I Went Done Gone and Lost My (Blue) Dog Again...

It's three days after midterms! I could (and might still) spend a post (or two, or three) talking about all of the things everyone else is talking about since the elections. Mainly that's the Republican take over of the house, John Boehner crying, how Nancy Pelosi's suddenly a loser, how Obama doesn't get "it", etc. But not for now. I'm going to attempt to talk about something a little more niche, and a whole lot less talked about. The Democrats lost a lot of seats. It's true. But where did they lose them exactly, and how does that affect party unity and message in Washington? I suspect you'll find that most of the losses came from the Blue Dog Caucus and that it might have the effect of a more unified (if less powerful) Democratic Caucus.

The Blue Dog Caucus in the 111th Congress has 53 members. They're geographically diverse, ranging from West Coast to East and urban districts to rural ones. Just as examples you have members like Loretta Sanchez of the California 47th, Southern Los Angeles. It's a very urban district with a high population density and a very small area. In contrast there's Chris Carney of the Pennsylvania 10th who's largest city is Carbondale. It's Pennsylvania's third largest house district by area. So I think we can rule out that Blue Dogs suffered in this election because they all represent the same type of voter and that voter type was especially swayed by Republicans.

In looking at the data from Tuesday, of the 53 members of the Blue Dog Caucus, only 24 of them won re-election. This number includes one race the New York Times hasn't called yet but is leaning toward the incumbent and two that haven't been called but look to be losses. It also includes six members who retired resulting in the seat switching parties, and one member who himself switched parties only to lose in the primary. That seat is also in Republican hands for the 112th Congress. With only 24 members winning re-election, the Blue Dogs had a success rate of 45.28% for the 2010 Midterms. Meanwhile, of all Democrats in the 111th Congress (255 of them) 191 seats (including three still out leaning Dem.) stayed in the Party. That's a 74.90% success rate.

Obviously averages aren't everything. Blue Dogs are more likely than your average Democrat to come from districts that could be described as "purple" or indeed, given the landslide of the 2008 election, districts that are generally described as Republican. So you wouldn't expect the success rate of the Blue Dogs to match that of the Democratic Party as a whole. Still, I think the number speak for themselves. Democrats held on to 3/4 of all their house seats this cycle (really bad, in the grand scheme) but the Blue Dogs held less than half.

Blue Dog Seats Held	Blue Dog Seats Lost
Jason Altmire (PA-4) Joe Baca (CA-43) John Barrow (GA-12) Sanford Bishop (GA-2) Dan Boren (OK-2) Leonard Boswell (IA-3) Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) Ben Chandler (KY-6) NYT hasn’t called. Probable hold. Jim Cooper (TN-5) Henry Cuellar (TX-28) Joe Donnelly (IN-2) Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8) VERY narrow margin. Jane Harman (CA-36) Tim Holden (PA-17) Jim Matheson (UT-2) Mike McIntyre (NC-7) Mike Michaud (ME-2) Collin Peterson (MN-7) Mike Ross (AR-4) Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) Adam Schiff (CA-29) David Scott (GA-13) Heath Shuler (NC-11) Mike Thompson (CA-1)	Mike Arcuri (NY-24) Melissa Bean (IL-8) NYT hasn’t called. Probable loss. Marion Berry (AR-1) Retired, Dems lost seat. Allen Boyd (FL-2) Bobby Bright (AL-2) Christopher Carney (PA-10) Travis Childers (MS-1) Jim Costa (CA-20) NYT Hasn’t called. Probable loss. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) Lincoln Davis (TN-4) Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) Ran for Sen. Bayh’s seat. Lost to Dan Coats. Bill Foster (IL-14) Bart Gordon (TN-6) Retired. Dems lost seat. Parker Griffith (AL-5) Switched Parties 2009. Lost primary. Republicans hold seat. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Blue Dog Co-Chair, Administration Baron Hill (IN-9), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy Frank Kratovil (MD-1) Jim Marshall (GA-8) Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications; Ran for Sen. Vitter’s Seat. Lost. Seat goes to Republicans. Walt Minnick (ID-1) Dennis Moore (KS-3) Retired. Wife lost race to Republican. Patrick Murphy (PA-8) Glenn Nye (VA-2) Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL) John Salazar (CO-3) Zack Space (OH-18) John Tanner (TN-8) Retired. Dems lost seat. Large margin. Gene Taylor (MS-4) Charlie Wilson (OH-6)
Total: 24	Total: 29

At a glance, a few things about who won and who didn't in the Blue Dog Caucus do stand out to me. The first is that, like every other Democrat in California, they did just fine. Plenty has been made of the virtual sweep the Democrats pulled off in California while everyone else was trending to the right. Every Blue Dog hailing from a California House District won, with the exception of Jim Costa in the California 20th. And that race was so close it hasn't actually been called yet. With a sufficiently motivated Democratic base, Blue Dogs win, even in this red election cycle. The other major thing I noticed was all three of the Blue Dogs' leaders lost. Stephanie Sandlin of the South Dakota At-Large District lost by 3%. She was the Blue Dogs' Co-Chair for Administration. The Co-Chair for Policy, Baron Hill of the Indiana 9th lost by 10%. And Charlie Melancon, the Co-Chair for Communications vacated his seat to run against Louisiana Senator David Vitter. He lost, and the party lost his Louisiana 3rd by more than 25%. Ouch. So not only is the Blue Dog Caucus of the 112th Congress much smaller, they'll need new people to step into leadership positions.

