Nate Silver has the best breakdown I've seen on liberals needing Blue
Dogs more than they'd like to admit. Of the 39 Democratic reps in the
House who occupy districts scored as near toss-ups, only three Dems
voted against the caucus on each of the party's three big issues this
year: the stimulus package, cap and trade and health care reform:
The fact is that Nancy Pelosi has managed to cobble together a majority on these core priorities -- but by about the slimmest possible margins on health care and cap-and-trade (and if the stimulus bill were being voted on today, it would probably be equally close). She's been able to do so precisely because the Blue Dogs do not in fact vote as a bloc; most are pliable to one degree or another on at least some progressive priorities, if unreliable on others. Are the bills that emerged from the House as strong as progressives were hoping for? Certainly not. But I fail to see how Peolsi compromised any more than she basically needed to, or how the bills would have become stronger if you'd replaced these Democrats with Republicans.I get the anger from the liberal base over the ass-dragging from moderates. Much of it is self-inflicted idiocy, with Blue Dogs figuring the best way to appear sober and serious is to cower when faced with blatantly false attacks from the right. But it's also an indication of just how toxic the liberal brand is in many parts of the country. Over the last couple years we saw an electoral sea change. That shouldn't be mistaken for an ideological sea change.
