Interesting analysis of the Blue Dog Democrats

[rpannier]

I found this at http://www.electoral-vote.com/
They have listed the members of the caucus, the make up of their district, their margin of victory, how the Obama-mccain race turned out and when they were first elected.

Examples:
MS-04 Gene Taylor (D) R+20; 50%; -36%; 1988 (So Taylor is in a solidly republikkan dist +20, that he won by 50% and Obama lost by 36%.

ID-01 Walt Minnick (D) R+18; 2%; -26%; 2008 (Mr Minnick is in a solidly republikkan dist, that he squeaked out a win by 2% and Obama lost by 26%)

AR-01 Marion Berry (D); R+8; 100%; -21%; 1996 (Mr Berry, while in a solidly republikkan district had no opponent at all)

TX-28 Henry Cuellar (D); R+0; 40%; 12%; 2004 (Mr Cuellar is in a even split district that he easily carried, as did Obama)

CA-18 Dennis Cardoza (D); D+4; 100%; 20%; 2002 (Cordoza no opponent, leans Democratic, Obama easily carried)

CA-29 Adam Schiff (D); D+14; 44%; 38%; 2002 (Strong Democratic District, both he and Obama carried easily)

The point of this post is, not all the Blue Dogs have to be members, or be republikkan-light to get elected.
14 members are in districts that have more Democrats than republikkans registered (although some of them are very slightly Democratic +1%)
Some of them ran unopposed - 6
And 7 of them that did have opponents won by 40% or more.

Let's face it. Some of them choose to be obstructionists toward Pres Obama's programs because they choose to be opposed to them -- not because they have to be.

link:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[MichiganVote]

1. They're cowards and they deserve to be called out by progressives.

[riderinthestorm]

2. K and R. Too important to drop. Too late for me to comment. nt