Blue Dogs

[osideguy92]

In my view, there's a much more subtle ideological cleansing going on within the Democratic Party as opposed to the all-out civil war the GOP is enduring. In the last two elections, the Blue Dogs have seen their numbers slashed from 54 in 2009 (about 21% of the entire House Democratic Caucus) to about 13 in 2013 (about 6-7%). Meanwhile, the Third Way New Democrat Network has remained relatively static, at about 40-42 members since 2009, while the Progressive Caucus has not dwindled at all, and is at 76 seats in the new Congress (38% of the entire caucus). The Progressive Caucus is slowly but surely overtaking the Blue Dogs and New Democrats as the main power brokers within the Democratic Party in the House.

[smoltchanov]

In my view, there's a much more subtle ideological cleansing going on within the Democratic Party as opposed to the all-out civil war the GOP is enduring. In the last two elections, the Blue Dogs have seen their numbers slashed from 54 in 2009 (about 21% of the entire House Democratic Caucus) to about 13 in 2013 (about 6-7%). Meanwhile, the Third Way New Democrat Network has remained relatively static, at about 40-42 members since 2009, while the Progressive Caucus has not dwindled at all, and is at 76 seats in the new Congress (38% of the entire caucus). The Progressive Caucus is slowly but surely overtaking the Blue Dogs and New Democrats as the main power brokers within the Democratic Party in the House.

Sure. And the reason is quite simple: vast majority of Progressive Caucus comes from very reliable Democratic districts and thus - almost immune even from "wave" years, which decimated Blue Dogs in 2010, and most of the "realignments" too. In addition- coming usually from Democratic states (or being preserved by VRA in some cases) they are better defended against possible redistricting problems too. The same - on Republican side: their very few remaining moderates usually come from Democratic-leaning states and thus are very vulnerable. "Solid conservatives" - much less so.

[adma]

Even such parties as "Yabloko (Apple)", which are considered "right" in Russia, are, essentially social-democratic. So, it's not surprising, that those, who are strongly opposed  to "powers that be" (and that "were" before) in Russia are, usually, extremely anti-communist (and anti-socialist) as well. That's absolutely true for me, and in that aspect i am really very far right.

Actually, from a Western perspective, to categorize Yabloko or figureheads like Havel in Czechoslovakia as "right" simply because they were anti-Communist/Soviet/whatever is a little farfetched--indeed, it simply points out the absurdity of using such Soviet-conditioned political infrastructures to frame the left vs right argument...

[smoltchanov]

Even such parties as "Yabloko (Apple)", which are considered "right" in Russia, are, essentially social-democratic. So, it's not surprising, that those, who are strongly opposed  to "powers that be" (and that "were" before) in Russia are, usually, extremely anti-communist (and anti-socialist) as well. That's absolutely true for me, and in that aspect i am really very far right.

Actually, from a Western perspective, to categorize Yabloko or figureheads like Havel in Czechoslovakia as "right" simply because they were anti-Communist/Soviet/whatever is a little farfetched--indeed, it simply points out the absurdity of using such Soviet-conditioned political infrastructures to frame the left vs right argument...

I will not dispute that. but everyone is based on his experience, isn't he? So, i, for example, is absolutely not surprised, that "Russian Jews" in US vote the way more similar to older Cubans, then any other groups. Religion plays it's part (especially - among Orthodox Jews, who are almost always more conservative then other), but common strong anti-communism and anti-socialism is based in common past)))

P.S. But we are going heavily off-topic from initial subject of our discussions here)))

[Frodo]

Meanwhile, the Third Way New Democrat Network has remained relatively static, at about 40-42 members since 2009.

Incorrect -they are currently at just around 40 members right now, but after January they will be at 52. 

[adma]

I will not dispute that. but everyone is based on his experience, isn't he? So, i, for example, is absolutely not surprised, that "Russian Jews" in US vote the way more similar to older Cubans, then any other groups. Religion plays it's part (especially - among Orthodox Jews, who are almost always more conservative then other), but common strong anti-communism and anti-socialism is based in common past)))

Frankly, I find that to be a cartoon "anti-communism/anti-socialism".  And to frame it as "moderation" is like some Russian tycoon investor emigre framing his grossly overdecorated McMansion as an emblem of his "sophistication and good taste".

