Do Blue Dog Democrats Still Exist?

[DeSantis4Prez]

I am wondering if y'all feel they still exist today?

[darklordoftech]

Manchin is one.

[Lechasseur]

John Bel Edwards I think is one too, at any rate he's a conservative Democrat

[Strudelcutie4427]

Outside Peterson, Cuellar, and maybe Lipinski and Lynch probably not

[lfromnj]

Outside Peterson, Cuellar, and maybe Lipinski and Lynch probably not

Mcadams and Van Drew should be close too. Also Brindisi was pretty moderate. have to wait about the newcomers.

[Adam Griffin]

When you say "exist", who do you mean? Elected officials or voters?

In either case, yes: it of course depends on how you define it, but in the congressional caucus, the Blue Dogs gained members this cycle and gained members as a share of the Democratic caucus. The further down-ballot you go, the more prevalent they become. Rural areas throughout the South and Midwest are still littered with conservative Democrats (with the former area still having way more elected Democrats than you might think; akin to local GOP representation in the NE).

As far as voters go, ditto: I'd say anywhere from 20-25% of Democratic voters could be put into this category, depending on which issues and what ideological flavors you want to ascribe to the term.

[smoltchanov]

When you say "exist", who do you mean? Elected officials or voters?

In either case, yes: it of course depends on how you define it, but in the congressional caucus, the Blue Dogs gained members this cycle and gained members as a share of the Democratic caucus. The further down-ballot you go, the more prevalent they become. Rural areas throughout the South and Midwest are still littered with conservative Democrats (with the former area still having way more elected Democrats than you might think; akin to local GOP representation in the NE).

As far as voters go, ditto: I'd say anywhere from 20-25% of Democratic voters could be put into this category, depending on which issues and what ideological flavors you want to ascribe to the term.

Generally agree. But, as i said many times, term "conservative Democrat" doesn't mean now what it meant 30-40 years ago. It's became a "relative" term. Manchin and Lynch were mentioned by some here as "conservative Democrats" while in reality Manchin is a centrist, and Lynch - pragmatic moderate liberal. Even Peterson and Cuellar are no more then "slightly right-of-center" (and thus - generally centrist) guys. Let's take Georgia's examples only. And let's leave alone Larry McDonald, he was in his own calss. Take Maston O'Neal and  John Flynt as "more normal".. I am absolutely sure, that no Democrat in Georgia state legislature now stands close to them, and even if we add states, that still elect more conservative Democrats to their legislatures (Louisiana and Mississippi, for example), where real "moderate conservatives" (at least) still exist - not sure even then.

[Skunk]

They still exist, sure, but do they have any political leverage? Not really. The Democratic party is thankfully moving away from the center.

[smoltchanov]

They still exist, sure, but do they have any political leverage? Not really. The Democratic party is thankfully moving away from the center.

Foolishly, not thankfully.

[Person Man]

They still exist, sure, but do they have any political leverage? Not really. The Democratic party is thankfully moving away from the center.

So yeah. There are probably at most like 5 or 6 house members on the D side that are anywhere right of center at all. Which is great. I think they are operating with enough votes on most issues.


In the senate, I don't think there really is any Democrat right of the center. Manchin is in Kamakazee mode and Casey has moved from being slight right of center to being a rank and file Dem for the most part.

[RINO Tom]

As has been said, it will always depend on one's definition.  There is a (not necessarily well-argued) case to be made, depending on your viewpoint, that Joe Manchin is a standard liberal who acts folksy or a conservative DINO.  However, regardless of one's viewpoint - whether it's Reaganfan's imaginings of what the average Democrat is like or Icespear's about Republicans - there are almost always more moderate, less ideologically driven voters in each party than is usually talked about.  Opinion polls on abortion (20-30% of Democrats and Republicans disagreeing with their party's stance on this "litmus test" issue) is a good example of this.

