danivon wrote:A lot of the Blue Dogs are still there and panting.

Not quite:

In a fell swoop, the once-powerful Blue Dog caucus of conservative House Democrats was reduced from 54 members to 26 in Tuesday’s midterm election.

The caucus lost two members to retirement and two others who ran for higher office, and out of the remaining 50 members, 24 Blue Dogs lost.

As powerful as the 'leadership' were, they could not force the Blue Dogs to accept such a move.

Too many Democratic Senators in Red/Purple States.

Doctor Fate wrote:And, when was the last time a majority got whipped like that . . . and kept their leadership intact?

If I were to research this and find examples where the Democratic Party did exactly the same thing you would surely see that as confirmation of your thesis, not refutation of it. Therefore I'll review only the most recent instances where the GOP has lost control of the House.

2007: Hastert had been Speaker but resigned prior to the election, leaving John Boehner as the highest-ranking GOP member. Boehner succeeded to Minority Leader.
1955: GOP loses control; Joe Martin, who had been Speaker, remains as leader of the minority.
1949: ditto
1931: Nicholas Longworth, who had been Speaker, remains on as Minority Leader when the GOP loses control of the House.

That's pretty much four for four where the GOP did exactly what you just cited as some sort of evidence of ideological inflexibility. (An argument could be made that Boehner was a change agent, but not a strong one.) Perhaps none of these loses were as dramatic as 2010, though 1949 was rather large. Not included on my list is 1933 when the GOP went from a near-majority to a large minority. Bertrand Snell, who had succeeded Longworth to the post of Minority Leader after the latter's death, retained that post despite the GOP taking a huge beating at the polls. So we're really looking at five for five (or four for five).

I don't see this as evidence of ideological flexibility or inflexibility, or as ability or inability to adjust ideology to voter preference or changing times. I don't see it as evidence of much at all, except the weakness of your attribution of Pelosi's continuance to "ideology". If it was evidence of that, there's zero evidence that the GOP is less inclined to behave in exactly the same way.

You pull out these illustrations - who defects more - Pelosi retains post - without researching things to determine if your hunch or supposition is fact-based or merely an artifact of your partisan mode of perception. It turns out once again that what you're offering the readers of this thread is nothing more than your slanted, subjective, and not-too-well-informed interpretation of various phenomena.

BTW: I'm not suggesting that the Dems find it easier to alter or adjust ideology than the GOP or vice-versa. Party flexibility is an interesting question but would be tough to answer. It's also interesting that you'd imply that ideological inflexibility is a vice since "not sticking to strictly conservative principles" is a complaint I think you might have registered once or twice regarding the GOP.

Anyone wishing to double-check me can begin with THIS chart of control of the House and THIS list of officers.

Danivon,
Regarding the poll I had posted where Dems vote by party lines more than actual policy reasons somehow doesn't matter.

that shows what Democrat voters think, which is not the same as the party itself. They vote through loyalty, but that doesn't mean that they demand full loyalty from their reps. After all, seems a fair number of them vote for congressmen who 'defect' from the party in votes...

But if they vote for their party no matter how the representative votes, then that person has greater freedom to vote any way he wishes. I am in agreement the Democrats may very well be voting more independently due to this reason. Even so, the difference between loyalty is slim and the difference between voting for party regardless of actual policy is also slim. The difference between parties on this issue is pretty darned slim at best and hardly worth mentioning.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:A lot of the Blue Dogs are still there and panting.

Not quite

So, half of those who didn't retire are still there (we can argue what 'a lot' means, but it's pretty subjective), after a year in which the Dems got hammered in the elections, and where they tend to represent more marginal seats - or seats that are usually Republican anyway. Two of them sought higher office, and the Democrats backed them, rather than halting their ambition.

Looks to me like it wasn't the Democrats who pushed them out, rather the electorate.

I'm not sure how this demonstrates that the Democrats are more rigid and ideological than the Republicans.

