This is an update of this diary
I, personally, am on the left wing of the Democratic party. On that political compass thing, I get about - 9 on social and - 8 on economic issues. I like my rep (Nadler, NY-08) pretty well. But NY-08 is not the country. And, although I wish I lived in a country where Nadler was a typical representative, and Sanders a typical Senator, I don't.
In this diary, I will attempt to use data and analysis to answer several questions. Using data and analysis is what I do for a living (I'm a statistician) and I find it fun (I'm a geek). The questions:
Who are the Blue Dogs?
Why are they Blue Dogs?
Should we get rid of Blue Dogs and if so, Which ones? and How?
Are Blue Dogs as bad as Republicans?
more below the fold
Who are Blue Dogs?
There seem to be two common uses of the term. One is for a group of self-identified members of congress - Democrats in the House who have centrist voting patterns. But not all these people are the most conservative Democrats, and some very conservative House Dems are not self-identified. Another use is for any conservative Democrat, especially in the House. I'm going to use this second definition. So, who are they?
First, we need some measure of conservatism vs. liberalism. There are several possibilities, but one I like a lot is the scale developed by Keith Poole and his colleagues called optimal classification, and available at VoteView. I gave more details on this, and why I like it, in this diary. Next, we need to decide how conservative a person has to be to be a Blue Dog. Any decision is arbitrary, so, let's look at the 20 most conservative Democrats in the 111th House. (The list is below, in the table). One disadvantage of VoteView is it isn't updated that often, so I will delete people who are no longer in the House.
Why are they Blue Dogs?
I think the positions a representative takes are going to be some mix of his or her own views and his or her perceptions of what voters want. I'm not sure how this mix is balanced, and it probably varies from person to person. Certainly there is some overlap. But people who are way out of step with their district are likely to face strong challenges, and may lose.
So, people are Blue Dogs from a combination of their own views and their constituents. We don't have good ways of looking at the representatives' own views, but we do have some for constituents. One good look is how they vote for POTUS. The nice thing about this is that it doesn't depend on polls, it isn't issue by issue specific, and it's easily available. I'll look at Obama % and Kerry %.
If a representatives votes (represented by VoteView rank) are out of line with the constituents' views (represented by the Cook number), then it's likely that those views are personal; and those are districts where challenges are more likely to succeed. If the rep's views are too conservative, they may get replaced by a Republican; if too liberal, they may get replaced by a more progressive Democrat.
Should we get rid of Blue Dogs; which ones?
Clearly, if we can replace a BD with a progressive, we should. But BDs are better than Repubs (see below). One way to judge the likelihood of this is by the POTUS vote; a district that went for Obama may be ready for a progressive.
So, let's look at some data:
Rep and district Rank Obama % Kerry % Notes
Shuler NC-11 1 47 43
Donnelly IN-02 2 54 43
Barrow GA-12 3 36 34
Boren OK-02 4 35 41
Altmire PA-04 5 44 45
Peterson MN-07 6 47 43
Giffords AZ-08 7 46 47
Matheson UT-02 8 40 31
Cooper TN-05 9 56 52
Owens NY-23 10 52 47
Holden PA-17 11 48 42
McNerney CA-11 12 54 45
Ross AR-04 13 39 48
Boswell IA-03 14 53 48
Cuellar TX-28 15 56 46
Himes CT-04 16 60 52
Costa CA-20 17 60 51
Chandler KY-06 18 43 41
Bishop GA-02 19 54 50
Cardoza CA-18 20 59 49
This list is interesting. I would posit that our attitudes toward (say) Barrow should be different that our attitude toward (say) Himes.
There are 5 districts of these 20 that gave Obama more than 55% - that is, they gave him at least the national average: TN-05, TX-28, CT-04, CA-20 and CA-18. These ae places were a better Democrat doesn't seem to pose much risk of a Republican.
But then there's redistricting
How should we get rid of Blue Dogs?
There are two ways, I think. Above, I outlined a strategy for identifying BD who can be safely and sensibly primaried. But that's just one way to get rid of Blue Dogs. The other way is to get on the ground and work to convince the people that liberal ideas are good. Get them writing to their congress people. Get them active! While I found 6 people above who do not represent their constituents' views; there are an unfortunate number who do represent their views, because there are too many conservatives in the USA. It's hard to convince a RWNJ that liberalism/progressivism is good. But, people who are centrists are halfway there already.
This works two ways: First, if the BD hear from a lot of people, they might change their votes (it could happen!). And, if they don't change their votes? Well, elections come every two years.
Are Blue Dogs as bad as Republicans?
The short answer is "no".
The slightly longer answer is to look at the Vote View methodology and notice that it perfectly separates the parties (this is usually not the case; prior to the 109th House, there was always some overlap, going back to the civil war..
Another slightly longer answer is to say that the most conservative Democrat is somewhat similar to the most liberal Republican; but more similar to typical Democrats than to typical Republicans.
The really full answer is to look at individuals. None of the Blue Dogs is anywhere near as bad as, say, Flake of AZ-06, or any of the other RWNJ. A lot of votes in congress are lopsided; if a bill passes 400-20 then voting for it is not a big deal. The Washington Post lists "key votes". For the 112th congress, the list is here.
Let's look at those 20 Blue Dogs again, and their votes on some key votes; I chose ones that were relatively close; there were relatively few key votes that were very close.
I've listed:
Vote 677 the Boehner debt reduction bill. This passed 218-210; 218 Republicans and 0 Democrats voted for it. 22 Republicans and 188 Democrats voted against it.
Vote 9: Lily Ledbetter Act This passed 247 - 171. 247 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted for, 5 Democrats and 166 Republicans voted against
Vote 638 Repeal DADT This passed 250-175. 235 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted for, 15 Democrats and 160 Republicans voted against.
A D indicates the person voted the way most of the Democrats voted; R Republican, and ? no data or not voting
Rep and district 677 9 638
Shuler NC-11 D D D
Donnelly IN-02 D D D
Barrow GA-12 D D D
Boren OK-02 D R R
Altmire PA-04 D D D
Peterson MN-07 D D R
Giffords AZ-08 ? D D
Matheson UT-02 D D D
Cooper TN-05 D D D
Owens NY-23 D ? D
Holden PA-17 D D D
McNerney CA-11 D D D
Ross AR-04 D D R
Boswell IA-03 D D D
Cuellar TX-28 D D D
Himes CT-04 D D D
Costa CA-20 D D D
Chandler KY-06 D D D
Bishop GA-02 D D D
Cardoza CA-18 D D ?
That is, of the 20 most conservative Democrats, every one voted with the Democrats on at least one of these 3 close and key votes; most on all 3 of them. Also, compared to the earlier diary, there are far fewer blue dogs, and they are more blue than they were