Let's look at some policy stuff then. It's fairly clear that for a Democrat (even a Blue Dog) to hold their own in a district that's purple or red they need waves of support from enthused Democratic voters. That enthusiasm was in short supply all around the country this year to be sure. But I suspect that it had an effect on the outcome in races like Rep. Bobby Bright's in the Alabama 2nd where he lost by 2% and 5,000 votes in a way that it didn't in a race like Rep. Earl Blumenauer's in the Oregon 3rd where he won by 45% and 120,000 votes. What I'm arguing is, if the Blue Dog's had spent more time sticking to the Democratic plan, working with the Obama Administration, and passing progressive legislation then Bobby Bright might have found the 5,001 votes he needed to win in the Alabama 2nd. Or Charlie Wilson might have found the 10,000 votes he needed to win in the Ohio 6th.

The people are dissatisfied with the Health Care Reform. That's just one piece of legislation, but let's run with it. The final legislation is deeply unpopular. Republicans ran against it during the election and even some Democrats did. Just ask Joe Manchin. On the other hand, polls have consistently shown the Public Option to be very popular. The Public Option didn't pass in the Senate, and only a very weak version passed in the house. In short, if the Democrats had had more votes then a bill containing a strong Public Option (which the general public supports) could have been possible. Where were these votes missing from? Not the Republican Party. You guessed it. The conservative Blue Dog Caucus is full of House members (and their friends on the Senate side) who opposed a strong Public Option. This is about division within the Democratic party as much as it is about the two parties not getting along and agreeing.

The same rings true for Financial Reform. The Blue Dogs specifically label themselves as the "fiscally conservative" wing of the Democratic party. These guys are, in many ways, socially liberal Republicans. They couldn't bring themselves to vote on things like ending Too Big to Failm reigning in Wall Street, or demanding that derivatives be traded on the open market like everything else. They're the Democratic friends of the Big Banks that means the Party has no muscle and no guts for doing the dirty work that needs to be done. Consequently, as they tracked ever to the right in an attempt to appear palatable to the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in their districts, they ensured that the Democrats they did have, would be so uninterested in backing them up that they were virtually guaranteed to lose close elections in a Republican leaning midterm year.

Marriage Issues

I'm a bit behind the times as far as reporting on the Proposition 8 ruling in California. I've been at work, so forgive me. I'd skip it, but I'm queer and so this is sort of a big deal. More than just break down the ruling, which I'll be doing a bit of, I hope to talk about this issue more broadly.

So, yes, Wednesday afternoon Judge Walker in California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 which passed in California on the same night as President Obama's election in 2008 is unconstitutional. He ruled that it violates both the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [bolding mine]

The bold section there is the particularly important part. States, like California, cannot make laws that violated that bolded section. By saying that straight couples (and individuals by extension) are able to marry and gay couples cannot it sets up two unequal groups in direct violation of that last section about "equal protection of the laws". Less talked about, but I think no less important is Section 5:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Seems to me that Congress should be getting along about now to make sure our equality is protected by law. Good luck getting them to do that one.

Now I'm going to dissect the ruling for a bit. It's downloadable online but it's 136 pages so this is by no means a thorough job.

Reading through, the first bit of text that really strikes my fancy is this.

...proponents in their trial brief promised to “demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships” would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences. At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage.  Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.

Mr. Blankenhorn was, in fact viewed by the judge as pretty much non-important. He has no credentials to suggest that he's an actual expert on relationships, marriage, or the government. All the things he was claiming to be an "expert witness" on. Continuing. In a section entitled "Credibility Determinations" the judge had this to say about Mr. Blankenhorn.

David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, testified on marriage, fatherhood and family structure.  Plaintiffs objected to Blankenhorn’s qualification 

as an expert.  For the reasons explained hereafter, Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents’ factual assertions.

I think that speaks for itself. But it continues.

The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s opinions.  Tr 2741:24-2742:3.  The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight. [bolding mine]

Moving on. Later in the document come what is referred to as "findings of fact". As it has been explained to me, these facts must be considered by any appeals court and the Supreme Court should the case be appealed that far. Among these findings are tidbits such as these.

19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage.  Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.  

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.   

There are quite a few interesting findings of fact included in the ruling so I suggest you download it if you want to read up on a few more of them. I'm going to stretch this out into two posts so look for a broader discussion of the topic sometime soon!