Where conservative Democratic reps come from

by: plf515

Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 8:44 PM EDT

Today, I look at districts with conservative Democrats as representatives

SSP Daily Digest: 3/13

by: Crisitunity

Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM EDT

• NV-Sen, NV-Gov: The GOP is running out of options for a good challenger to Harry Reid. Former state senator Joe Heck (who lost his Las Vegas-area seat last year) has decided to run in the GOP primary against chronically embattled governor Jim Gibbons instead. (Although if Heck is going against Gibbons, what is Rep. Dean Heller planning to do then?) With ex-Rep. Jon Porter taking the K Street route and Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki under indictment, the GOP's Nevada bench is nearly empty.

• PA-Sen: Joe Torsella won't have the Democratic primary in the Pennsylvania senate race to himself. State Rep. Josh Shapiro, a 35-year-old reform-minded legislator from the Philadelphia suburbs, is now exploring the race. This may be a tea leaf that Rep. Allyson Schwartz isn't getting in the primary, as Shapiro (who's in PA-13) would likely run for Schwartz's seat instead if it were going to be open.

• CA-32: EMILY's List has weighed in in the CA-32 primary, and they're endorsing... believe it or not... the woman in the race: Board of Equalization chair Judy Chu. Chu's main competition is state senator Gil Cedillo, who comes in with the endorsement of nearby House members like Xavier Becerra, Linda Sanchez, and Grace Napolitano (Hilda Solis, who used to occupy CA-32, hasn't endorsed). The district is about 65% Hispanic and 20% Asian.

• NH-01, NH-02: We're looking at a crowded field for Republican opponents to Carol Shea-Porter: John Stephen, who barely lost the primary last time to ex-Rep. Jeb Bradley, is eyeing the race, as is Manchester mayor Frank Guinta. Businessman Jim Wieczorek also plans to run. Meanwhile, next door in the open NH-02, radio host Jennifer Horn says there's a good chance she'll run again in 2010.  

• FL-22: State house majority leader Adam Hasner has been launching a series of attacks on Rep. Ron Klein over EFCA... is this a preview of the 2010 race? (It's a Dem-leaning district, but Klein's 2008 victory margin wasn't impressive.)

• Votes: Also on the EFCA front, Campaign Diaries has an impressively thorough chart head-counting the positions staked out by all the Democratic senators (and potential GOP votes).

• Blue Dogs: After lifting their self-imposed 20%-of-the-Dem-caucus cap to expand to 51 members, the Blue Dogs are talking about growing again, to 56 members. No word on who that might be (although the door's apparently open to Scott Murphy if he wins).

• NRSC: Roll Call is running a story today with the banner headline "McConnell Criticizes GOP for Lack of Diversity." What's next? "Sanders Criticizes KFC for Serving Chicken?"

Where's the Pivot Point?

by: Crisitunity

Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 1:24 PM EDT

There are several things wrong with my proposition, though: first, 435 is a lot larger than 9, and there are a lot of transitory coalitions that form around various topics, so the spectrum isn't always very clear. You aren't even going to get aggregators to agree on who goes in what slot (ask National Journal, they'll tell you that #218 is Mike McIntyre; ask Progressive Punch and they'll tell it's Charlie Melancon).

More importantly, just as Matt Stoller mentioned yesterday in regards to 60 as the 'magic number' in the Senate, there aren't very many votes where it actually comes down to the bare minimum. Even controversial things tend to pass by a sizable margin once the initial haggling shakes out (the most recent Iraq Supplemental passed 268-155, and the FISA Amendments passed 293-129); actual 218-217 votes are almost unheard of. As he sagely pointed out, the key is to build the coalitions and implement the infrastructure that allow progressives to control the discursive arena in Congress regardless of actual numbers so that the progressive POV becomes more of an institutional inevitability.

Nevertheless, some of that sense of the 'possible' within that discursive arena is directly influenced by the seat count. Think back to the backstory behind the FISA vote last week: a lot of Dems voted with leadership, but leadership's hand wasn't forced by a widespread popular uprising, just by the 21 Blue Dogs who signed the January letter of intent to jump on board the Republicans' discharge petition. We'll probably never know who those 21 signatories were (although, given the spectrum in the House, one can assume it included Mahoney, McIntyre, and Melancon), but it's clear they turned the tide on the FISA amendments. Looking at the pivot point, Pelosi could have safely ignored 12 Blue Dogs (233 - 12 = 221), but she couldn't safely ignore 21 (233 - 21 = 212).

What if, on the other hand, there weren't fewer Blue Dogs, but rather more Progressives in seats that are currently occupied by moderate (or, in a few possibilities, extreme) Republicans? If there were only 7 more Democrats, all Progressive or New Dem, then Pelosi also could have ignored the 21 Blue Dogs (240 - 21 = 219). Now, of course, this is pure speculation that only 21 Dems would have signed the discharge petition, but my point stands that it would take only a few more net Progressives to move the core Blue Dogs past the pivot point and thus out of the House's driver's seat (or at least out of reach of the steering wheel). In shorter words, the goal for the 111th Congress needs to be: Progressives + New Dems > Blue Dogs + Republicans.

More over the flip (including many tables)...

MS-01: A Memo to the Blue Dog Coalition

by: James L.

Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 6:00 AM EDT

That was awfully nice of them, but how meaningful is their endorsement? Let's take a look at Childers' fundraising so far and see how many Blue Dogs have sent donations to Childers:

And no donations from the Blue Dog PAC, either. With the exceptions of Reps. Melancon, Taylor, and Tanner (the latter of which actually took the time to campaign with Childers), this is a pretty pathetic show of support from the Blue Dogs in an extremely winnable race, especially when you consider just how flush with cash the Blue Dogs are.

When Blue Dogs and their allies keep telling us that Democrats need to compete in the South to succeed as a party, how can we possibly take them seriously if they won't even put their money where their mouths are? Here we have an extremely viable race with an economically populist, socially conservative candidate in Travis Childers leading the charge. Yet, the Blue Dogs have mostly ignored him. What gives?

Granted, several members of the Blue Dog Coalition are facing tough re-election fights, and I wouldn't expect them to be parting with any cash-on-hand at this point in time. But the vast majority of these members are not facing daunting re-election campaigns, and I would hope that they would loosen their purse strings and contribute $2000 (the maximum allowable amount from a member's campaign account) or more if they have a leadership PAC to help Childers replenish his war chest. As he gears up to take on Republican Greg Davis one more time in the face of what will likely be fierce NRCC and 527 opposition, he's going to need all the help he can get.

Blue Dogs: it's time to step up to the plate.