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.

2010 Overview

On September 4th I think it's about time to take a minute to talk about the election coming up in November. Overall the narrative coming out of the 24/7 news machine is that it's an anti-incumbent, anti-democratic year. That's only partly true. It is an anti-Democratic year insofar as every midterm after a new president is elected is an anti-enter President's party here year. It isn't as much an anti-incumbent year as has been harped on by that same news machine. Only a couple handfuls of incumbents have lost so far; Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett, and Lisa Murkowski coming to mind. If this were truly as anti-incumbent a year as the media wants to claim it is you'd have seen upsets of other candidates like Blanche Lincoln and John McCain from the determined challengers they faced. But lets look more broadly at what we can expect.

For breakdowns of individual races, and all the statistics you could ever want check out Five Thirty Eight, which recently moved to a shiny new NY Times page. You'll find Nate Silver and his team's regressions predicting what will happen come November based on polling data. I'm going to go with something close to an educated guess using what I know (which includes Nate's regressions). All of what I said is true above. It's still a nasty year for Democrats. We can talk about why that is for hours. Some of it is the Bush Economy that we're still reeling from, some of it from simple electoral functions, and some of it from how badly the Democrats have dropped the ball on their messaging. Despite the Party of No, the DNC has plenty to run on including Health Care Reform, Credit Card Regulation, changes in the Student Loan department, and much more. And they're doing a terrible job messaging. This whole summer has been about nothing but how crazy the right is now. And even if they're scary, if that's all we're talking about, somebody at the DNC isn't doing their job. Scratch that. Everybody at the DNC isn't doing their job.

I expect the Democrats to hang onto control of both the House and the Senate this year. There. I've said it flat out. I don't expect it to be pretty and I don't expect their majorities to be described in terms besides words like small, pitiful, and ineffective, once the voting is done though. On the ugly side, that means we're likely to end up at 112th Congress that's even less effective and even more gridlocked than the 111th. On the good side, if the Democrats can maintain control of Congress, then they get to do the redrawing of the House District lines. That is something that we simply can't afford to have Republicans doing. Redistricting occurs only every ten years to match up with newly updated data from the Census. It has a much more far reaching effect on the country than having the Democrats receiving the blame for a highly divided and ineffective 112th Congress. As not fun as that will be. I'll be this up front about it. It is imperative that men like Jim DeMint and Chuck Grassley do not get to redraw the House Districts. Not that I expect the Dems to be wholly non-partisan if they get the opportunity, but because when Republicans do it, the do it for keeps. They use (dare I say abuse) the power to disenfranchise large groups of people of color and other maligned minorities. They manage, in essence, to mathematically for stall the day when conservative, white, fundamentalist Christians don't rule the roost. That day is coming, and having house lines drawn to represent the new makeup of America rather than fight it can make it arrive sooner.

And if I'm wrong? I expect the House to fall before the Senate. And while the idea of "Speaker Boehner" scares me to death (for the record, I'm not a massive fan of Speaker Pelosi either), it's better in the long run than having the Senate full of Republicans again. Not to be forgotten is the tiny (teeny tiny teeny teeny tiny) advantage of having the President of the Senate on our side. Who's the President of the Senate? Why, the Vice President of course, Joe Biden. In cases where the Senate ends in a tied vote, the Vice President casts the tie breaker. One of the many rewards for winning the Executive two years ago.

So in short, get on message, get out the vote, cross your fingers.