there's no reason liberals shouldn't mount some primary challenges to test it out.

Representatives will always behave more in line with their voter's views if they feel somebody breathing down their neck every two years. That breath should be hot (and well financed) for the Blue Dogs.

As long as the GOP has the Club for Growth working to pull Repubs to right, the Dems need to work even harder than the CFG pushing left - and progressives have the advantage of voter identification with the issues that progressives believe in. Whocouldanood!.

Party linehood breeds party linehood - at least it should.

"the point of yesterday's post was that the Blue Dog ideology is not popular with voters."

Could you provide some evidence for this, in the districts Blue Dogs hold?

else is generating it. And that something is pretty obvious: Money.

How do you think Obama would be polling right now without the record money raised and spent?

"the point of yesterday's post was that the Blue Dog ideology is not popular with voters."

Something that clueless could only come out of the mouth of someone who has never lived in the South.

The most salient point here is that the Blue Dogs are economic conservatives who are running against Republicans who hold the SAME VIEWS. So the fact that they get elected is hardly an endorsement of those views; when two candidates agree on something, it essentially takes that issue out of the picture entirely.

Ezra,
As the SCOTUS says, I agree in part and disagree in part. Yes, there is a large Chamber of Commerce influence, but I think that the districts involved also have a trifecta of problems: distrust of government, distrust of Lincoln's party/loyalty to FDR's party, and distrust of large corporations. Any candidate who does not campaign on all three, such as Blue Dogs, runs the risk of being attacked for 'not being in touch' with their district.

Blue Dog ideology is not popular with voters

Agreeing with posters above that this is, if not incorrect, at least an overly broad assessment. In practical terms, economic-conservative (a term that mostly means cutting benefits to those perceived as unworthy, really) policies aren't all that popular once implemented, but the idea of 'economic conservatism' seems to be quite popular IME. The connotation is one of seriousness, responsibility, etc., even if the reality is more tribal nastiness than anything else.

I doubt that the DSCC and DCCC are actually progressive forces.
Major sources of their funding are AIPAC and DLC types.

"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that." -- Homer Simpson

I think latts is onto something here.

Following up on the point jeebus raises ... let's consider a swing voter we'll call Jim Bob Murkin.

Jim Bob Murkin claims that he is a moderate but tends toward social conservatism and maybe economic liberalism. He's pretty much a "Reagan Democrat" of a sort. Or, at least, that's what Jim Bob Murkin claims.

OTOH, he may very well vote for a Blue Dog over a Republican, even though they have pretty much the same position on econs issues. The interesting thing is that the Blue Dog is likely more moderate (if not really liberal) on social issues.

Jim Bob Murkin also prefers a Blue Dog to a liberal Democrat. Ostensibly because the liberal Democrat wants to force us all to become gay married Muslim atheists and have abortions. Yet, the real distinction between the liberal Democrat and the Blue Dog, in terms of their actual records, is not on social issues but economic issues and privacy issues (and Jim Bob Murkin is consistent enough in his stated beliefs to not like "gummint intrusion", even as part of the war on terro).

So what's going on here? Is the issue one of low information? Does Jim Bob Murkin simply figure that the Blue Dog is a moderate and he is a moderate so the Blue Dog should be his preferred candidate?

Or is Jim Bob Murkin lying to his friends and even to himself about what his real political views are? Does he claim to be "socially conservative, economically more liberal" because that's what he thinks a good Christian should be ... even as in reality he really doesn't care if "icky people do icky things" (as long as he doesn't have to have it "shoved down his throught") but he cares a lot about "gummint money going to 'those people'" even if he can barely admit even to himself that he feels this way, because he knows these feelings are un-Christian?

And btw -- Jim Bob Murkin might be a low information voter (and even is, due to a distrust of "politics" that itself is rooted in his Christian faith, willfully ignorant of the political sphere), but Jim Bob might not be an idiot ... I know Jim Bob Murkin types who are, e.g., college professors who are among the top researchers in their fields.