[smoltchanov]

As has been said, it will always depend on one's definition.  There is a (not necessarily well-argued) case to be made, depending on your viewpoint, that Joe Manchin is a standard liberal who acts folksy or a conservative DINO.  However, regardless of one's viewpoint - whether it's Reaganfan's imaginings of what the average Democrat is like or Icespear's about Republicans - there are almost always more moderate, less ideologically driven voters in each party than is usually talked about.  Opinion polls on abortion (20-30% of Democrats and Republicans disagreeing with their party's stance on this "litmus test" issue) is a good example of this.

Absolutely. The problem is this 20-30% group of "party dissidents" is much less organized and much less electorally active, then "radical activists" in BOTH parties..

[Zaybay]

It depends on what you mean by Blue Dogs. If you mean the classic 1990s ones, there are probably 3-5 in the D party right now. If you are talking current Blue Dogs, then you have 20ish. All depends on how you define it.


Also, the Blue Dogs dont make up 20-30% of the D base. Thats just laughable. If we are to go by the amount of Conservatives in the D party, its around 10-13%, and thats being rather generous.


Also, those "Radical Activists" are also known as the majority of both parties. The dissenters are closer to the radical element in the party.

[smoltchanov]

Also, those "Radical Activists" are also known as the majority of both parties. The dissenters are closer to the radical element in the party.

Sadly - they are, indeed, a majority in present day shameful parties.  That doesn't make them less radical. And less idiotic too...

[Bidenworth2020]

Also, those "Radical Activists" are also known as the majority of both parties. The dissenters are closer to the radical element in the party.

Sadly - they are, indeed, a majority in present day shameful parties.  That doesn't make them less radical. And less idiotic too...

The funny part about dems is that the "base" will elect moderates in primaries (Obama, Biden, Beto)

[smoltchanov]

Also, those "Radical Activists" are also known as the majority of both parties. The dissenters are closer to the radical element in the party.

Sadly - they are, indeed, a majority in present day shameful parties.  That doesn't make them less radical. And less idiotic too...

The funny part about dems is that the "base" will elect moderates in primaries (Obama, Biden, Beto)

None of these is less, then standard liberal, to me.

[Bidenworth2020]

Also, those "Radical Activists" are also known as the majority of both parties. The dissenters are closer to the radical element in the party.

Sadly - they are, indeed, a majority in present day shameful parties.  That doesn't make them less radical. And less idiotic too...

The funny part about dems is that the "base" will elect moderates in primaries (Obama, Biden, Beto)

None of these is less, then standard liberal, to me.

At least Beto votes with Trump 28% of the time.

[Zaybay]

Also, those "Radical Activists" are also known as the majority of both parties. The dissenters are closer to the radical element in the party.

Sadly - they are, indeed, a majority in present day shameful parties.  That doesn't make them less radical. And less idiotic too...

The funny part about dems is that the "base" will elect moderates in primaries (Obama, Biden, Beto)

Slow down there, chief. You got to remember some historical context for Obama. Back in 2008, he wasnt considered the moderate, he was considered the Left's choice, a darling Progressive, a new face against the Moderate Clinton. Him being considered moderate today is more of a statement on how things have changed, not how Obama ran in 2008.

Also, we havent had the presidential primary for 2020 yet, neither Biden nor Beto have been chosen for the D primary.

[lfromnj]

Also, those "Radical Activists" are also known as the majority of both parties. The dissenters are closer to the radical element in the party.

Sadly - they are, indeed, a majority in present day shameful parties.  That doesn't make them less radical. And less idiotic too...

The funny part about dems is that the "base" will elect moderates in primaries (Obama, Biden, Beto)

Slow down there, chief. You got to remember some historical context for Obama. Back in 2008, he wasnt considered the moderate, he was considered the Left's choice, a darling Progressive, a new face against the Moderate Clinton. Him being considered moderate today is more of a statement on how things have changed, not how Obama ran in 2008.

Also, we havent had the presidential primary for 2020 yet, neither Biden nor Beto have been chosen for the D primary.

wasn't John edwards the progressive?
I remember reading something about how he had to stand out as a white man .

[Zaybay]

Also, those "Radical Activists" are also known as the majority of both parties. The dissenters are closer to the radical element in the party.

Sadly - they are, indeed, a majority in present day shameful parties.  That doesn't make them less radical. And less idiotic too...