By the way, you asked about the DLC (which is being disbanded). But what about it's GOP analogue, the RLC? Has it done anything since Steele left?

GMTom wrote:Even so, the difference between loyalty is slim and the difference between voting for party regardless of actual policy is also slim. The difference between parties on this issue is pretty darned slim at best and hardly worth mentioning.

Indeed. Which is why it is odd that Steve is so adamant that his view is right and that any evidence to the contrary can be ignored or rationalised away.

Minister X wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, when was the last time a majority got whipped like that . . . and kept their leadership intact?

If I were to research this and find examples where the Democratic Party did exactly the same thing you would surely see that as confirmation of your thesis, not refutation of it. Therefore I'll review only the most recent instances where the GOP has lost control of the House.

2007: Hastert had been Speaker but resigned prior to the election, leaving John Boehner as the highest-ranking GOP member. Boehner succeeded to Minority Leader.

In 2006, the Democrats won 31 seats. That is not a "whipping." I meant an historically significant shellacking.

In 1954, the Democrats picked up 19.

1948 is a good example, except it is also a Presidential election--which had, in this case, a serious impact.

The trick in 1930 was that the GOP actually held the majority after the election. Yes, AFTER the election. However, they lost a number of special elections and thus control. It wasn't quite the beat down we just saw.

The thrust of your argument: any win is a "whipping." I suppose I should spell out every word I use so you don't deconstruct something other than what I'm trying to communicate.

It's also interesting that you'd imply that ideological inflexibility is a vice since "not sticking to strictly conservative principles" is a complaint I think you might have registered once or twice regarding the GOP.

Or one or two million.

I am not implying ideological inflexibility is a vice. I am saying the view that the Democrats are a big tent is an illusion. Chuck Schumer and Chris Van Hollen (yes, I do pay attention) recruited many "moderate" Democrats to run in red/purple States/Districts. The result? They voted, for the most part, like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I don't care what anyone in either party says. I care about what they do.

danivon wrote:So, half of those who didn't retire are still there (we can argue what 'a lot' means, but it's pretty subjective), after a year in which the Dems got hammered in the elections, and where they tend to represent more marginal seats - or seats that are usually Republican anyway.

Percentage-wise, more Blue-Dogs lost and the reason is not mysterious. They had to vote to support their President and Leader, taking positions that middle of the road districts were unlikely to embrace.

I'm not sure how this demonstrates that the Democrats are more rigid and ideological than the Republicans.

They were willing to shed seats in order to gain a few major items. That's rigidity.

By the way, you asked about the DLC (which is being disbanded). But what about it's GOP analogue, the RLC? Has it done anything since Steele left?

It's not a comparable organization. They've never had the impact that the DLC did.

Steve: you asked "when was the last time a majority got whipped like that and kept their leadership intact?" But if a majority NEVER got whipped like that what's the point you're making? Or is it irrefutable? Leadership seems to remain after defeats. That Pelosi remained after this one just doesn't signify very much (beyond her own personality faults).

Some more history...

Barry Goldwater battled Nelson Rockefeller for the soul of the Republican Party. At the time there's no question that the party had a big tent; "Rockefeller Republicans" were Northeast intellectual elites with a strong belief in the efficacy of good government. Goldwater won. There's almost nothing left of the Rockefeller Republicans, and Jay Rockefeller is a Democrat. Goldwater owes a lot to the one Northeast establishment intellectual Republican who was also a true conservative: William Buckley. When they started out conservatives of their ilk were not at all common. Prior to Goldwater the party had run, for Prez and Veep, Dewey and Earl Warren, Eisenhower and Nixon, and Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.. I suspect you'd label each one of these a RINO if they showed up today with their platforms. Certainly Warren and Lodge.

