JONATHAN COHN OCTOBER 29, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The inevitable loss-induced "struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party" has already begun. In a New York Times op-ed, The Nation’s Ari Berman has written that liberals should “Boot the Blue Dogs,” suggesting a smaller but more ideologically homogeneous Democratic congressional caucus would be happier, more effective, and more progressive.
I disagree with Berman's argument on substantive grounds—particularly the CliffsNotes version that the Times’ word limit imposed on him—but in addition, isn't this a really weird time to be talking about a purge of Democratic moderates? After all, Republicans are poised to do the job themselves, seizing so many seats that they'll drastically shrink the size of the Congressional Blue Dog Caucus.
How many of these moderates will actually be left after November 2? Currently, there are 54 members of the Blue Dog Coalition in the House. Four of them are retiring, and two others—Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and Charlie Melancon of Lousiana—are running for the Senate. All six of these open seats are very likely to flip to the GOP.
Looking at Nate Silver’s very precise projections of House races, there are 47 incumbent Democrats that he rates as having a better-than-even chance of losing. Of those, 21 are Blue Dogs. If you assume they all do lose, then add in the six open seats, and acknowledge there are likely to be no reinforcements from the tiny Democratic class of 2010, this leaves you with a Blue Dog Coalition of 27 members, exactly half the current number.
With some luck, the numbers could be higher, but they could be a lot lower, too; four more Blue Dogs are rated by Silver as having a 40 to 50 percent chance of losing, and three more make his list of those with a 30 to 40 percent probability of getting booted.
Silver’s entire projection estimates a net loss of 53 seats by Democrats, leaving a House Democratic Caucus of 203 members. In that scenario, a Blue Dog Coalition of 27 members would represent 13 percent of the caucus, as compared to 21 percent today.
In other words, progressives won't have much purging to do. It’s hard to assess the influence that this downsizing would have on the Democratic minority, particularly in a House of Representatives controlled by the most ideologically coherent Republican caucus in history. But talk about “booting the Blue Dogs” seems beside the point—and it might only aid the Republicans who will try to lure Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman across the line to gain control of the Senate.
4 comments
Some thoughts to be pondered Wednesday next. You were unhappy with Ben Nelson? How do you think Webb and Tester are likely to respond to the election returns? Lieberman? How about efforts to shove aside Meek in favor of Crist. You think Charlie would be a more sympatico caucus partner than Joe? But don't worry too much about that one. Charlie's a dead man walking. Then, of course, there's Manchin. If he wins, he won't be a new Byrd, and he sure won't be another Rockefeller. If you keep a majority in the senate, it is unlikely to be one that will provide a lot of smiles on the upper east side, Cambridge or the golden gate.
- lsernoff
October 29, 2010 at 8:30pm
Isernoff - I was thinking that Webb or Tester would be more likely to flip to Independents who caucus with the GOP, in addition to Lieberman, if the GOP get to 49 or 50. Harder for me to read the Farmer-Populist Democrats like Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad (ND), also up for re-election in 2012, from states that barely noticed the great recession. As to the surviving House Blue Dogs, well, as a long distance fan of Gene Taylor from Mississippi, he should also rethink what it means to be a Democrat when they throw the very members who gave them their majority under the bus. It is truly remarkable that the "progressives" of today's Democratic Party think they need MORE ideological purity.
- K2K
October 29, 2010 at 9:07pm
K2k You are having a difficult time "reading" Kent Conrad. He was one of the first senators to support Obama. He may be a "deficit hawk", but he is very bright and does not suffer from "factual deficiency" like most Republicans. Why would you ever think that Kent Conrad would ever flip? Do you have an evidence for this conjecture? My "reading" is that Conrad's chances of flipping are about as great as Keith Ellison's. My the way, I intended a Liberally Drinking event on Thursday were Ellison spoke about the need (1) to reach out to others with whom we disagree and (2) to avoid the "circular firing squads". (Ellsion also said that he made a mistaken making critical comments about Juan Williams -- and stated that he should have used Williams' comments for an opportunity to open up a discussion).
- SRC--Mpls
October 30, 2010 at 12:13pm
SRC: Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan are my favorite Senators because they are smart fiscal conservatives. I tried to move to North Dakota, alas now stuck in real estate hell here, while ND now has a severe housing shortage. But Dorgan is retiring. Conrad is on the ballot in 2012. I added him to the list of the Dems facing re-election in 2012 from states that usually vote GOP. In North Dakota, fiscal discipline is #1. Just because someone was an early endorser of Obama does not mean they will stick with the Senate Dems, or Obama. (I voted for Obama in the primary because I did not want another Clinton to lose Congress again, plus Hillary was a mediocre Senator - no real substance) Maybe Conrad will also retire. I just do not know enough about the Farmer-Populist 'wing' of the Democratic Party. I am too horrified that the big tent that seemed to be recreating FDR's coalition is now crashing and burning, and, in New York, the Dems are using 'protecting abortion rights' as their major theme. It is like the bizarro world version of the GOP when the social conservatives ruled. I hope more Dems follow Ellison's lead, to LISTEN to those who disagree - enough of the reaching out to hammer us into obedience:) Minnesota usually forces bi-partisanship, or at minimum, civility. I am tired of being called names when I disagree with the party meme. and really sad the Blue Dogs are so despised by the liberals. In Obama's campaign website, the Blue Dog Group was like three people. Then Glenn Greenwald started a PAC to rid the Dems of the Blue Dogs. And now the Dems lose the Blue Dogs, and their majority. no one ever seems to learn from history.
- K2K
October 30, 2010 at 11:35pm