I just spent a couple of hours comparing the results of

[Lydia Leftcoast]

the Progressive Caucus and the Blue Dogs.

Of the 61 members of the Progressive Caucus, only one was defeated, Horsford of Nevada. Holt, Moran, and Miller retired, but their districts stayed Democratic. Slaughter and Lowenthal are in tight races.

Of the 19 members of the Blue Dog Caucus, three were defeated (Gallego of Texas), Barrow, and Rahall, while Costa is trailing, and Barber is in a tight race. Mattheson, McIntyre, and Michaud did not run, but their former districts went Republican.

Hmmm...

Also, while playing around with the New York Times map of House races, I noticed that a distressing number of Republicans ran unopposed. Of all the Democratic candidates I looked at, only three were uncontested.

Hmmm....

[Kalidurga]

1. Thank you we need more people to do this and...

please make sure there is never again such a thing as an uncontested Republican even if it means dragging some pour shmuck out of an office and making him or her run. I am only sort of kidding on the making someone run.

[alp227]

2. Doesn't help that Horsford's district happens to include...the Bundy ranch. nt

[merrily]

3. Membership in the House Progressive Caucus is great, but legislation matters more.

I very much doubt a lot of America has heard of the House Progressive Caucus, let alone casting votes on the basis of who is or who is not a member.

FDR got elected four times, including when he was literally just about dead, then his VP, Truman, got elected. And FDR's success as President began decades of Democratic dominance in US national politics. Why? Because Americans felt a significant difference in the quality of their lives. We can argue whether it was FDR's policies or WWII that did the job of improving the economy, but, again, that is not something most Americans debate. We can also argue about FDR's motives, another thing most Americans of the time did not debate. We can also argue about the New Deal Coalition, but that is totally irrelevant.

Most Americans knew unquestionably that their lives and the lives of their friends and loved ones had improved immeasurably under FDR and that resulted in five consecutive Democratic Presidencies, ended when HST decided not to run again and a WWII hero, ran against a Democratic candidate to whom few could relate. (Adlai Stevenson was a brilliant man, but not a great candidate; and he was the one who ran against Ike both times.)

Another thing: In 2006, the members of the House Progressive Caucus numbered around 100, so its numbers have diminished too--and some of that diminution was the result of efforts by D.C. Democratic politicians. Also, check the ages of the members of the House Progressive Caucus--which, btw counts Senator Sanders among its members because there is NO Senate Progressive Caucus, only a Senate New Democrat (sic) Caucus.

Bottom line: Membership in a Progressive caucus is great. I do not knock it for a second. The voice of the House Progressive Caucus is critical. But passing legislation that noticeaby improves the lives of many Americans wins elections. Failing that, US voters will either stay home or keep alternating between Republicans and Democrats because they know they are not happy, but don't know the remedy. And, of course, with the way politics has been set up, only a few votes are ever in play anyway.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. How will people in red states ever hear of progressive ideas

if the Dems keep running Republican Lites?

The Dems need to go to those red states and LISTEN. Find out what people's real concerns are, not what the corporate media SAY their concerns are.

Did anyone in West Virginia run on punishing polluters? Or did the corporate contributors suppress that approach?

Stop sucking up to corporate donors and hold low-cost fundraisers, because really, you need votes more than money, and if you can get 1000 people willing to pay $5 each, that's actually more profitable than having one person pay $5000.

And seriously, what have the Blue Dogs done to "improve the lives of the American people" other than foist Mitt Romney's insurance program on them?

[merrily]

7. Apparently, you totally misread my post and are unaware of how much bashing I get from

this board's "center right" posters because I am decidedly not right or center right.

For starters, try reading the last paragraph of my Reply 5.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. How many of those in the Progressive Caucus are in safe Dem seats?

How many of the Blue Dog Caucus come from Republican-leaning seats?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. I do not know the history of these seats

That require more research than I can stand to do tonight.

[LeftInTX]

8. Gallego's district changes party hands frequently

It's a very purple district. It's a hodge podge of extremely conservative types and a sparse population on the border. He only lost by 1 percentage point. When he won in 2012, he won by only 1 percentage point. (His election in 2012 took a day to decide) I don't think his blue dog status had much to do with his loss tonight. I think midterm low turn out was a factor.

It's also a difficult district for a Democrat to win. One of the largest in terms of square miles in the US. It is a fairly conservative district with many active military, veterans, suburban types and ranchers. Most of the Democrats come from parts of San Antonio and another part come from Del Rio and Eagle Pass. For the most part, it is extremely rural and sparsely populated.

That district was Republican from 1992-2006. (The Republican who held the district was fairly conservative)

I regret that I had health problems this election and I couldn't phone bank for him like I did last election. I think we got through to a lot San Antonio voters in 2012

I also wonder how well his volunteer campaign staff was this year as compared to 2012. OFA helped more than President Obama in 2012.

(Sorry it's so long and full of information overload - LOL I'm strung out over this election fiasco and having to deal with Social Security Disability crap)

[MisterP]

9. same thing happened with the IWR: "they HAAAAD to vote to invade Iraq, or they'd LOOOSE"

then the "yea" voters lost at twice the rate as "nay" for over 4 years

it's almost like that was an ass-covering post-facto excuse