So what is up with people who vote like Jim Bob Murkin?

Believe it or not...nearly half of the people in the United States have below average intelligence.

Way to build a more inclusive Democratic Party, guys. Do you ever find yourself wondering why moderates think soi-disant "progressives" are elitist?

My take on it is this: If you're sexist, if you're racist, if you're homophobic, if you're *classist*, if you're anti-labor, you're not really a progressive. You're just a run-of-the-mill Democrat.

As an exercise, try framing the discussion in a way that doesn't insult the people you don't agree with.

: "Those people are center-right because they're low-information voters." : "That jackass called me stupid."

It might be funny that you're doing this while trying to figure out why a more progressive message isn't getting across, only it's not.

Here's what you do, Ezra.

I want you to run for office as a Democrat in a Republican district.

Then let's see how many votes you get. Sure is easy to be the king liberal on a blog.

You want a Democatic House and Senate. Then you are not going to have Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank in every district.

So we will always have blue dogs. Or should we run only San Francisco type Dems in the heart of Kansas.

You could kiss the House good-bye. But eveyone will think you were so cool for losing with candidates you approve of.

Ken,

I don't think even Ezra Klein would dispute that Democrats from more conservative districts are bound to be more conservative in reflection of their district. I think what is being questioned is the nature of that conservatism: that the particular conservative points of view that distinguish the Blue Dogs are themselves not all that popular among likely Democratic voters even in conservative districts.

Ostensibly on many of the issues that would distinguish a "Barney Frank" from a Republican, many Blue Dogs in fact agree with Barney Frank, even if their tone (and more importantly, how they are perceived) is a lot different. On those issues in which they do not agree, the Blue Dogs not only are indistinguishable from the Republicans but the Blue Dog/GOP position is (at least, as latts points out, once it actually is implimented although not necessarily in theory -- in general, people are conservative so long as they aren't thinking about implimentation ... once people start thinking about pragmatic issues they become as liberal as the big-P Pragmatists ... hmmm ....) not all that popular.

So why do, in fact, Blue Dog voters prefer Blue Dogs? Is it a matter of style? Is it the influence of Chamber of Commerce money (people prefer the candidate with the best ads)? Or does your typical Jim Bob Murkin voter believe something rather opposite of what they claim to believe (and note, as I've pointed out, I, for one, don't believe Jim Bob Murkin is stupid -- I know too many Jim Bob Murkin types who are exceedingly smart although they are rather willfully stupid about politics for religious reasons)?

I think EK actually misrepresents his own point.

He may have set out to say that the Blue Dog ideology is unpopular with voters, but the only way to prove that is to launch solid primary challengers against them. I think it might be a touch simplistic to think that the only factor, or even the biggest factor is money, but that's beside the point.

Certainly a Blue Dog somewhere has had some significant primary challenges in the past. How did that go? and if the challenger won, how did he fare in the general? Both questions will help us answer the question of why the BDs have remained the prickly force they have been.

Ezra,

Have you ever actually been to a rural district? Say the southern end of the 2nd CD in Indiana?

I'm guessing the answer is no; otherwise you'd appreciate how totally overblown the importance of money is in places like that.

The thing is, even working-class Republicans in red districts tend to think we should do more to help the poor and are in general in favor of more social programs. They also hate higher taxes for themselves, but are often somewhat warm on higher taxes on the rich. They may be pro-market, but they are also against big companies screwing over people. Such people tend to vote Republican on social issues and foreign policy and can vote for a Democratic president without a second thought during a time of peace. Blue Dogs like Harold Ford win in part on being conservative on abortion, gay marriage and foreign policy.

However, it isn't social conservatism that is the raison d'etre of the Blue Dogs; it's economic conservatism. Working-class reddish districts don't vote for Blue Dogs to make sure hedge fund managers pay lower taxes. They vote for them to stem the rise of gay marriage, etc. The Blue Dogs are peddling a product that is rather dishonest.