The problems with the Blue Dogs is that they were not economically populist enough while obviously being eclipsed in socially conservative populism by the Republicans-causing many voters to vote for the "real thing" who at least was loudly pro-life and pro "traditional marriage". What if the Blue Dogs had been calling for expanding vocational education rather than voting to repeal the estate tax?
The Blue Dogs' economic polices were incoherent. In the "old days" of the Solid South, the Democrats were first and foremost advocates for their local economies; the liberal and conservative Democrats split on how forcefully to advocate for the welfare state and how much money should be allocated to it.
It boggles my mind that you had Democrats in the Deep South voting against financial regulation post-2008. It makes sense to do so if you're a NY/NJ/CT Democrat from a silk stocking district. But the people of Alabama have nothing to gain from leaving derivatives markets unregulated. They don't work on Wall Street. Their local industry isn't sinking or swimming based on that.
Precisely my point. If both candidates are pro Wall Street you might as well go with the pro-life one or the one endorsed by the NRA.
Somewhere along the line being a "Blue Dog" went from being "socially conservative and economically populist" to "conservative on everything". So yeah, if you have two candidates who are conservative on everything, why vote for the one who will vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker?