The funny part about dems is that the "base" will elect moderates in primaries (Obama, Biden, Beto)

Slow down there, chief. You got to remember some historical context for Obama. Back in 2008, he wasnt considered the moderate, he was considered the Left's choice, a darling Progressive, a new face against the Moderate Clinton. Him being considered moderate today is more of a statement on how things have changed, not how Obama ran in 2008.

Also, we havent had the presidential primary for 2020 yet, neither Biden nor Beto have been chosen for the D primary.

wasn't John edwards the progressive?
I remember reading something about how he had to stand out as a white man .

True, but he fizzled out after NH. Obama was, in 2008, considered the Left Challenger, only being a senator for 2 years before running, to Hillary, the Moderate Establishment(to use some more modern terms)

[RINO Tom]

Also, those "Radical Activists" are also known as the majority of both parties. The dissenters are closer to the radical element in the party.

Sadly - they are, indeed, a majority in present day shameful parties.  That doesn't make them less radical. And less idiotic too...

The funny part about dems is that the "base" will elect moderates in primaries (Obama, Biden, Beto)

Yeah, and the GOP base - which, despite current narrative, is not a different group of people now than it was in 2008 - nominated both McCain and Romney ... and then Trump.  The Democratic electorate has nominated non-centrist candidates before, and it will again (possibly in 2020, but more likely its next time around once it's experienced some power).

[smoltchanov]

Also, those "Radical Activists" are also known as the majority of both parties. The dissenters are closer to the radical element in the party.

Sadly - they are, indeed, a majority in present day shameful parties.  That doesn't make them less radical. And less idiotic too...

The funny part about dems is that the "base" will elect moderates in primaries (Obama, Biden, Beto)

None of these is less, then standard liberal, to me.

At least Beto votes with Trump 28% of the time.

And that's normal. I guess most conservatives of FDR's days voted for many of his anti-crisis programs too, and percentage was generally similar.  Even most consistent liberals and conservatives agree on some issues...

[Don Vito Corleone]

When you say "exist", who do you mean? Elected officials or voters?

In either case, yes: it of course depends on how you define it, but in the congressional caucus, the Blue Dogs gained members this cycle and gained members as a share of the Democratic caucus. The further down-ballot you go, the more prevalent they become. Rural areas throughout the South and Midwest are still littered with conservative Democrats (with the former area still having way more elected Democrats than you might think; akin to local GOP representation in the NE).

As far as voters go, ditto: I'd say anywhere from 20-25% of Democratic voters could be put into this category, depending on which issues and what ideological flavors you want to ascribe to the term.

Generally agree. But, as i said many times, term "conservative Democrat" doesn't mean now what it meant 30-40 years ago. It's became a "relative" term. Manchin and Lynch were mentioned by some here as "conservative Democrats" while in reality Manchin is a centrist, and Lynch - pragmatic moderate liberal. Even Peterson and Cuellar are no more then "slightly right-of-center" (and thus - generally centrist) guys. Let's take Georgia's examples only. And let's leave alone Larry McDonald, he was in his own calss. Take Maston O'Neal and  John Flynt as "more normal".. I am absolutely sure, that no Democrat in Georgia state legislature now stands close to them, and even if we add states, that still elect more conservative Democrats to their legislatures (Louisiana and Mississippi, for example), where real "moderate conservatives" (at least) still exist - not sure even then.

I agree 100%. 10 or 20 years ago, you had people in the Blue Dog Caucus who would probably be in the Freedom Caucus today, and even more people who were merely pragmatic Conservatives. Today almost everyone in the Blue Dog Caucus is merely "Conservative for Democrats".

[Adam Griffin]

When you say "exist", who do you mean? Elected officials or voters?

In either case, yes: it of course depends on how you define it, but in the congressional caucus, the Blue Dogs gained members this cycle and gained members as a share of the Democratic caucus. The further down-ballot you go, the more prevalent they become. Rural areas throughout the South and Midwest are still littered with conservative Democrats (with the former area still having way more elected Democrats than you might think; akin to local GOP representation in the NE).