Dewey vs. Taft was also a battle for the soul of the party and foreshadowed Goldwater-Buckley-Reagan vs. Rockefeller. I mention this to illustrate that Rockefeller was not an aberration. The liberal wing of the Republican Party had deep roots. In an odd and unexpected way, Reagan completed the Goldwater Revolution. Where Goldwater was strident, Reagan was congenial, and Ronnie tried to be inclusive, but he was most certainly conservative. The "Reagan Coalition" sat under a big tent. In part, Carter alienated everyone; in part, Ronnie sold much of conservatism to moderates; in part, he made conservatism seem a lot safer than Goldwater had even when he couldn't sell the ideas. That coalition fell apart and I think the religious right is mainly responsible. They scared a lot of moderates, much like they scare me today. To them, even Barry Goldwater was a liberal. Ronnie played ball with them but never made their agenda his own.

George H.W. Bush was a Rockefeller Republican who saw the writing on the wall. He tried ("voodoo economics") to sustain that wing but ended up converting ("no new taxes") and then betraying (new taxes). His oldest son was more a Goldwater than a Rockefeller Republican. Consider the list of Republicans who've been on the national ticket since Reagan: Bush, Quayle, Dole, Kemp, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin. The only one of these who can be accused of holding moderate positions is McCain and he's a fascinating study. He believed in compromising with the Dems in the Senate and thus amassed a truly impressive record of legislative accomplishment. His positions on issues were a mixed bag and it was hard to classify him as fish or fowl, but when he ran for President he had to shift hard to the right and at least rhetorically seem as conservative as possible. He even felt it necessary to bolster his conservative credentials by picking a running mate who made Goldwater look like a commie.

Steve insists that the GOP has a big tent. If it does, it's nevertheless a smaller tent than it once had - much smaller.

The Democrat's tent has also shrunk. When they lost southern whites to the GOP -- at roughly the same time as Vietnam -- they lost much of their incentive to be pro-military and slow-paced when it came to social reforms. But that trend was offset to some degree by the departure of Northeast moderates from the GOP and by the Dem's realization that having sacrificed much of the South they had to become competitive in the Plains and the Rockies. Carter was simply an aberration created by Watergate. Since Reagan there have been three "moderates" on the Democratic ticket: Bentsen, Clinton and Lieberman. Lieberman is the quintessential -INO, is he not?

When talking about tent sizes it's essential that we separate both parties into two parts: the general electorate and activists. It's the latter group that largely chooses candidates, the former who decides which candidate gets into office. This discussion is about "inclusiveness and tolerance" (my words from back on page 2), and generally speaking both parties will "tolerate" any member of the general electorate who wants to vote for their candidates. The real issue is the composition of the activist element in each party, and I think that when it comes to that we're really asking three questions: 1) does either party include moderates among their activist element? 2) which party panders the most to their "radical" extreme when it comes to candidate selection? and 3) which party's apparatus has been most effectively captured by an anti-moderate wing?

I think that when it comes to #1 and #2 there's little or no difference. It's #3 where interesting things have taken place. Republican right-wingers were the first to fully exploit computerized voter data. I won't go any deeper into this right now than to mention Richard Viguerie and to draw your attention to "Voter Vault":

An enhanced voter file is one that is cross-matched with public and consumer information such as phone numbers, driver licenses, hunting and fishing licenses, veteran records, property records, census results, phone numbers and, in at least one state we've seen, the results of past telephone surveys, in addition to a run through the Postal Service's National Change of Address (NCOA) system.

The Dems of course have something similar, and Vigourie is but one character among many in a complex story, but the basic plot goes like this: ultra-conservative Republicans with great personal wealth "invented" high-tech data mining and used it to strengthen their influence within the activist element of the party. This pre-dates anything similar the Dems did, and it was the Dem's party establishment that eventually did the work, not an extreme element.

I'll tell you right now that I probably can't substantiate this to any great degree. I'd have to read lots of back issues of National Review and such. This took place before the internet got big and wasn't heavily publicized even on dead trees. So take all that with a grain of salt.

