to see how it goes. Since the opposition to war is getting so much higher daily, it will come down to standing with the people they vote for or for ideology.

They did sell us out on the bankruptcy bill. That was not a vote for the people in any way at all. We will have to see.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/699

I admire financial caution, but that bill was overkill. Some of them are coming around on working with Pelosi on Iraq, or so it appears right now.

[gravity]

21. Incumbents receive a huge advantage in elections

That's what helps them get them an edge over the republicans, plus they share some of the values.

Living in Virginia, a moderate red state, Democrats usually have to distance themselves from more liberal Democrats like Hillary (Although she isn't the most liberal, she is perceived that way by many here). Liberals are still deionized by many and a lot of people living in the country believe that liberals will take away their guns and bibles, while the upper middle class in the suburbs believe that liberals are going to tax and spend recklessly. These views don't get any help from Fox News or the conservative Richmond Times Dispatch newspaper.

For Democrats to win state elections, they have to be moderate on social issues, pro gun, and fiscally conservative. For me, fiscally conservative means fiscally sane, since the Republicans are fiscally insane. The Republicans here are really fucking crazy, and Virginia would be one backwards state if it wasn't for the moderate Democrats keeping order.

I know some people who moved from California say that the Democrats in Virginia are more like the Republicans in California. Most of the Republicans in Virginia are Tom Delay insane, and I think the only reason people vote for them is because of the 'R' next to their name. If it was really down to just the issues, not the ill-perceived views about liberals (thanks to Fox News), I believe that Virginia would be a blue state.

My point here is that liberal democrats here have no chance here, and even the conservative democrats have a hard time winning their first election, which is usually by a small margin. Luckily many are able to stay in office for a while since their incumbency provides a huge advantage, and they share some of the same views as their constituents.

If you think Blue Dog Democrats are bad, just imagine how crazy the Republicans are. They're fucking insane.

[madfloridian]

22. I don't think the Blue Dogs are bad. Not at all.

I and others believe that groups like the New Dems and Blue Dogs need to be questioned on their votes.

It started with Iraq. Iraq continues. It was meant to be a way for us to gain control of Iraq's vast oil reserves, at least in part. It was meant also as a gateway to gain control over the middle east and spread Democracy over there.

They all knew it at the time.

Many of us, many bloggers, many people are just questioning how our party got so far into Republican territory.

I don't think any group is bad. I question their reasons for voting as they do. It is making a difference, the questioning. It is important.

Every group has good points and weak ones.

Florida's Bill Nelson votes with Republicans so often because he chooses to do so to appeal to Republicans more than Democrats. I don't know when this started, but that has been the way in Florida.

I question him also. The ones who attack me here for questioning (not speaking of you)....know full well I am not just posting empty words. They need to be said.

[gravity]

23. You make a good point

To be fair though, most democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution. In hindsight, it was an obvious mistake, but it was harder to tell at the time. I was against the war too, but I couldn't imagine things as getting as bad as they are now.

Part of the reason that they voted with the conservatives so often was because the country had a conservative shift the years following 9/11 and had to appeal to the already conservative voters in their districts. Remember how bad the 2002 and 2004 elections went?

The pendulum is swinging to the left in this country, and I believe that things are going to get better now that the democrats control the agenda in congress. Republicans are starting to break away from the extreme right on their party.

My philosophy has always been to focus on shifting the government to the left first, and then we can worry about infighting. It's not just the politicians, but their constituents who vote for them too that we need to change, which can be a slow process. Look what happens when the Republican values became out of sync with their constituents, they lost miserably in 2006.

It's good to question and all politicians need to be held accountable, but also understand that politics plays a big role in many of their decisions. If politicians weren't held accountable to the people, then things would be a whole lot different in government for better and worst. I think you should just give the democrats from conservative districts some slack on certain issues, and be happy that they are helping the left reach to middle America, which many democrats fail to do.

[Telly Savalas]

24. A majority of Democrats voted against the IWR.,

In the Senate, nearly half of the Democratic caucus voted against it, and in the House a strong majority of Democrats voted against it. I'm too lazy to drag up the links for the roll call votes, but since this myth has been debunked so many times at DU, I really shouldn't have to find them.