I dont follow the logic... over half the blue dogs in the house not re-elected yet the blue dogs are

saying its the progressive's who the voters voted against???

seriously?

...causing severe cognitive dissonance for Blue Dogs at the moment. Great anguish.

I have but one thing to tell the disillusioned corporatists as they try to smear everyone else on the way down:



PB

Pelosi twisted - hard - the arms of the Blue Dogs to get them to vote for HCR.

They did, and got slaughtered for it.

Why would any of them now cooperate or trust Pelosi as a leader?

like the republicans thinking they have all this power, when the democrats still hold the senate and the presidency.

....'magical powers'

....they can fuck things up, blame it on the Democrats and the American people believe it....magic

If the voters were wanting more overtly progressive legislation the Repukes wouldn't have gained 50+ seats in the House or made big gains in the Senate.

Gerrymandering tells the real tale on why Progressives stayed in their seats.

and actively worked to suppress Democratic enthusiasm to vote. All to "send a message."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

opposite of 2008. Oh yeah, and we lost seniors, women and men. But keep on with the left bashing if it makes you feel better.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/07/weekinreview/07marsh.html

But then, I make a distinction between the left and progressives.

Interesting charts. So regarding independents; You're aware that a great many former Republicans now identify as independents, right? After that Bush debacle and a solid head-kicking delivered by Democrats between 2006 and 2008, a lot of Republicans went "underground." They still vote the same as they always did, but they self-identify as "independent." Throw in a dose of both teagaggers who are declaring themselves independent of the "RINOS" and the republicans who dare hiding from association with the teabaggers, and, well, you've got yourself a nice little shift

Also, you're aware of the damping effect a constant stream of people on the left can have on our voter turnout when they spend all their time attacking politicians on the left and encouraging others to not vote, or to vote third parties, or to even vote Republican to "send a message," every day, all day, from the Inauguration to Nov 2 2010?

'Cause that was definitely happening, too.

& I'm so not alone.

and voter turnout, the key to victory, was about 69%. So what do you do with us? Or California? All Blue.
Your 'facts' are not facts. You have no support for your accusations, and the States that delivered Democrats make it clear that you are incorrect.

You claim serveral things without so much as a hint of proof. Some vicous accusations you make based on unsupported declarations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=search&select_forum=389

Do a search for your own name. Or Rhett's. or any other chest-banging "progressive."

You're not going to find even the slightest spec of support for anything "liberal." For you, it's all fucking fashion.

I note no link, no cite, no nothing, even long after you were asked to provide that. I have to assume that you have no support for your bogus theory at all. It amounts to some rhetorical spew, and that shows the level of respect you have for the process, and for your fellow Democrats.

The voters wanted effective representation. When the Dems failed to deliver, the amnesiac, short-attention span voter went with the other party.

Had the Democratic Party forced the blue dogs to go along with a progressive agenda and produce real, observable results (JOBS!), they would have help the majorities.

Most voters were not given the option of voting for a more overtly progressive. And if you give the voters a choice between a Republican, and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, they chose the real thing every time.

29M people who voted in 2008 stayed home in 2010. That's where the margin of victory for the Republicans came from. But the defeats themselves provide plenty of data.

If your assertion was correct, in "purple" districts, blue dogs would have lost by smaller margins than unabashed Democrats. However the opposite is true (for example, progressive in VA loses by 3%, blue dog loses by 10%. Similar districts).

The lasting disaster of the Clinton administration was to convince a bunch of "Democratic Strategists" that blurring the differences between the Republicans and Democrats was a good idea. A lot of them have insisted upon following that strategy over the last 20 years, despite the fact that they keep losing. The times when we haven't followed that strategy were 2006 and 2008....big Democratic party victories.

It's time to give the electorate a choice instead of two slightly different flavors of Right-of-center.

"Most voters were not given the option of voting for a more overtly progressive."

That's what primaries are for. If the districts wanted more progressive candidates they would have nominated them.

"A lot of them have insisted upon following that strategy over the last 20 years, despite the fact that they keep losing. The times when we haven't followed that strategy were 2006 and 2008....big Democratic party victories."