Wow, for an idea that, even if true, is so very very very insignificantly different, we have so many postings. Nothing said by either side shows any real telling differentiations by party. Both vote along party lines almost all the time. I think Steve may be right that they break free when they have a large majority and tend to vote the same when they are a minority, but that's likely true of both sides. My simple poll might even tell why Dems have that very very slight difference (that hardly matters).
I don't get why anyone can make claims either side is very different at all (yet here we have several on both sides)

Great post X. Thanks.

Minister X wrote:Steve: you asked "when was the last time a majority got whipped like that and kept their leadership intact?" But if a majority NEVER got whipped like that what's the point you're making?

What happened in 2010 was not merely a "defeat." How often does a party gain that many seats? How often when we hear how popular the President is?

George H.W. Bush was a Rockefeller Republican who saw the writing on the wall. He tried ("voodoo economics") to sustain that wing but ended up converting ("no new taxes") and then betraying (new taxes). His oldest son was more a Goldwater than a Rockefeller Republican. Consider the list of Republicans who've been on the national ticket since Reagan: Bush, Quayle, Dole, Kemp, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin. The only one of these who can be accused of holding moderate positions is McCain and he's a fascinating study.

I don't disagree with your history of the GOP. I would note that the mushy middle faded with the focus on . . . social issues, brought on by Roe--or at least accelerated by it.

I would ask, other than Clinton and Lieberman, who were the moderate Democrats on the national ticket? (And, Lieberman is a bit like McCain--unpredictable)

He even felt it necessary to bolster his conservative credentials by picking a running mate who made Goldwater look like a commie.

Hmm . . . I would not agree that her record matches her rhetoric, but okay.

Steve insists that the GOP has a big tent. If it does, it's nevertheless a smaller tent than it once had - much smaller.

And Mike claims there is more diversity in the DNC, but the truth is the leadership has been consistently liberal over the past couple of decades. Clinton only moderated after the slapdown of the '94 election.

Since Reagan there have been three "moderates" on the Democratic ticket: Bentsen, Clinton and Lieberman. Lieberman is the quintessential -INO, is he not?

I hadn't gotten this far. Forgot about Bentsen--probably because his running mate was so thoroughly thrashed.

As for Lieberman, he votes the liberal line fairly consistently--except on the odd spending measure and on foreign affairs.

Minister X wrote:I chose to use median so a few outliers wouldn't yield a false sense of variation.

I'm curious if in your research that there were any outliers on the democratic side as far away from the standard deviations as Ron Paul probably is on the Republican side. Any information on that?

Minister X wrote:There's almost nothing left of the Rockefeller Republicans, and Jay Rockefeller is a Democrat.

I'm not sure that this is really defensible. Just because there's no actual Rockefeller leading the charge, the Republicans certainly moved his direction. Would you really argue that today's Republican platform is more Goldwater than Rockefeller, or did I miss what you were saying?

If you mean who'll win in 2012, the latest Pew poll offers this: He's in better shape at this point in time the George Bush was in seeking re-election. And the economies on the mend.

In total, 48 percent of respondents said they would rather see Obama re-elected, while 35 percent said they would prefer a Republican and 16 percent didn't know. Among registered voters, 47 percent favored Obama and 37 percent preferred a Republican.

source: http://people-press.org/report/720/

rickyp wrote:If you mean who'll win in 2012, the latest Pew poll offers this: He's in better shape at this point in time the George Bush was in seeking re-election. And the economies on the mend.

In total, 48 percent of respondents said they would rather see Obama re-elected, while 35 percent said they would prefer a Republican and 16 percent didn't know. Among registered voters, 47 percent favored Obama and 37 percent preferred a Republican.

source: http://people-press.org/report/720/

What's his approval rating on the economy? You always say you think that is the key issue. How's he doing?

Btw, as he continues stumbling, bumbling and fumbling through every crisis tossed his way, I think his odds of re-election go down. You can't name a crisis that he's handled well because it doesn't exist.

If the Republicans select someone who is perceived as a leader, Obama will lose. He is anything but a leader. Healthcare? No. Budget? No. Libya? No. Egypt? No.

I think almost anyone (outside of Palin) has an excellent chance.