Reply #17: Well terms aside... [View All]

[kenfrequed]

Some democrats jumped right and the DLC was sort of in it's heyday adopting repuke terms and ideas that seemed possibly tactically wise but strategically foolish.

The Democrats that switched did so because they thought the challenge from the right would be too great and most of THOSE democrats actually were in districts that were tough. The modern 'Blue dogs' would have far less luck as most of them would be seen as converso-Rinos and ambitious ideologically pure Republicans would wheel out their voting records to overthrow them.

Most Blue dogs are actually from competetive or blue states and they make good trade on the Democratic brand name. Most of them vote the way they do because of campaign contributions and similar connections. They would not make it as republicans because the Republican brand is not popular enough and they can't appeal to enough voters to make switching worthwhile. Many trust to the 'logic' that no democrat would risk a primary/convention battle to get rid of an incumbant for fear of a wild eyed conservative taking power afterwards.


There is also a certain 'fighting the last war' mentality that you find with some of these politicians. The few that have been in for a long time are convinced that the formula that got them elected the first time is the only way to run, vote, sleep, eat, and dance. This extends beyond the conservative democrats and DLC to even nominally moderate candidates (at least socally) like Steny Hoyer. The impulse to ignore seismic changes in the political spectrum is something that causes a certain amount of drag on real attempts at change or reform.

I would also point out that many of the Blue Dogs enjoy their position as being the belle of the ball. Progressives and Democratic wing Democrats have to cajole and pressure and promise favors to maintain their vote and industries and lobbyists are aware of their loyalties and throw tons of money at these most bribable politicians.