Because it's 2012 and everyone with a D next to their name, if elected, will vote the same way every other D votes. There's virtually no such thing as a 'Blue Dog' Democrat anymore.
This is a preposterous and easily disproved statement simply by looking at anything the left-wing of the Democratic Party has pressed in the last 30 years and borders on projection, as it actually does apply in the reverse to the Republicans. But whatever.
I get it, I really do. You're trying to learn from your left-wing counterparts along with the new class of upstart forum right-wingers like Vosem and Koenkai in the "speaking authoritatively as if your opinions are self evidently true and thus require no explanation" school of posting. But it helps to actually be correct when you do so.
The large majority of Democrats in the Senate vote with their party more than 90% of the time. The large majority of Republicans in the Senate vote with their party less than 90% of the time.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/senate/members/
Mark Warner of Virginia
Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Bill Nelson of Florida
Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Now the GOP are the ones who hate cooperation. They primaried Dick Lugar and tried to do the same Orrin Hatch because they worked across the aisle. They tried to get rid of John McCain in 2010 too and are planning on doing the same to Lindsay Graham. Olympia Snowe couldn't stand her party anymore and refused re-election. Lugar's would-be successor is running against a Blue Dog and says that bi-partisanship is Democrats coming over to the GOP side and doing what they want. Your claim is preposterous.
I was talking about partisan uniformity in voting, not bipartisan cooperation or lack thereof. Did you look at the link?