Though to get back on-topic re the US and "moderation", Blue Dogs or whatever: of course, one can hark back to that underrated moment in US politics that was the Ross Perot presidential campaign in 1992 (and to a lesser degree, 1996)...

[Vosem]

I will not dispute that. but everyone is based on his experience, isn't he? So, i, for example, is absolutely not surprised, that "Russian Jews" in US vote the way more similar to older Cubans, then any other groups. Religion plays it's part (especially - among Orthodox Jews, who are almost always more conservative then other), but common strong anti-communism and anti-socialism is based in common past)))

Frankly, I find that to be a cartoon "anti-communism/anti-socialism". 

Whether you find it cartoonish or not, that's actually how we vote, buddy.

[adma]

Whether you find it cartoonish or not, that's actually how we vote, buddy.

I'm speaking more of the Russian/Cuban cases in point, which are borderline "we won't vote Obama because he's a communist and a socialist and we came to America to escape communism and socialism".  And even if it's the way *they* vote, it's scarcely "moderate", as per this thread.

[smoltchanov]

Whether you find it cartoonish or not, that's actually how we vote, buddy.

I'm speaking more of the Russian/Cuban cases in point, which are borderline "we won't vote Obama because he's a communist and a socialist and we came to America to escape communism and socialism".  And even if it's the way *they* vote, it's scarcely "moderate", as per this thread.

Well, Vosem is correct in that it's extremely difficult for, say, Russian to vote for anything that smacks "socialist" in US. That may be cartoonish, but so we are raised by Soviet system: it's a sort of reflex for those, who are born and raised in Russia and didn't became "loyal soldiers of system". And i will not repeat MY personal "basic tenets" - IMHO, they are pretty moderate (by AMERICAN standards). Somewhere of Olympia Snowe - Angus King type))). My early model was Charles Mathias (though he was a Republican)))). Not so bad?)))

But let's return to Blue Dogs, please)))

[adma]

If you're "far right" by Russian standards, then I don't know where that puts the Vladimir Zhirinovsky types.

[smoltchanov]

If you're "far right" by Russian standards, then I don't know where that puts the Vladimir Zhirinovsky types.

Off-topic: I am not "populist", unlike him. By Russian standards: "a civilized western right-winger". While he is a mixture of left and right populist with elements  of fascist  (i am, surely, strongly anti-fascist))))

[adma]

Which leaves me wondering whether we should be using a different framework than "left vs right"--after all, Zhirinovsky's US equivalents tend to distinctly *not* be in the Dem/left realm (except, maybe, in the race-based populism of Marion Barry, Al Sharpton, etc).

Anyway, in the midst of this diversion, my invocation of Perot's "radical middle" populism has been lost in the shuffle--indeed, I find the wild-card Perot factor is what made 1992 the most fascinating presidential election in the past quarter century.  (Though 1992's Perot pull was more t/w what I'd call "Obama Republicans", i.e. those in the Midwest and West that swung Dem-ward in 2008--in 1996, though, it was more Blue-Doggy, w/some of his biggest numbers being in heretofore-Perot-fallow West Virginia...)

[smoltchanov]

Which leaves me wondering whether we should be using a different framework than "left vs right"--after all, Zhirinovsky's US equivalents tend to distinctly *not* be in the Dem/left realm (except, maybe, in the race-based populism of Marion Barry, Al Sharpton, etc).

Anyway, in the midst of this diversion, my invocation of Perot's "radical middle" populism has been lost in the shuffle--indeed, I find the wild-card Perot factor is what made 1992 the most fascinating presidential election in the past quarter century.  (Though 1992's Perot pull was more t/w what I'd call "Obama Republicans", i.e. those in the Midwest and West that swung Dem-ward in 2008--in 1996, though, it was more Blue-Doggy, w/some of his biggest numbers being in heretofore-Perot-fallow West Virginia...)

Agree. If he wouldn't stop his campaign for very long time in 1992 - election that year could be most interesting of all i had to observe..