2006 and 2008 were the years most of the Blue Dogs were elected. Dean's 50 state strategy wasn't to run liberals, it was to actually fund democratic campaigns in districts we hadn't put up a serious challenge in before.

"That's what primaries are for. If the districts wanted more progressive candidates they would have nominated them."

Yes, because it's so easy to run against the party establishment. Clearly, one can accurately measure the will of a district when the DNC-backed candidate in the primary has piles of cash, and the non-DNC-backed candidate has to do their own fundraising, with the knowledge that the DNC will not support them if they do win the nomination.

"2006 and 2008 were the years most of the Blue Dogs were elected."

Yes...they ran as Democrats. Then they got timid and turned into the traditional 'blue dog'. Then they lost.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Faux News and the Corporate Media puppets always say Democrats are Liberal, even if they aren't (those would be the "sensible Liberals"). I think Senator Sanders probably didn't believe that then Senator Obama was "the most Liberal member of the Senate".

I blame lethargic campaigning by the Democratic Party, and I fear that things will get worse for non "blue dog" or "too liberal" reasons: Citizens United and the massive gerrymandering that is going to happen across the nation with the new gopper dominated state governments. We needed Howard Dean and as energetic a 50 state policy as possible.

those that brought you super delegates and NAFTA and other trappings that signaled the end of a democratic party that mattered.

dreaded "liberals," hilarious as that may be, there is no mystery why they were tossed out by their rabidly conservative constituents.

And, how many of them were newly elected in the great wave of "change" two years ago? Those same teabagging constituents may have suddenly realized they don't like change all that much.

"liberals" in conservative districts lost by smaller margins than "blue dogs" in conservative districts.

Bobby Bright is one that I paid attention to even though he was running in Dothan.

I don't watch commercials that much, so for the first week or so, I thought he was the Republicon candidate. I think I was on my way to the laundry room when I heard "paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee". So, I started watching.

He ran his campaign against Nancy Pelosi, not the Republicon challenger. His commercials included the number of times that he voted against the "Pelosi" agenda, how he did not think she needed to be in a leadership position, and if he wasn't denigrating Nancy, he was running a picture of Boehner, saying the he was the true conservative. He was not willing to take on his Republicon challenger who did have a lot of negatives.

His ads went from "Darn, I have to run as a Democrat, but I'm really a Republicon" to, because so much money was spent in that district, offensive. The cumulative effect was "it's wrong to be a Democrat, I know, I'm the Democrat".

There was absolutely no reason to vote "for" Bobby Bright. Whoever put together his campaign, blew it.

And, they'll turn everything upside down to prove it!!

with reality, it's something they've never been able to see.

voters in their districts think the Democrats went too far left and it scared the hell out of them.
My Congressman lost for one reason he voted for HCR and the Teabaggers hung Obama and Nancy Pelosi around his neck.

districts, the voters who actually turned out may indeed have voted against progressives. That doesn't necessarily imply much swing in the registered electorate; it may simply mean progressives didn't turn out for the blue dogs

they lost their own damn districts, they lost districts they had previously won. Yes, all politics is local, and each of these failures was also local, they lost where they had previously won. Districts were not redrawn. They lost where they had won before.
In short, they were rejected by their own constituents.
Here, we elected Democrats. Huge turnout, which took great effort. Here, we won. Locally it was victory, and all politics is local.
Those who did not turn out for your Democrats are your neighbors. Local voters. Around here, the turnout was near historic, best in many years. Local voters made that happen.

they lost their own damn districts." Well, of course, they lost their own districts: those are necessarily the districts where they ran -- and for the most part, those are conservative districts, which the GOP had targteted

... The Blue Dogs' broad losses in largely rural and conservative-leaning Southern districts broaden an ideological divide ... "A lot of Blue Dog Democrats served in districts that leaned Republican, and the GOP targeted those districts because they could pick up those seats," said Andra Gillespie .. at Emory ... "I think .. the shellacking that Blue Dogs .. got in Tuesday's election .. wasn't entirely by accident," said Andy Sere .. for the National Republican Congressional Committee. "When we set out to take back the majority this cycle, we looked at some of the obvious places, and it was where McCain performed well in 2008, and those places are represented by Blue Dogs" ...
Posted on Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday's election was bad news for Blue Dogs
By Halimah Abdullah | McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/03/103168/tuesdays-election-was-a-blue-one.html#ixzz15SkO4EoZhttp://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/03/103168/tuesdays-election-was-a-blue-one.html#ixzz15Sk9wAOa

