Blue Dogs Kicked Out On the Street

August 22, 2011

New Study, Mass Resignations Point to Hostile Environment for Even So-Called Moderates in Nancy Pelosi’s Democrat Party

A new report out last week from the Progressive Policy Institute documents what many of us already know: so-called Blue Dog Democrats face steep re-election odds in the Nancy Pelosi Democrat party. The report finds that so-called “moderate” Democrats typically must fundraise twice as much as liberal Democrats to be competitive.

Meanwhile, the Blue Dog coalition of so-called “moderate” Democrats is nearing extinction. After last year’s election decimated the ranks of phony moderate Democrats who voted for the Pelosi wish list, several of the remaining few have opted for retirement.

How did the formerly powerful Blue Dog coalition, once counting nearly one in five House Democrats among its members, get here? Blue Dogs proved they weren’t “moderate” at all by supporting the radical Obama-Pelosi job-destroying agenda, making them “simply unable to distance themselves for the Democratic Party’s leadership.”

BACKGROUND

“CENTRIST” DEMOCRATS PAY A “PREMIUM” TO HOLD SEATS: “A study being released today by the Progressive Policy Institute finds that moderate Democrats pay a ‘premium’ to win and hold House seats. Using Federal Election Commission data, Anne Kim shows how centrist Democrats must raise significantly more money than their liberal colleagues to stay competitive. They were more likely to find themselves in races that drew outside spending last year, and even those in safe districts wind up spending more. Since they disproportionately represent swing districts, this intuitively makes sense. But the numbers are pretty dramatic. … PPI argues that this shows how structurally biased our political system is against centrists, who are discouraged from running in the first place and then given incentives to move left so they can fill their coffers.” (James Hohmann, Politico’s “Morning Score”, Accessed 8/18/2011)

SO-CALLED “MODERATE DEMOCRATS….SPENT MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH” AS LIBERAL COLLEAGUES: “(1) Blue Dogs, New Democrats and their opponents spent an average of $3.3 million on their campaigns, compared to an average of $1.6 million spent by candidates and opponents in Progressive Caucus districts. Not only did moderate candidates spend more to defend their seats, they faced better-financed challengers.” (Anne Kim, “The ‘Centrist Premium’: The High Price of Moderation,” Progressive Policy Institute, August 2011)

“MODERATE CANDIDATES WERE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO DRAW OUTSIDE SPENDING IN THEIR DISTRICTS”: “(2) On average, outside groups spent a district-by-district average of $1.46 million in Blue Dog and New Democratic races, versus an average of just $257,000 on Progressive Caucus campaigns. With the inclusion of outside spending, the total cost of campaigning in moderate districts soars to an average per district of $4.76 million, compared to a grand total average of $1.87 million in liberal districts.” (Anne Kim, “The ‘Centrist Premium’: The High Price of Moderation,” Progressive Policy Institute, August 2011)

EVEN ” ‘SAFER’ MODERATE MEMBERS STILL PAY A PREMIUM”: “(3) On the whole, veteran moderates spend less on their campaigns than newcomers. Nevertheless, among Blue Dog, New Democratic and Progressive candidates who won by similar margins, moderate candidates and their opponents still outspent liberal candidates and their opponents by an average of almost $900,000.” (Anne Kim, “The ‘Centrist Premium’: The High Price of Moderation,” Progressive Policy Institute, August 2011)

AP: THE BLUE DOG “SHRINKING CONTINUES”: “The Blue Dogs may be losing their bark. Despite polls showing a desire for more compromise in Washington, the political climate for moderate to conservative Democrats in the House has continued to deteriorate.

“The 2010 election dropped the number of so-called Blue Dogs from 54 to 25. And the shrinking continues.” (Kevin Freking, “Republicans View Blue Dog Losses As a Good Sign for 2012 Election Cycle,” Associated Press, 8/19/2011)

THE WASHINGTON POST: BLUE DOGS A “DYING BREED,” WITH AT LEAST 16 OUT OF REMAINING 22 VULNERABLE TO DEFEAT OR RETIREMENT: “With the retirement this week of Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the Blue Dog caucus — a collection of House Democratic conservatives — is dwindling even further.

“In the 2012 elections, redistricting is likely to further chip away at the once-powerful group, as members are placed into more Republican districts or forced to compete against more liberal Democrats.” (Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner, “Blue Dog Democrats a Dying Breed,” The Washington Post, 7/26/2011)

BLUE DOGS “UNABLE TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES” FROM PELOSI, DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP: “In the end, many of the Blue Dogs were simply unable to distance themselves from the Democratic Party’s leadership, despite voting against them on some key issues, said Burdett Loomis, a professor at the University of Kansas who has written extensively about the Blue Dogs. ‘When push came to shove, they were Blue Dog Democrats, but they were Democrats,’ Loomis said.” (Kevin Freking, “Republicans View Blue Dog Losses As a Good Sign for 2012 Election Cycle,” Associated Press, 8/19/2011)

“UNPOPULARITY OF [BOREN’S] NATIONAL PARTY” TOOK “A TOLL” ON DEMOCRAT: “But there was also a private acknowledgement among Boren loyalists that the unpopularity of his national party in deep-red Oklahoma had taken a toll on him. …

“One Boren adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said 65 percent of the district’s voters currently have an unfavorable impression of Obama.

“The congressman’s camp was bracing for his toughest race yet.” (Alex Isenstadt and Dave Catanese, “Another Blue Dog Bites the Dust,” Politico, 6/9/2011)

WIDE NUMBERS OF BLUE DOGS SUPPORTED CAP-AND-TRADE, GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE, OTHER JOB-DESTROYING LAWS: “Of the 54 Blue Dogs serving at the end of the 111th Congress, 26 voted for the climate change bill in June 2009, 30 voted for the final version of health care reform in March 2010, and 42 ultimately backed the financial services bill in late June this year.” (Josh Israel and Aaron Mehta, “PACs Flocked to Conservative Blue Dog Democrats, Then Fled After Crucial Votes,” The Center for Public Integrity, 12/7/2010)

BLUE DOGS VOTED WITH PELOSI ON 80 PERCENT OF THE VOTES SHE CAST: “On the biggest, defining votes since the Democrats took the House, the Blue Dogs have voted almost in lock-step with their party leaders.

“And with one leader in particular the Blue Dogs are more like lap dogs. Of the 62 votes cast by Speaker Pelosi during the current 111th Congress on economic issues, the Blue Dogs voted with her 80 percent of the time.” (“The Blue Dog Report,” The Club For Growth, 10/4/2010)

CENTRIST DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP COUNCIL “SIMPLY STRUGGLED FOR RELEVANCE” DURING “THE OBAMA ERA”: “The centrist Democratic Leadership Council, which fought and largely won a battle for the soul of the Democratic party in the 1990s, is on the verge of bankruptcy and is closing its doors, its founder, Al From, confirmed Monday. …

“In the Obama era, the group has simply struggled for relevance. Its leaders remained close to the Clintons, and presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton headlined the DLC’s 2006 annual gathering in Denver. But as Hillary Clinton’s presidential fortunes waned, so did the DLC’s influence. By the summer of 2008, the organization was kicking off its annual meeting a mere block from Senator Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago – but the candidate didn’t find time to drop by.” (Ben Smith, “The End of the DLC Era,” Politico, 2/07/2011)