Blue Dog Caucus cut in half

[BrainGlutton]

From The Nation:

Today's New York Times has analysis from Evan Bayh, a retiring centrist/moderate/presidential aspirant, which was obviously penned before polls closed in order to make it to press. "We were too deferential to our most zealous supporters," he bemoans, (huh?), and Democrats "over-interpreted our mandate." Bayh's solution is to focus more on GOP priorities like tax reform, government spending freezes and entitlement cuts. Third Way, a think tank that was literally founded to push Democrats to the center, has been pushing a similar line this week.

It is truly bizarre, because on Tuesday, voters rejected the very Blue Dog Democrats who have been following that exact approach.

The Blue Dog caucus was literally cut in half yesterday, from 54 to 26 members. Now people can argue whether that is good or bad -- but no serious political observer can say the strategy worked.

Loudly breaking with Obama on health care was not a winner, either. "Of the 34 Democrats who voted against the health care bill in March - 24 of them were Blue Dogs - only 12 won reelection," notes reporter Jon Ward.

So, the Pubs, under Tea Party pressure, have shifted their center-of-gravity to the right, while the Dems are losing their own right wing, leaving very few RINOs or DINOs in the center.

Suggesting that the next election will be even more polarized and polarizing.

Interesting times.

Meanwhile, the intraparty war within the GOP continues. Next priority for GOP leaders: Stopping Sarah Palin.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Maybe the Nation would say I'm not a "serious observer", but Evan Bayh is right.

The Blue Dog Democrats were punished for having the same name brand as the more liberal Democrats. In the swing districts in which they run, this was a big handicap, in this particular election cycle. The Democrats are not going to be successful by having liberals run in those districts, and pointing to liberals who won election is liberal leaning districts is a mistake.

[What the .... ?!?!]

I'm surprised there are an BD's left. I wonder who will be the first to switch parties.

[asterion]

Any Blue Dog party-switcher will be dead in the 2012 primaries. No way Republican-lite will make it out against an actual Republican.

[athelas]

This just in: it is difficult to hold on to marginal districts. More at 11.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Right. I don't know what Evan Bayh is gibbering about, but it seems clear that the biggest problem Democrats faced was loss of support from their own base. Gay, educated female and minority voters didn't show up at the polls, and it showed here.

As for Blue Dogs, it should be obvious that they aren't going to be switching parties. With Tea Party candidates bumping off traditional Republicans in the primaries, it just means they'll lose earlier.

[Wesley Clark]

Bayh isn't too bright, and I'm glad he is gone because ideas like that are screwing up the democratic party. A big reason the dems lost is because the economy is shit and dems are seen as the incumbents combined with the turnout variances between the 2 parties (among registered voters the dems lead, among likely voters the GOP led). Like has been said the conservative dems lost the most in this election. And that was largely due to them living in districts that are generally more republican than democrat according to cook.