GOP Sets Sights On Conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats
by LIZ HALLORAN
November 5, 2009
... Of the 18 conservative and moderate Blue Dog Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008, 17 won in strongly Republican or Republican-leaning districts. And 13 won in districts Obama lost — a handful by margins exceeding 20 percent ... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120025333
This 2009 article focuses mainly on Alabama Blue Dog Bobby Bright, who lost in 2010

Turnout among young voters: 20 percent
By Raw Story
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010 -- 6:21 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/turnout-young-voters-20-percent/

Why did they not run as conservative Republicans and vote on occasion with Democrats, rather than run as Democrats and vote on occasion with Democrats? They could have established themselves as sensible and moderate Republicans. Did they think they could not win as conservatives in a red state? Why did they think it was easier for a Democrat to win in a red state than a conservative?? It doesn't make sense.

out number Republicans two to one. People here have traditionally voted Democrat because we are a strong union area (well was) before NAFTA. So Democrats have two strikes against them to start, they get the blame for NAFTA and people are very socially conservative here. If you get elected as Democrat in any of our local elections you have a job for life unless get caught killing someone in your office or something. But national Democratic party usually goes too far left for most peoples tastes.

kick ass, if they didn't wade in too zealously on wedge issues.

Why do so few dare wonder why the DLC is a false "third way"? We sold out the working class and allowed the poor to be painted as the devil and worse over and over.

A shit ton of these districts that a liberal can't win in so we run Republicans with a D that support the same shitty sell out economic policies that come right out of the Republican (traitor) playbook.

We never give the people what they want, they grew disillusioned with Democrats as the economic lines blurred between the parties.

Couple that with a heavy dose of "Southern Strategy", 24/7 demonizing of liberals, decades of absurd propaganda, continuous degrading of education especially in areas that foster systemic understanding and critical thinking, and we have close enough for a "perfect storm" of clusterfucking a generally natural constituency.

The Blue Dog/New Dem/DLC people don't intend to give the people a viable choice or what they want but rather seek to blur the lines and stake out the lesser of two evils position while taking advantage of the general Democratic registration advantage. Often winning in the first place to be fair and honest brokers with labor and the poor only to bail on them when the big corporate checks clear.

:shrug:


Maybe a quick perusal of the ads run by the people who beat them may shed some light for you. See how they were painted in the election, and maybe you can see their point.

Given the choice between a Democrat who acts like a Republican and an actual Republican, voters will take the Republican everytime.
That is what happened. As you know. Because Blue Dog Voters are way over there anyway, to the right over yonder, right beside the GOP hospitality suite. Blue Dogs are not welcom locally. We have none.

then go for it! I'm not going to piss in your Kool-Ade! (sigh!)

That "truism" makes no sense, really. Or, all it says is that the voters prefer Republicans.

why didn't the progressives get their candidates nominated if they really could beat a Republican in those districts?

or progressives.

The repubs did get the best candidates money could buy, didn't they? They had the CC & who knows else footing the campaign bills after all.

Or the blue dog was selected by the DCCC and giving backing in the primary, whereas the progressive candidate was not given any support. And everyone running without DCCC support in the primary knows they won't get DCCC support in the General.

I see no evidence that there is a mass movement among blue dogs to blame the election on Progressives. I think you are searching for outrage where no insult exists.

It was not an ideological election. The exit polls show that the voters were not clamoring for progressivism, or centrism or conservatism. The blue dogs who lost, lost because they were in more competitive districts.

:shrug:

I still don't understand why some Democratic leaders felt like they would be a good idea, actively recruiting them in 08. We had one of the most popular presidential candidates leading the ticket and we were practically assured seats in both houses. We could have ran much more progressive Democratics and won.