As far as voters go, ditto: I'd say anywhere from 20-25% of Democratic voters could be put into this category, depending on which issues and what ideological flavors you want to ascribe to the term.

Generally agree. But, as i said many times, term "conservative Democrat" doesn't mean now what it meant 30-40 years ago. It's became a "relative" term. Manchin and Lynch were mentioned by some here as "conservative Democrats" while in reality Manchin is a centrist, and Lynch - pragmatic moderate liberal. Even Peterson and Cuellar are no more then "slightly right-of-center" (and thus - generally centrist) guys. Let's take Georgia's examples only. And let's leave alone Larry McDonald, he was in his own calss. Take Maston O'Neal and  John Flynt as "more normal".. I am absolutely sure, that no Democrat in Georgia state legislature now stands close to them, and even if we add states, that still elect more conservative Democrats to their legislatures (Louisiana and Mississippi, for example), where real "moderate conservatives" (at least) still exist - not sure even then.

I'm definitely not referring to moderates, at least when discussing random local elected officials scattered throughout these places. When you get down to county sheriffs, commissioners, coroners and the like who hold elected office in the rural Deep South under the Democratic label, you'll find many who are barely distinguishable at all from modern Republicans - on both economic and cultural lines. Pro-life, pro-law enforcement, fiscally conservative, highly Christian, anti-immigrant, etc.

Of course, the main reason these people still exist is because of strategic decisions: this is how they've always been able to get elected in these rural Southern areas (via the Democratic primary) and nobody likes to jump ship and upset the apple cart until/unless they have to jump. A good example (at least as of a few years ago) were those maps I made showing which party held more local offices in each county throughout the region. Outside of federal/statewide offices, there are still a lot of elected Democrats who I'd say pass for legitimate conservative Democrats.

[smoltchanov]

When you say "exist", who do you mean? Elected officials or voters?

In either case, yes: it of course depends on how you define it, but in the congressional caucus, the Blue Dogs gained members this cycle and gained members as a share of the Democratic caucus. The further down-ballot you go, the more prevalent they become. Rural areas throughout the South and Midwest are still littered with conservative Democrats (with the former area still having way more elected Democrats than you might think; akin to local GOP representation in the NE).

As far as voters go, ditto: I'd say anywhere from 20-25% of Democratic voters could be put into this category, depending on which issues and what ideological flavors you want to ascribe to the term.

Generally agree. But, as i said many times, term "conservative Democrat" doesn't mean now what it meant 30-40 years ago. It's became a "relative" term. Manchin and Lynch were mentioned by some here as "conservative Democrats" while in reality Manchin is a centrist, and Lynch - pragmatic moderate liberal. Even Peterson and Cuellar are no more then "slightly right-of-center" (and thus - generally centrist) guys. Let's take Georgia's examples only. And let's leave alone Larry McDonald, he was in his own calss. Take Maston O'Neal and  John Flynt as "more normal".. I am absolutely sure, that no Democrat in Georgia state legislature now stands close to them, and even if we add states, that still elect more conservative Democrats to their legislatures (Louisiana and Mississippi, for example), where real "moderate conservatives" (at least) still exist - not sure even then.

I'm definitely not referring to moderates, at least when discussing random local elected officials scattered throughout these places. When you get down to county sheriffs, commissioners, coroners and the like who hold elected office in the rural Deep South under the Democratic label, you'll find many who are barely distinguishable at all from modern Republicans - on both economic and cultural lines. Pro-life, pro-law enforcement, fiscally conservative, highly Christian, anti-immigrant, etc.

Of course, the main reason these people still exist is because of strategic decisions: this is how they've always been able to get elected in these rural Southern areas (via the Democratic primary) and nobody likes to jump ship and upset the apple cart until/unless they have to jump. A good example (at least as of a few years ago) were those maps I made showing which party held more local offices in each county throughout the region. Outside of federal/statewide offices, there are still a lot of elected Democrats who I'd say pass for legitimate conservative Democrats.

I believe when you talk about sheriffs and coroners. But, please, tell me the name of 1 (one) present day Democratic state legislator in Georgia, who is as conservative as O'Neal or Flynt were.